Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kinder Morgan Pipeline

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TryingHardly View Post

    Well...you were right...until 2017.

    https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-...rates2019.html

    Since April 1, 2016, the Commission has been responsible for setting the annual EI premium rate according to a seven-year break-even mechanism, as forecast by the EI Senior Actuary. This is the premium rate that will result in a balance of $0 in seven years in the EI Operating Account, including the elimination of any cumulative surplus or deficit in the Account. Annual changes to the premium rate are subject to a legislated limit of five cents. The seven-year break-even mechanism ensures stable and predictable premium rates for Canadian workers and employers, and is also intended to ensure that EI contributions are only used for EI purposes.

    The money comes from the tax payer, but if your tax base grows (and I'm including corporate tax), then you don't have to increase tax rates. Beyond that, interest rates have very much stopped rising for the time being.
    I'm still right dude. Yes there is an "operating account" but that's just for the purpose of running the program. It still falls into general revenues.

    If you don't believe me, here is the Budget 2019 breakdown of where the government's total revenue will come from:

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Grebbi View Post

      Based on fact the answer is no as proven in BC - 10 years of carbon tax and a minuscule reduction in emissions (1.5%) - believing a carbon tax will get us to any target reductions may help people sleep well but in reality will do nothing - and before anyone uses Ďbut the population increased over that timeí excuse the earth doesnít care about that and the ctax scam is supposed to account for that
      But if the price increase caused a reduction in emissions, the answer would be yes...

      Also, preemptively mentioning the increase in population doesnít make it an invalid point.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bates View Post

        So the higher price did or did not lead to a reduction is usage? It's really that simple.
        Well let's just look at the extreme. If gas was $.10 a litre would usage be higher or lower. It's really that simple.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DJR View Post

          Well let's just look at the extreme. If gas was $.10 a litre would usage be higher or lower. It's really that simple.
          One of the biggest things gas prices affect is the decisions of people buying vehicles. However, since people don't buy new vehicles that often, the shift in fuel efficiency is much slower than the price change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

            I'm still right dude. Yes there is an "operating account" but that's just for the purpose of running the program. It still falls into general revenues.

            If you don't believe me, here is the Budget 2019 breakdown of where the government's total revenue will come from:

            That's fine, but it's semantics if revenues are set to balance with expenses given pricing mechanism

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TryingHardly View Post

              Well... Your "data" proves it does.

              Although that decrease in emissions is almost certainly due to switching to natural gas as opposed to other higher emission energy sources.

              If the entire world decreased carbon emissions by 1.5 percent from their emissions 10 years ago we would be in tremendous shape.
              Why is the target 30% below 2005 levels then?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

                But if the price increase caused a reduction in emissions, the answer would be yes...

                Also, preemptively mentioning the increase in population doesnít make it an invalid point.
                The target is 30% reduction regardless of population change

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DJR View Post

                  Well let's just look at the extreme. If gas was $.10 a litre would usage be higher or lower. It's really that simple.
                  It appears that higher prices in Vancouver has the desired effect of getting people to ride the bus.

                  It is a desired effect, but the unfortunate thing everyone who doesnt have access to public transit is stuck paying the higher prices at the pump.

                  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...link-1.5113104

                  This week, the two biggest transportation stories in Metro Vancouver were the debate over record-high gas prices, and celebration over record-high ridership figures on public transit.

                  And yes, the two are related.

                  "I have so many people coming to tell me that it's costing them over one hundred dollars to fill their car tank gas tank, and making other choices," said Adriane Carr, chair of Metro Vancouver's climate action committee.

                  At a time when many public transportation systems in North America are lagging, the story of why more and more trips are being taken on TransLink ó 437 million of them last year to be exact, up from 407 million in 2017 ó is a complex one.

                  Comment


                  • back to the Transmountain Pipeline topic....

                    The federal government canít guarantee it will have a decision on the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion before the next election, Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi said Thursday.
                    And this is after the Feds postponed the decision date twice, most recently moving it from May 22 to June 18..

                    https://calgaryherald.com/business/e...-election-sohi
                    No guarantee of federal decision on Trans Mountain pipeline before election: Sohi

                    Iíll be surprised if this pipeline gets built.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Grebbi View Post

                      The target is 30% reduction regardless of population change
                      Well you interjected targets when that wasnít part of the conversation so I donít see how claiming targets wonít be hit refutes anything that was said.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kcountry View Post
                        back to the Transmountain Pipeline topic....



                        And this is after the Feds postponed the decision date twice, most recently moving it from May 22 to June 18..

                        https://calgaryherald.com/business/e...-election-sohi
                        No guarantee of federal decision on Trans Mountain pipeline before election: Sohi

                        Iíll be surprised if this pipeline gets built.
                        For me it wont make a difference, for my kids, it will make a difference for their future.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by kcountry View Post
                          back to the Transmountain Pipeline topic....



                          And this is after the Feds postponed the decision date twice, most recently moving it from May 22 to June 18..

                          https://calgaryherald.com/business/e...-election-sohi
                          No guarantee of federal decision on Trans Mountain pipeline before election: Sohi

                          Iíll be surprised if this pipeline gets built.
                          Not too chafed they're saying this. They have to.

                          They're not going to say "consultations will be done by XXX date", then get taken to court and have it thrown back in their face because consultations had a set date to be done on them.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Grebbi View Post

                            Why is the target 30% below 2005 levels then?
                            Does the target actually matter?

                            Developed countries have to lower emissions more because emerging countries are going to consume more and more carbon as they develop.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TryingHardly View Post

                              Does the target actually matter?

                              Developed countries have to lower emissions more because emerging countries are going to consume more and more carbon as they develop.
                              Unless everyone is working together the targets will never be met. BC swinging their doors open to more cruise ship traffic is offset by all the people leaving their cars at home and using public transit. They yap about an extra tanker a day in their ports when they don't include carbon produced in their coal mines in their statistics.

                              The installation of all the windmill farms doesn't come close to saving enough energy that it takes to produce these things, and without mentioning the birds they kill.

                              Anyhow, the 2005 targets can not be attained no way no how. Its just an arbitrary year pulled out of a hat.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

                                Always yes for normal goods, ceteris paribus.
                                But not anywhere near always for gas though.

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X