Get ready for the Liberals' secret new carbon tax

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Get ready for the Liberals' secret new carbon tax

Sep 11, 2020 | 21:07 1 So this is apparently being wrapped up in the new throne speech. Would you support a biofuel mandate at the expense of our oil industry which again looks like a target as oil sands would be capped. Meanwhile we pay a carbon tax on the other side. Maybe AB will be sent on a hydrogen crusade to make up the difference.

This will really divide the west IMO but thats a Liberal specialty.
-----

John Ivison: Get ready for the Liberals' secret new carbon tax

As Canadians emerge from COVID-induced hibernation, the Liberal government is preparing a plan to make their lives more expensive to meet its climate targets.

Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal minister for environment and climate change, said the CFS will diversify the economy and promote investment in clean solutions. “It will create opportunities for farmers and companies producing renewable fuels, will encourage investments in energy efficiency to help Canadians save money and will promote faster development of zero emissions vehicles,” he said in a statement.

When the details are released, Ottawa will push the green recovery and jobs angle, claiming winners will include farmers and others who create biofuels, while the prospect of processing new low carbon alternative fuels will attract foreign direct investment.

If the government is to meet its current goal, or even exceed it, Ottawa will have to curtail the expansion of the oilsands.

Critics claim the CFS is an important policy instrument to do just that. Ottawa is set to present the new fuel standard as an opportunity for Western farmers to grow biofuels and will point out the main costs are set to be borne at refineries in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2020 | 21:23 2 I thought the carbon foot print producing the bio-fuels wasn't much smaller than that of traditional petrol fuels.

Diesel engines have had emission reductions enforced upon them....

Gas automobiles are already quite fuel efficient.

There has to be other ways to reduce emissions.... no one thinks twice about driving anywhere these days.

So let's carbon tax everyone into submission. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 11, 2020 | 21:47 3
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    I thought the carbon foot print producing the bio-fuels wasn't much smaller than that of traditional petrol fuels.
    Who knows farma, with all this green stuff its all smoke and mirrors but if it raises the price of canola just so some toronto urbanites can feel good, then so be it. I am torn at the damage it would do to our oil industry but my main trade is agriculture.

    I am sure if there are biodeisel plants built farmers wont be part of it, or maybe it will just come from the US. That would be Trudeau logic. Reply With Quote
    Sep 11, 2020 | 22:12 4 More;

    Jack Mintz: Liberals’ latest plan to penalize western energy is exactly what Canada doesn’t need Reply With Quote
    Sep 11, 2020 | 22:15 5
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    I thought the carbon foot print producing the bio-fuels wasn't much smaller than that of traditional petrol fuels.
    .
    You are still under the mistaken assumption that there is logic involved, and that physics and math matter in these issues. Just like how Europe is busy destroying their forests, and North American forests( then shipping wood across the Atlantic), to burn in power plants converted from coal, all because according to the geniuses like Chuck, burning wood doesn't emit CO2, so it allows them to meet their emissions targets.

    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/06/...t-co2-targets/

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-...urning-wood-us Reply With Quote
    Sep 11, 2020 | 22:29 6
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    Who knows farma, with all this green stuff its all smoke and mirrors but if it raises the price of canola just so some toronto urbanites can feel good, then so be it. I am torn at the damage it would do to our oil industry but my main trade is agriculture.

    I am sure if there are biodeisel plants built farmers wont be part of it, or maybe it will just come from the US. That would be Trudeau logic.
    Oh, they will include farmers. Farmers will pay for the whole deal, and then 20-30-40 years down the line it will be sold or taken and farmers won't be compensated one red cent. Reply With Quote
    Sep 11, 2020 | 22:43 7
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    You are still under the mistaken assumption that there is logic involved, and that physics and math matter in these issues. Just like how Europe is busy destroying their forests, and North American forests( then shipping wood across the Atlantic), to burn in power plants converted from coal, all because according to the geniuses like Chuck, burning wood doesn't emit CO2, so it allows them to meet their emissions targets.

    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/06/...t-co2-targets/

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-...urning-wood-us
    AF5, when the actions of a person or party defy all logic, then the perp's goals need to be re-evaluated.

    Humans, as sensient beings that were designed to value that which is good and beneficial, have an inherent tendency to disbelieve and discredit actions and attitudes which flow from a deep well of evil.

