The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet
How did the carbon tax influence Canadian consumer choices? Demand increased, domestically produced crude oil consumption stayed the same while natural gas increased. Again, if the carbon tax had any impact on consumption the price would have dropped so it was consumed. Sure a trivial amount of fuel prices are tied to global oil prices, but they still vary to region and supplie
1 year means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Oil is highly volatile in price , production and in demand .
Fwiw probably the ban on Russian oil for couple years now help other producers around the world , including Canada .
Yeah we're truly ****ed as a nation when people like you can vote. After 4 pages of never ending stupidity the best you can come up with is ''hot tub installations went up DURING a pandemic therefore carbon tax didn't work''.
What the **** am I even reading here?
😆
100% fact. Absolute joke of a country considering the natural resources we're sitting on. Should be like Norway instead we're becoming a third world country. QoL plummeting, somehow over 16% of the Canadian population doesn't have a family doctor, don't get me started about ER wait times and the homelessness crisis just keeps getting worse. But hey, Canadians get what they vote
Meh
Canada already exports double what Norway export in oil.
Norway oil profits vastly help the government expenses which in return help a lot its business and economy.
Here oil profits is mostly directed towards private investors , just look at Alberta waste of all that wealth from oil ….
for a very long time commodities were extremely cheap, not very attractive for massive investments.
Now yes today it’s a different matter but lets not forget building those factory in that economic sectors can take easily 5+ years …..
Trudeau had no choice as all the private sector folks pulled out due to Trudeaus anti oil policies and the hurdles they faced . It ended up costing triple the budget as well
Carney knows as long as the current premier Eby is there it will never happen as well as corrupt indigenous groups
Of course he had a choice….
I never argued the economic theory supply and demand doesn't exist silly, so you can stop playing professor. I'm arguing why it doesn't apply to energy.
YOU argued the carbon tax worked GREAT because obviously it has to because of economics theory supply and demand. You claim it worked great because Debbie takes her E-Bike to work rather than her SUV. But CO2 emissions are basically back to pre-Covid, demand continues to rise and so is production. SO HOW DID IT WORK GREAT?
It's hilarious seeing you repeat points that just demonstrate your economic ineptitude like they are good points. This is a irrelevant transition effect. Yes if anyone makes anything, if they have made it they will eventually lower the price enough until they can sell it. So what? You say this like it is some disproof of the basic fact that as you increase the price of a good,
Fossil fuel companies don't "make it" they extract/refine it. It takes billions of dollars and decades of commitment to do this. They don't stop and if low demand impacts supply the price is lowered to balance the supply. So if the carbon tax was working GREAT at stopping carbon from being used it would have effected the supply, but it didn't. Production increased.
Yeah we're truly ****ed as a nation when people like you can vote. After 4 pages of never ending stupidity the best you can come up with is ''hot tub installations went up DURING a pandemic therefore carbon tax didn't work''.
What the **** am I even reading here?
Ditto,
"I lower the temperature of my house and wear warm socks so the carbon tax works!!"
LMAO. It is genuinely hilarious how bad you are at basic economics. Basic Principle: When the price of something goes up, people buy less of it - ALL ELSE HELD EQUAL. So for instance, the price going up making people worried about the cost of heating their home and maybe ticking the thermostat down a couple degrees is completely expected behaviour. Not everyone does this, but o
Yeah we're truly ****ed as a nation when people like you can vote. After 4 pages of never ending stupidity the best you can come up with is ''hot tub installations went up DURING a pandemic therefore carbon tax didn't work''.
What the **** am I even reading here?
The reality is that most folks will not drop their thermostat by 1or 2 degrees and just pay the extra . As it resorts to fuel for the vehicles yes folks in the city might consider public transit or in the summer riding their bike but for the rural folks that never is an option. Also the farmer can't decide to not dry his grain
Im puzzled why do Albertan's still get a Canada Carbon Rebate ?
The reality is that most folks will not drop their thermostat by 1or 2 degrees and just pay the extra . As it resorts to fuel for the vehicles yes folks in the city might consider public transit or in the summer riding their bike but for the rural folks that never is an option. Also the farmer can't decide to not dry his grain
The "reality" is that basic supply and demand economics applies. Any individual might make zero change to their behaviours. They might still drive the gas guzzler, live a long commute, constantly warming their poor quality big house, go on long road trips etc etc. But another individual might make changes to their behaviours. And in an economy, when you make a marginal change to prices it isn't going to dramatically over night reverse the behaviour of everyone - but as long as it changes the behaviours of some it is making a difference.
I never argued the economic theory supply and demand doesn't exist silly, so you can stop playing professor. I'm arguing why it doesn't apply to energy. .
LMAO!!!! FAIL!!!!! Sorry, the basic laws of supply and demand don't magically stop applying to energy. It is an economic good like everything else.
Just utterly inept, and until you can get that through your head no progress is possible.
Fossil fuel companies don't "make it" they extract/refine it.
LAMO!!!!! ECON 101 FAIL!!!! Energy is a good. Supply and demand applies to energy just the same. It has never been the case this only applies to things made in factories, that it takes economic investment to extract and refine it works just the same laws. Grade: F-.
