NDP will double carbon levy by 2017
Zipperfish @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:29 pm
martin14 martin14:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
whatever-the-opposite-of-a-progtard is.
You mean a normal person ?
NWORNG!
andyt @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:56 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I missed the part where the NDP were going to reduce the income tax, or never support raising it now that they have their tax - pardon me, levy - hyper-taxing the gas we exhale.
If they don't reduce the income tax, then that's a valid reason to criticize the NDP.
With the finances the Dippers were left with, holding off on lowering income taxes would be prudent. And they're actually raising them for high earners.
fifeboy @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:15 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Quit being such a whatever-the-opposite-of-a-progtard is.
I believe that is referred to as a CONstipate!
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:16 pm
I hope the veal is good.
herbie @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:27 pm
The Troglotariat...
Jabberwalker @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:15 pm
Another bullshit way of saying that they are going to increase taxes, period. This is an effective way to reduce atmospheric carbon? By extracting more money out of us to dump into general revenues?
The NDP had better think a lot deeper than "carbon tax" if they really want to do something about carbon emissions.
andyt @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:58 pm
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
Another bullshit way of saying that they are going to increase taxes, period. This is an effective way to reduce atmospheric carbon? By extracting more money out of us to dump into general revenues?
The NDP had better think a lot deeper than "carbon tax" if they really want to do something about carbon emissions.
The NDP had better think a lot deeper than "carbon tax" if they really want to do something about carbon emissions.
Really? Certainly worked in BC. What's your solution, genius.
herbie @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:51 pm
There's a real easy way to avoid the effects of a carbon tax. Reduce your emissions.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:56 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The cost of the California dorught was estimated to be $2.2 billion in 2014. That works out to around $55/person in California.
You can't say the current drought was caused by AGW, but you can say that it is likely that additional tropospheric and ocean heat has exacerbated it. So if you figure it's, say, 10% worse because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then you'd be looking at a cost of about $5/person due to climate change.
You can't say the current drought was caused by AGW, but you can say that it is likely that additional tropospheric and ocean heat has exacerbated it. So if you figure it's, say, 10% worse because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then you'd be looking at a cost of about $5/person due to climate change.
The fact that there is a huge population, that is steadily growing, living in an area that is predominantly desert places a massive stress on local aquifers, reservoirs and such. Even without 'climate change' being factored in, there'd be a water crisis. Huge amounts of water are wasted keeping lawns, filling pools, fountains and for industrial and agricultural uses. Look at how much water is wasted on almond groves and orchards. Time to fire up some reactor powered desalinization plants along the coast.
I was watching a show about Phoenix, AR and they were saying it's heading for a major water crisis as well because it keeps growing. As the narrator said so succinctly, "It's a case of too many straws in one glass".
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:01 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Both awesome. La Villa Strangiato was my favourite, probably because Geddy wasn't singing.
Starting a prog band this fall, and getting pretty excited about it. Maybe I'll call it Proghole.
Starting a prog band this fall, and getting pretty excited about it. Maybe I'll call it Proghole.
How about "The Proglodytes"?
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:43 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
martin14 martin14:
Ahh, so the Dippers want less emissions ?
Taking the Ontario example, emissions will go lower.
Because the industries will be gone. But emissions will go down.
Taking the Ontario example, emissions will go lower.
Because the industries will be gone. But emissions will go down.
You missed a couple of key facts, like that the unemployment rate hasn't gone up and per capita income has. So who exactly was made worse off by the loss of dirty industry?
That's interesting because the Conference Board of Canada states that Ontario’s grade on income per capita has slowly declined since the early 1980s. We are actually behind the national average and given a "C" grade when it comes to Income per Capita. Not to mention chronically high fiscal deficits and rising debt levels have made it difficult for the province to invest much more in education and innovation, factors that are crucial to productivity growth and an improved standard of living.
As for the unemployment rate not going up, is that including all the McJobs that only pay minimum rage? 'Cuz there's a difference between being employed and being gainfully employed.
Lemmy @ Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:55 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
That's interesting because the Conference Board of Canada states that Ontario’s grade on income per capita has slowly declined since the early 1980s. We are actually behind the national average and given a "C" grade when it comes to Income per Capita. Not to mention chronically high fiscal deficits and rising debt levels have made it difficult for the province to invest much more in education and innovation, factors that are crucial to productivity growth and an improved standard of living.
As for the unemployment rate not going up, is that including all the McJobs that only pay minimum rage? 'Cuz there's a difference between being employed and being gainfully employed.
As for the unemployment rate not going up, is that including all the McJobs that only pay minimum rage? 'Cuz there's a difference between being employed and being gainfully employed.
You didn't read the Conference Board page very well. Isolate Ontario and look at the graph. Getting a "C" doesn't mean that per capita income hasn't gone up. It has. People who lost factory work got new, better paying jobs, service jobs; not the McJobs you speak of, which is work that continues to be done by new arrivals and teenagers. We signed free trade deals in the '80s and the primary reason for entering those deals was to ship dirty, shitty industrial jobs elsewhere and move our labour force into cleaner, better paying jobs. That process is ongoing. But using your ever-so-academic Google search, you'll see that the Conference Board reports that per capita income in Ontario has gone from $23K in 1992 to $36.5K in 2015, and that's adjusted for inflation. Sorry you think that people making an extra $13K per year, on average means they're less gainfully employed than in the 1980s.
bootlegga @ Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:27 am
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
And so the oil industry gets want it asked for in Mayit begins...
FTFY
Oil industry pushing for carbon tax in Alberta
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-ind ... -1.3083832
DrCaleb @ Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:32 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
And so the oil industry gets want it asked for in Mayit begins...
FTFY
Oil industry pushing for carbon tax in Alberta
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-ind ... -1.3083832
And so it begins.
Oh . . wait . . .
QBall @ Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:38 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
QBall QBall:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
"2112" was much better.
I'll see your 2112 and raise you Subdivisions (drum work in that song shows why Neil Peart = God).
Sorry dude. That was a drum machine.
Yes it's easy to see why one would mistaken Neil Peart for a machine as it's hard to believe any human can do what he does, but it's all him in Subdivisions
Watch at the 29 second mark. He uses the high hat and the ride symbol at the same time to keep time. Daaaaaaaaamn!