    JBP described the mindset and motive behind the push to dismantle and destroy things in the video link I posted (22) in the following thread:

    https://www.agriville.com/threads/41...adian-election

    "But we assume that Hitler wanted to win. That's not a very intelligent assumption. He wasn't exactly a good guy. So why should we assume that he was aiming at the good he was promoting even in his own terms...because that's a bit counter-productive, unless what you're aiming at the the maximum possible mayhem in the shortest period of time."

    1:40 - 1:55 he gives particularly valuable assessment technique.

    Humans, as sentient beings that were designed to value that which is good and beneficial, have an inherent tendency to disbelieve and discredit actions and attitudes which flow from a deep well of unmitigated evil.

    "The evil that I see happening cannot be happening because it is so evil as to defy human reason" - Wrong. It is happening and it is exactly what it appears to be.
    Last edited by burnt; Sep 11, 2020 at 22:49.
    Reply With Quote

  • blackpowder's Avatar Sep 11, 2020 | 23:18 8 I remember touring the ethanol plant east of Moose Jaw in January.
    Laughed my ass off at all the NG being burnt and heat exhausted drying the mash.
    Biofuel another scam as it exists today. Reply With Quote
    Sep 11, 2020 | 23:39 9 Canada produces 1.6 % of the worlds GHG, if the number was .06 would Lisa or Rosemary or even Katherine McKenna, [probably not her] stop, think and realize this charade has got to stop. At some point, some one will have to place a factual informative sticky note on the emperors forehead.

    This surgeon has no trouble removing the arm to stop a broken nail from spreading. Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 07:33 10 Isn't 40 % of the US corn crop used for bio-fuels? Without that usage grain prices would look a whole lot lower. Bio-fuels aren't the answer for climate change. But they are an indirect subsidy to farmers. Aren't most of you devout "free" marketers opposed to subsidies? Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 07:43 11
    Quote Originally Posted by rumrocks View Post
    Canada produces 1.6 % of the worlds GHG, if the number was .06 would Lisa or Rosemary or even Katherine McKenna, [probably not her] stop, think and realize this charade has got to stop. At some point, some one will have to place a factual informative sticky note on the emperors forehead.

    This surgeon has no trouble removing the arm to stop a broken nail from spreading.
    So if this all true and a waste of time don't you think O'toole would stop the insanity?

    No, instead he said he will stand by the Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! Say Whaaaat!

    Looks like your views have had zero influence on O'toole and the Conservatives! LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 07:47 12 https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

    Name:  BAMS_SOTC_2019_AGGI_1000px.jpg
Views: 622
Size:  93.2 KBName:  CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2019_620.jpg
Views: 609
Size:  13.7 KB Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 07:53 13
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    So if this all true and a waste of time don't you think O'toole would stop the insanity?

    No, instead he said he will stand by the Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! Say Whaaaat!

    Looks like your views have had zero influence on O'toole and the Conservatives! LOL
    Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal voters . Reply With Quote
    ColevilleH2S's Avatar Sep 12, 2020 | 07:56 14 Since Chuck likes data:
    Name:  DgMYBIrXcAQctEq.jpg
Views: 619
Size:  65.5 KB Reply With Quote

  • Sep 12, 2020 | 08:07 15
    Quote Originally Posted by rumrocks View Post
    Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal voters .
    Yup, gotta give the climate mouth breathers something so instead of real science and real solutions, just give them some UN globalist garbage. Meh climate change....

    Trudeau will have to pull some biofuel crap to say he is doing something. No nuclear reactors in the works, hydro is dead and overrun to the point it might put a couple provinces into insolvency, solar wind are a dud and would have to be located in southern sask so no way to feed Toronto because power lines will be blocked too. Hydrogen is fiction at this point.

    So just tell the drooling masses farmers are making renewables while we carbon tax their grain drying. Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 08:12 16 Funny how they forgot to include water vapour in Chuck's pretty graph of greenhouse gases. I wonder why they would omit what is by far the most significant greenhouse gas. Reply With Quote

  • Sep 12, 2020 | 08:16 17 If you are not familiar with Breakthrough Energy yet, i highly recommend doing some research. This is more wealth redistribution and it will make you puke seeing who the board of directors is. Freeland has mentioned this "theory" if serfdom in her TED talks. We are not the winners in this scenario, but suddenly we will be the target of oil. Divide and Conquer.





