PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Cap and Trade.



ZR
01-18-2017, 08:33 AM
f you doubt carbon dioxide (CO2) is a dangerous pollutant, you probably think the $156 Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne claims her new cap and trade policy will cost your family this year in direct charges for gasoline and natural gas home heating, is a rip-off.
After all, the hidden carbon price you’ve been paying on your electricity bills for years — which has nothing to do with cap and trade — might be enough for you.
But even if you think the polar bears are dying, extreme weather events caused by CO2 have accelerated, the glaciers are disappearing, and that climate change is already spiking up food costs, you might still be concerned with how Ontario’s new climate control program is being administered.
Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysysk has warned, “As of June, 2016, no mechanism had been put in place to prevent the double-reporting of emissions reductions from the buying and selling of (CO2) allowances” under Wynne’s cap and trade plan.
Indeed, the complexity of that program and its still unclear rules make it impossible to verify the government’s assurances they have their accounting right.
The fear is Wynne’s cap and trade initiative may repeat history by following in the same footsteps as the Liberals’ disastrous Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009, with its multi-billion dollar boondoggles.
Indeed, the government is using the same rhetoric to justify cap and trade as it did the Green Energy Act.
That is that it will, “save households and businesses money, create good jobs in clean tech and construction, and generate opportunities for investment in Ontario”.
But the Green Energy Act also caused a sustained upward march in electricity rates.
There was a green economic bonanza, but only for the relative few who were awarded fat government power contracts.
Assigning tonnages to foregone carbon dioxide emissions with free “emission offsets” under cap and trade, is similar to the way the government previously justified heavily subsidizing energy conservation programs.
Also, similarly, cap and trade creates vast new opportunities for bureaucratic and consultant growth, and staffing such new requirements as “accredited verification bodies”.
The new “green bank” the government has announced will no doubt need lots of executives.
Wynne claims, “By law, all proceeds from cap and trade must be invested in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Another Liberal talking point is that, “Ontario’s residential electrical rates are also average relative to the rest of North America.”
To the extent the government has disclosed its plans, something quite different appears to be happening with the proceeds of cap and trade.
It suggests even Wynne’s green gang realizes their electricity rate equality claim is nonsense.
If they checked, the Liberals would see Ontario’s average residential power rates are about 13% above those in the contiguous United States.
The main purpose of Ontario’s new cap and trade program appears to be to fund a new revenue stream to address the public’s concerns about rising power rates.
Indeed, the largest single spending item for cap and trade revenue — $1 to 1.3 billion — is earmarked to subsidize the cost of power in time for the next Ontario election in 2018.
Additional spending and regulatory interventions under the government’s climate action strategy attempt to push consumers into greater dependency on electricity for transportation and home heating.
One of cap and trade’s dark corners is that not all large industrial greenhouse gas emitters are being treated the same.
Some are getting free allocations of carbon dioxide emission permits for the first four years of the program, while others are being charged for them.
When the government says, “The free allocations are to protect Ontario jobs in industries that are competing with jurisdictions without a carbon pricing system, and to recognize industries that have made significant emission reductions already and need time to invest in new technology”, it isn’t wrong.
But are friends of the government getting free carbon allowances, similar to the way many wind power companies who donated to the Liberal party received heavily subsidized power contracts?
For now, the government says the list of companies who have received free allocations will remain confidential, to be released at a later date.
But secret handouts of valuable free emission allowances to certain industries (and not others), is a recipe for public concern about the potential for political corruption.
At a minimum, if politically favoured companies are showered with valuable emission allowances granted for free, it will make the government’s cap and trade mess even more difficult for any future government to unwind.

ZR
01-18-2017, 08:36 AM
Check out the highlighted portion. So steal from our left pocket only to shove a couple of bucks back in our right just in time for the next election. Are you freakin kidding me?

bluetoy
01-18-2017, 09:14 AM
Here is my very simple theory on most of the climate change. Everything we do, and I mean everything has one byproduct. Heat. Think about it. Everything produces heat. We use the air and the water to cool everything. Eventually that is going to raise the air and water temps. That equals climate change. I am pretty sure that more taxation will not stop us from using air and water to cool everything.

I know that is a very dumbed down theory but it probably is the biggest contributor to global warming. Of course I could be 100% wrong and I will be long dead before any catastrophic world ending weather related disaster occurs.

RedSN
01-18-2017, 09:42 AM
I'm kind of on the fence of this one because on one hand I have a tough time believing that humans are single handily causing the temperature to go up. I'm not denying temperatures are going up, I'm just saying there are likely MANY other more significant factors.