So if the carbon tax was working GREAT at stopping carbon from being used it would have effected the supply, but it didn't.
LMAO!!! FAIL FAIL FAIL. I don't think you understand how jarringly stupid lines like "would have effected (sic) the supply" are. The goal of the carbon take is to reduce domestic per capita carbon usage by making them more expensive than they would be without the carbon tax. For external reasons to the carbon tax the supply might go way up or way down, more or less exported, those supply side considerations happen independently from the the effect of lowering consumption via increasing relative price.
F-.
LMAO!!!! FAIL!!!!! Sorry, the basic laws of supply and demand don't magically stop applying to energy. It is an economic good like everything else.
Just utterly inept, and until you can get that through your head no progress is possible.
LAMO!!!!! ECON 101 FAIL!!!! Energy is a good. Supply and demand applies to energy just the same.
Man, it's mind-blowing how convinced you are in yourself. It's like you don't hear/read arguments or do any research on what you are convinced is correct. You just live in your own little bubble believing theory is real life. Just because you pretend to be arrogant and laugh your ass off does not make you right. Like you could have just saved face and googled are fossil fuels a need. But you didn't, you decided to continue to play condescending professor. Here I'll do it for you:
Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) are best classified as a need rather than a mere “good,” but the answer depends on the context and time frame you’re looking at.Why fossil fuels are currently a need (short-to-medium term):Energy poverty kills: Roughly 800 million people still lack access to electricity, and 2.4 billion cook with biomass or coal (leading to ~3.8 million premature deaths per year from indoor air pollution, WHO 2024). For them, any affordable energy source—very often fossil fuels—is a literal survival need.
Baseline for modern life: ~80% of global primary energy still comes from fossil fuels (IEA 2024). Transportation, heavy industry (steel, cement, chemicals), fertilizers (via natural gas for ammonia), winter heating in cold climates, and backup power all currently depend heavily on them.
Why fossil fuels are currently considered a necessity
Energy production: They are a dominant source of energy for electricity generation, transportation, and heating, powering homes, businesses, and industries.
Economic engine: Fossil fuels played a central role in the industrial revolution and continue to drive economic development, making them difficult to replace entirely in the short term.
Manufacturing feedstock: They are a key component in the creation of numerous products, including plastics, synthetic fibers, and construction materials like cement and asphalt.
Energy grid stability: Fossil fuels, especially coal, can provide "insurance" for energy grids by helping to prevent electricity shortages, acting as a backup for other sources
Sorry professor, but You're Fired!
When you say "google" did you mean "you asked AI"?
LMAO
It's a nice try. Except I repeatedly told you I didn't disagree that energy is a necessity - your "quotes" don't disprove any claim of mine. Instead, what I explained was that energy is still an economic "good", and thus still the laws of supply and demand apply. It isn't some other magic laws. Saying energy is a necessity isn't wrong - implying that this means it isn't a good and the normal laws don't apply is wrong.
You just live in your own little bubble believing theory is real life
I never argued the economic theory supply and demand doesn't exist
Man stop embarrassing yourself Mr. Hot Tubs Disprove Carbon Tax.
I never argued the economic theory supply and demand doesn't exist silly, so you can stop playing professor. I'm arguing why it doesn't apply to energy. YOU argued the carbon tax worked GREAT because obviously it has to because of economics theory supply and demand. You claim it worked great because Debbie takes her E-Bike to work rather than her SUV. But CO2 emissions are basi
Guess its hard to grasp but anyway ….
Carbon tax would affect supply demand but it didn’t because probably the rebate help to cancel the higher price of consumption?
So supply didn’t had to drop ?
Was the plan really to solve consumption in 1 year ?
You got high expectations shifty ….
It was a plan base on many years , with increase prices as time goes by .
So probably the carbon tax was not yet mature to see change in consumption .
Is this still hard to understand?
Now you will say why do it if people wouldn’t see a change in prices if they had the rebate ?
Well because the government decided to give Canadians TIME to adjust their consumption until the rebate finish around 2030.
Giving time to change car after 5 years .
Change their heating system in their house inside a 5 years time frame , etc
Because after 2030 without the rebate , you could of be damn sure the supply/demand curve would of changed a lot for those who wouldn’t of take that free time to adjust their consumption of oil .
Now you still don’t get it ?
Guess its hard to grasp but anyway ….Carbon tax would affect supply demand but it didn’t because probably the rebate help to cancel the higher price of consumption?So supply didn’t had to drop ?Was the plan really to solve consumption in 1 year ?You got high expectations shifty ….It was a plan base on many years , with increase prices as time goes by .