    There's a Canadian division that has agreements in place with the Govt of Canada. We are handing everything over to the elite and sacrificing small private business. You can take it to the bank that any biofuel processing will be an oligopoly, the same as the rail, grain, utilities, and every other aspect of life in Canada, tight hands that are govt endorsed not allowing anyone else in.
    Last edited by macdon02; Sep 12, 2020 at 08:29.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 10:48 18
    Quote Originally Posted by ColevilleH2S View Post
    Since Chuck likes data:
    Name:  DgMYBIrXcAQctEq.jpg
Views: 619
Size:  65.5 KB
    Interesting! But it still doesn’t change the reality that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change. Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 14:26 19 Read deeper into the biofuels part. It won’t be good for farmers at all. Only crops from certain farms certified “clean” will be allowed to be sold into the biofuels market. Cleared more than half a hectare of land since 2007? Can’t sell crop for biofuels, has to go somewhere else. Don’t want to leave a 30m buffer on either side of a vaguely described waterway? Can’t sell crop for biofuels. Etc etc. And it’s up to the farmer to prove their crop is “clean” and it’ll have to end up in two streams through the elevator systems, transportation, etc and you can bet who gets to pay for that too.

    And oh yeah, imported grain won’t have to meet the standard to go into the biofuel stream. So existing plants can just bring in US corn and kill the local basis
    Last edited by dalek; Sep 12, 2020 at 14:45.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 12, 2020 | 19:40 20
    Quote Originally Posted by dalek View Post
    Read deeper into the biofuels part. It won’t be good for farmers at all. Only crops from certain farms certified “clean” will be allowed to be sold into the biofuels market. Cleared more than half a hectare of land since 2007? Can’t sell crop for biofuels, has to go somewhere else. Don’t want to leave a 30m buffer on either side of a vaguely described waterway? Can’t sell crop for biofuels. Etc etc. And it’s up to the farmer to prove their crop is “clean” and it’ll have to end up in two streams through the elevator systems, transportation, etc and you can bet who gets to pay for that too.

    And oh yeah, imported grain won’t have to meet the standard to go into the biofuel stream. So existing plants can just bring in US corn and kill the local basis
    dalek, do you get the Farmtario paper? Good piece in there recently touching on what you just said.

    Grain Farmers of Ontario is onto it. Reply With Quote
    Sep 12, 2020 | 19:53 21
    Quote Originally Posted by dalek View Post
    Read deeper into the biofuels part.
    Good catch dalek, Trudeau always has a huge FU built into every policy. This looks like another direct attack on the energy industry using biofuels as cover.

    Of course the average idiot from Toronto has never seen a canola field so what do they know. Just go along with it. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 13, 2020 | 07:25 22
    Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
    dalek, do you get the Farmtario paper? Good piece in there recently touching on what you just said.

    Grain Farmers of Ontario is onto it.
    I have it here but I haven’t gotten to it yet. Might have to eat a block of cheese so I can make some time for reading. I’m sure it’ll come up for the GFO AGM on Tuesday Reply With Quote
    Sep 13, 2020 | 07:27 23 What no one has mentioned is the regulations under the new clean fuel standard amount to the equivalent of a $350 a tonne C02 tax. The main targets are transportation and heating fuels. The problem in my opinion from a farmer perspective is the heating fuels, natural gas and propane. Imagine what the equivalent of $350 a tonne C02 tax will do to your grain drying bill. It is only $30 a tonne now! Anybody that thinks that Justin Trudeau will enact policies that will benefit farmers in western Canada must be consuming marijuana edibles! Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Sep 13, 2020 | 07:44 24 Interesting column in the Toronto Sun: “Sims:B.C. Emissions up despite highest carbon tax in Canada.” A couple of highlights. Latest year stats are available for is 2018, C02 emissions were 67.9 million tonnes. An increase of 10% in the last 3 years. Some very interesting quotes from John Horgan who fought against the carbon tax in 2008 but keeps pushing higher today. These policies are a cash grab plain and simple!! Reply With Quote
    Sep 13, 2020 | 07:51 25 Where is the evidence that the clean fuel standard will produce a $350 equivalent cost per tonne of carbon to consumers? We need to see the details of any plan before we can assume that hyper inflated number designed to scare people!

    The $350 per tonne is not the actual cost.

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joh...-5b1969391305/

    "The model proposed by the government allows businesses that can’t comply with the regulations to buy credits to make up the shortfall. In the CERI model, those credits were estimated at $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

    "the CFS will be set at $350 per tonne, in order to force companies to invest in cleaner fuel, rather than simply buy credits. The higher the cost of the credits, the larger the price impact on solid, liquid and gaseous fuels."