On the other hand, I support the positive effect that this "global environmental movement" is having. I do believe that it is moving us in the right direction. Who doesn't want clean air and clean water? That's not to say that I agree with many of the policies and ways they are going about implementing these changes. This whole "carbon allowance and trading" is an absolute joke! It reminds me of buying indulgences of the Middle Ages.

True Blue
01-18-2017, 10:14 AM
Remember what I said in the other thread? It's all smoke and mirrors!!! Steal from one hand and give to the other. Best part charging taxes on top of a tax.

ZR
01-19-2017, 08:31 AM
Here we go again, now they can't even agree with policy put into play by McSquinty.

By attacking this week’s Fraser Institute report that closing Ontario’s coal-fired electricity plants had no significant impact on provincial air quality, Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals are biting off their own tails.
They are directly contradicting statements by the previous Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty a decade ago, when Ontario was campaigning to reduce U.S. cross-border emissions from 150 coal-fired plants in the American Midwest.
The Fraser study by economists Ross McKitrick and Elmira Aliakbari, first reported by the Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/17/shutdown-of-coal-plants-raised-electricity-rates-failed-to-reduce-pollution-report), says Ontario’s closure of its five coal plants by 2014 — costing billions of dollars and helping to send electricity prices skyrocketing — did not significantly improve Ontario’s air quality.
They said since these plants weren’t major contributors to air pollution — which the Liberal government knew from its own study in 2005 — Liberal claims closing them resulted in dramatic improvements to air quality are “implausible.”
Ontario’s air quality, McKitrick and Aliakbari say, was mainly affected by cross-border pollution from U.S. coal plants.
In rushing to discredit the Fraser report (http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/18/energy-minister-rips-report-on-closing-coal-plants) — because it undermines their claim that closing Ontario’s coal plants saved the health-care system $3 billion annually, thousands of lives and lowered hospital admissions — the Wynne Liberals are discrediting what the McGuinty Liberals said a decade ago.
At that time, McGuinty and his environment minister, Laurel Broten, argued most of Ontario’s coal pollution — up to 90% — came from the U.S.
Here’s McGuinty speaking in 2005: “On a typical bad air day, we know that more than 50% of the smog hovering over Ontario originates in the U.S. Midwest and Ohio Valley.”
Here’s Broten in a submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2006: “More than half of the air pollution in Ontario originates in the United States, in particular from the electricity production sector. At some Ontario locations, including Sarnia and Windsor, more than 90% of the air pollution can come from U.S. sources.”
Here’s then Toronto mayor David Miller, writing in support of Broten’s submission: “Emissions from U.S. sources are responsible for between 50% and 90% of the air pollution that blankets Toronto on smog days and coal-fired plants in the Midwestern United States are the worst offenders.”
Here’s Dr. David V.J. Bell, former dean of York University’s faculty of environmental studies: “Most of the air pollution effecting Ontario residents comes from the Midwestern states in the U.S.”
In 2006, on behalf of Toronto, Windsor and other cities, the Sierra Club petitioned the EPA to reduce cross-border coal pollution, noting 150 coal plants in seven Midwestern states — “among the oldest and dirtiest in the U.S.” — produced 4.5 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 1.6 million tonnes of nitrogen oxide annually.
By comparison, Ontario’s five coal-fired plants produced 153,750 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 57,875 tonnes of nitrogen oxide annually.
Ohio’s 24 coal plants alone produced eight times the sulphur dioxide, six times the nitrogen oxide and five times the greenhouse gases.
While the Wynne government cites a dramatic drop in smog days, pollution-related deaths and hospital admissions since Ontario closed its coal plants, McKitrick and Aliakbari suggest this was mainly due to a dramatic drop in U.S. cross-border pollution between 2002 and 2014, when monthly average nitrogen oxide emissions fell by more than half, from 556 megatonnes to 263.
The main reasons were the 2008 recession and the fracking boom, leading to the replacement of many U.S. coal plants with cleaner burning natural gas.

RedSN
01-19-2017, 09:43 AM
Ohio’s 24 coal plants alone produced eight times the sulphur dioxide, six times the nitrogen oxide and five times the greenhouse gases.
Isn't that where Mucci Farms is moving to? Citing lower electricity costs? :facepalm:

Mellow Yellow
01-19-2017, 03:42 PM
Isn't that where Mucci Farms is moving to? Citing lower electricity costs? :facepalm:

Yup!