Ottawa Introduces “National Energy Program: The Sequel”
October 3, 2016 Leave a comment
Trudeau’s carbon tax.
Canada’s Import Laws and Taxes Are Dumb
September 29, 2016 Leave a comment
At least that seems like a reasonable conclusion when it takes the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, a Federal Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada to figure out… whether this or that tax applies to imported hockey gloves.
This all revolved around the question of whether hockey gloves are gloves or “other articles of plastic.” Because despite the pretence of “free trade”, these categories of goods are taxed differently
Only in a country with dumb laws and dumb taxes is such a costly and ridiculous decision-making process possible for such a dumb issue.
— Read more at National Post —
How Much Do We Subsidize Fossil Fuels?
September 21, 2016 Leave a comment
Some people have a confused idea of what counts as a subsidy.
In the minds of anti-oil radicals, not collecting more taxes from fossil fuel producers and consumers is a subsidy to fossil fuels.
That’s like saying the government subsidizes you unless it taxes 100% of your income.
David Yager writes:
The notion that Canadian governments in some way subsidize the cost of the final product to consumers – as per the dictionary definition – is preposterous. According to PetroCanada the taxes on a liter of gasoline in Canada in 2015 above and beyond the cost of petroleum, refining and distribution included a federal excise tax of $0.10 per liter, GST/HST ranging from 5% to 15%, a $0.667 per liter carbon tax in B.C., and provincial fuels taxes ranging from $0.13 to $0.192 per liter. Similar direct fuel cost levies exist for diesel fuel. These can total 25% or more of the total cost or more depending on crude prices and where you live. It is estimated these fuel levies provide Ottawa and the provinces with $15 billion annually. This is on top of another $18 billion oil and gas producers paid to all levels of government in 2014 in the form of property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes and producing royalties.
Some subsidy.
— Read more at EnergyNow —
Notley Defends Her Beer Tax
July 20, 2016 Leave a comment
By pointing to her new corporate welfare program for some Alberta brewers
(You get subsidies if you are small and stay small — that’s obviously helpful for one’s growth strategy!)
Should We Subsidize CO2?
June 7, 2016 Leave a comment
Alberta’s NDP government passed its carbon tax law today.
Many agree that it is one of the stupidest taxes ever created, however even many arguments against the tax accept the basic premise that CO2 is a negative externality and “something must be done.”
But what if the premise underlying the tax — not to mention any other “climate change” policy — is wrong?
What if the social cost of carbon is negative — i.e. the net effects of carbon are positive?
A new paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick, and Kreutzer finds reason to believe this is justified by the empirical data:
Substituting an empirical ECS distribution from LC15 yields a mean 2020 SCC of $19.52, a drop of 48%. The same exercise for the FUND model yields a mean SCC estimate of $19.33 based on RB07 and $3.33 based on the LC15 parameters—an 83% decline. Furthermore the probability of a negative SCC (implying CO2 emissions are a positive externality) jumps dramatically using an empirical ECS distribution. Using the FUND model, under the RB07 parameterization at a 3% discount rate there is only about a ten percent chance of a negative SCC through 2050, but using the LC15 distribution, the probability of a negative SCC jumps to about 40%. Remarkably, replacing simulated climate sensitivity values with an empirical distribution calls into question whether CO2 is even a negative externality. The lower SCC values also cluster more closely together across difference discount rates, diminishing the importance of this parameter.
This all makes perfect sense, because there are non-climate effects of CO2 and they are extremely beneficial to the planet (plant growth, crop yield, human well-being). Furthermore, the climate effects of CO2 observed in the real world are far less damaging than what’s been predicted by the models of climate change propagandists — and these too are largely beneficial. On this, see Goklany’s Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, from GWPF.
So using the logic of carbon tax advocates, since carbon provides us with overall benefits, we should subsidize carbon rather than tax it extra.
CONCLUSION
From the standpoint of economics and ethics, we should neither subsidize carbon nor tax it.
If you have a carbon tax, get rid of it. If you don’t have one but think you need one, forget it.
Carbon taxes are an abomination — they do nothing to improve the environment and exist only to plunder citizens so that politicians, central planners and cronies can enrich themselves.
The New York Times Recognizes that Taxation is Robbery
December 9, 2015 Leave a comment
But only when ISIS does it.
To paraphrase a friend: “Only the NYT could write 2000 words about ISIS and not recognize that it is their preferred model.”
NDP’s Royalty Review Czar Dave Mowat Is a Climate Change Propagandist Trained by Al Gore
June 29, 2015 2 Comments
I knew I smelled a rat when Notley’s NDP chose ATB President and CEO Dave Mowat to head the royalty review board.
In a process that will surely revolve around “fairness” and other uneconomic nonsense, why would the NDP pick a banker of all things to head the review?
Well, now we know.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=5371ac3d-3b2d-4825-a158-45fd0c3978bb&k=18066
Hmm, do you think his thinking might be a bit clouded by Algore’s lies?
Al Gore’s documentary is one of the most deceitful pieces of trash ever created. Rather than provide a thorough critique, it is sufficient to show this:
The x-axis there is supposed to be time. How does the data go backwards in time? That doesn’t make any sense!
I know Algore created the internet with his bare hands and all that, but did he invent a way to break the laws of space-time too? This is total nonsense — climate change propaganda at its worst.
Can Dave Mowat explain this magical graph? Was that part of his propaganda training with Algore?
Heck, the famous Algore graph shows CO2 increases preceding the temperature rise. You fail automatically at science if you observe that A precedes B and therefore conclude that B causes A.
Algore is a shameless liar and anyone trained to spread his lies should not be running a royalty review for Alberta’s oil industry.
It’s seems fair enough to say that Dave Mowat is biased. So he is the perfect guy to push the NDP’s agenda.
Alberta Flood 2013: Redford Promises “Whatever It Takes.” Uh Oh.
June 25, 2013 1 Comment
Premier Redford will help Alberta “no matter the cost.” How generous. But the Alberta government has no money. It’s all spent.
So what her promises really mean is the people who have already suffered enough from flooding will suffer further when Redford taxes them more and grows a bigger debt to dump on them. She would never in a million years cut any spending to free up cash because of unforeseen circumstances.
She will probably use this opportunity to push her darling PST for which she desperately yearns. Of course, it will be promoted as merely a “temporary measure,” but nothing is more permanent than a temporary tax.
Government policy is going to turn this “state of emergency” into a permanently worse Alberta.
CANADIAN MARKET REVIEW 