    "The cost implications for households and industry are unclear but a study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute in May 2019 estimated the impact of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon intensity. CERI suggested a total fuel decarbonisation cost of $15.3 billion a year, adding $84 or four per cent to household fuel bills; $62 or 2.8 per cent to the cost of gas; and 13 per cent to fuel costs for industry."

    "Critics claim the CFS is an important policy instrument to do just that. Ottawa is set to present the new fuel standard as an opportunity for Western farmers to grow biofuels and will point out the main costs are set to be borne at refineries in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick."

    BC, California, Oregon and The EU already have a clean fuel standards.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 13, 2020 at 08:01.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 14, 2020 | 07:23 26
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Where is the evidence that the clean fuel standard will produce a $350 equivalent cost per tonne of carbon to consumers? We need to see the details of any plan before we can assume that hyper inflated number designed to scare people!

    The $350 per tonne is not the actual cost.

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joh...-5b1969391305/

    "The model proposed by the government allows businesses that can’t comply with the regulations to buy credits to make up the shortfall. In the CERI model, those credits were estimated at $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

    "the CFS will be set at $350 per tonne, in order to force companies to invest in cleaner fuel, rather than simply buy credits. The higher the cost of the credits, the larger the price impact on solid, liquid and gaseous fuels."

    "The cost implications for households and industry are unclear but a study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute in May 2019 estimated the impact of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon intensity. CERI suggested a total fuel decarbonisation cost of $15.3 billion a year, adding $84 or four per cent to household fuel bills; $62 or 2.8 per cent to the cost of gas; and 13 per cent to fuel costs for industry."

    "Critics claim the CFS is an important policy instrument to do just that. Ottawa is set to present the new fuel standard as an opportunity for Western farmers to grow biofuels and will point out the main costs are set to be borne at refineries in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick."

    BC, California, Oregon and The EU already have a clean fuel standards.
    B.C. already has a clean fuel standard? From 2015 to 2018 C02 emissions in B.C. Have risen over 10%, whaaat, it certainly looks like we should follow their example LOL! Reply With Quote
    Sep 14, 2020 | 07:28 27 Yes their economy and population has continued to grow at a remarkable rate driving up total emissions, in spite of their carbon tax and clean fuel regulations. So many people call the carbon tax an economy killer but BC proves that wrong.

    But on a per capita basis have BC emissions gone down? I think so. Reply With Quote
    Sep 14, 2020 | 08:00 28
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Yes their economy and population has continued to grow at a remarkable rate driving up total emissions, in spite of their carbon tax and clean fuel regulations. So many people call the carbon tax an economy killer but BC proves that wrong.

    But on a per capita basis have BC emissions gone down? I think so.
    Their economy has grown in a large part due to increases in real estate value but you are correct their economy has grown. But the point is so have their C02 emissions! If you had read the article I mentioned you would see that C02 emissions from passenger vehicles had gone up something like 13%(from memory could be wrong), B.C. Residents in Vancouver pay about 30 cents a litre more than Albertans yet the amount of gas they consume continues to rise. B.C. Has generous government programs to incentivize electric vehicles but emissions continue to rise. I would say all of Canada would like positive economic growth and positive population growth, using B.C.’s example that also means C02 emissions will continue to grow in the rest of Canada. Now let’s look at the numbers, C02 emissions in Canada have essentially been flat since 2005 at around 715-720 mega tonnes. Obviously other parts of Canada are doing better than BC! Reply With Quote

  • Sep 14, 2020 | 08:04 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Yes their economy and population has continued to grow at a remarkable rate driving up total emissions, in spite of their carbon tax and clean fuel regulations. So many people call the carbon tax an economy killer but BC proves that wrong.

    But on a per capita basis have BC emissions gone down? I think so.
    Too funny. Ignore simple math and it all works?

    China the largest emitter in the world gets a pass because their per capita emissions are less than many other places. It is only fair they be allowed to put out a lot more GHG because to do otherwise would mean each person in China is at a disadvantage! Emit on!

    To illustrate this on a worldwide scale: If the world population continues to grow and per capita the rate of GHG emissions stays constant then it's all good. But wait, more people equals more GHG in total. Doesn't seem to matter. It's per capita! Stupid!

    Apparently simple math skills are not required to be an authority these days Reply With Quote

  • Sep 14, 2020 | 08:08 30 ha what is BCs main industry besides real estate speculation and money laundering from china?

    Of course thats continued to grow. A carbon tax wont hurt that fake economy. Reply With Quote