2030 numbers with no rebate yikes that would be interesting . Not sure you can dramatically reduce your natural gas and power consumption. Yes you could get a better mileage vehicle but still scary
I doubt Carney wins without scrapping the carbon tax and I think CDNs got super frustrated on the carbon tax when Justin scrapped it for Atlantic Canada to buy votes on home heating oil the worst fuel source for carbon
The reality is that most folks will not drop their thermostat by 1or 2 degrees and just pay the extra . As it resorts to fuel for the vehicles yes folks in the city might consider public transit or in the summer riding their bike but for the rural folks that never is an option. Also the farmer can't decide to not dry his grain Im puzzled why do Albertan's still get a Canada Car
This is fine and all but not relevant. The tax wasn't introduced to drastically change consumer behavior but rather gradually. For example, when our ******ed friend Shifty acknowledges that Karen might take her e-bike instead of her car, that's the carbon tax working. Again, you want to disprove it worked, fine by me, read the papers and tell me where they're wrong.
It's kinda funny how we all had/have parents and grandparents who lower their thermostat to save on energy costs yet in this thread Shifty and you will pretend this never happens.........
2030 numbers with no rebate yikes that would be interesting . Not sure you can dramatically reduce your natural gas and power consumption. Yes you could get a better mileage vehicle but still scaryI doubt Carney wins without scrapping the carbon tax and I think CDNs got super frustrated on the carbon tax when Justin scrapped it for Atlantic Canada to buy votes on home heating o
You're probably right but this should've never been a political issue to begin with. Of all the problems Canada has, carbon tax ranks somewhere close to the bottom. It didn't have anywhere near the affect on inflation that Pierre was claiming but yes, it was an easy way to win because overall the Canadian population is dumb as ****.
Like I said before, I'm against the carbon tax, it's a national tax for an international problem but to pretend it didn't work is just uneducated nonsense.
This is fine and all but not relevant. The tax wasn't introduced to drastically change consumer behavior but rather gradually. For example, when our ******ed friend Shifty acknowledges that Karen might take her e-bike instead of her car, that's the carbon tax working. Again, you want to disprove it worked, fine by me, read the papers and tell me where they're wrong.
I still say the carbon tax was more of a way to redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor . To this day not one person can tell me how they can calculate that 80% got more back than they paid. I e-mailed multiple times the PBO and Environment minister with no response
Let me post this question again If A = the amount that you collect in carbon tax rebates and B is the amount you pay how are they calculating B. It has to be based on an average and you should easily be able to say we base it on the average family of four owning one vehicle and driving 15,000 Kms and spending this much to heat their home . Sadly they would never tell us that becuase than many CDN's would realize I drive more than that and own two cars .
Also Justin telling us we need the carbon tax if we want a white Christmas and less Forest Fires was total BS
It's a nice try. Except I repeatedly told you I didn't disagree that energy is a necessity - your "quotes" don't disprove any claim of mine. Instead, what I explained was that energy is still an economic "good", and thus still the laws of supply and demand apply. It isn't some other magic laws. Saying energy is a necessity isn't wrong - implying that this means it isn't a good
You said some small amount....
Of course they apply silly, when did I say they didn't, But Elenor on her E-Bike every other Tuesday in the summer isn't doing anything.
For the last time. BECAUSE it is a NEED if it is produced it is consumed, if there was too much supply the price would be lowered so more of it is consumed. Production does NOT stop, producers can make money at 20$/bbl and they are 50+ year longterm outlooks when investing. So that means if Elenor on her E-Bike was impacting supply by not driving her SUV on Tuesdays the price would be lowered so it would be consumed because production doesn't stop because if it is produced it HAS to be consumed, meaning the carbons get burned regardless.
This is fine and all but not relevant. The tax wasn't introduced to drastically change consumer behavior but rather gradually. For example, when our ******ed friend Shifty acknowledges that Karen might take her e-bike instead of her car, that's the carbon tax working. Again, you want to disprove it worked, fine by me, read the papers and tell me where they're wrong.
Production increased..
It's kinda funny how we all had/have parents and grandparents who lower their thermostat to save on energy costs yet in this thread Shifty and you will pretend this never happens.........
No I didn't, I said the people that are voluntarily lowering their thermostat did so anyway, not because of the carbon tax. People were forced to because they couldn't afford it, which is sad. If you think a good policy is people having to wear winter clothes in their homes then you can go **** yourself.
Like I said before, I'm against the carbon tax, it's a national tax for an international problem but to pretend it didn't work is just uneducated nonsense.
The international problem is not enough energy. Canada should be supplying WAY more to the world.
Consumption decreased.
No I didn't, I said the people that are voluntarily lowering their thermostat did so anyway, not because of the carbon tax. People were forced to because they couldn't afford it, which is sad. If you think a good policy is people having to wear winter clothes in their homes then you can go **** yourself.
People lowered their thermostat to save on their energy bill. What will they do when that energy becomes more expensive?
If you think a good policy is people having to wear winter clothes in their homes then you can go **** yourself.
No, but if Karen chooses her e-bike over her car to save on gas, the carbon tax is working. You acknowledged this yourself.
The international problem is not enough energy. Canada should be supplying WAY more to the world.
The international problem is that Canada is responsible for 1.4% of greenhouse emission while India, China and the US are responsible for 53%. What we're doing is meaningless in the grand scheme of things and yes, we finally agree on something, Canada should be supplying WAY more.
Because of the carbon tax? Or COVID, working from home, inflation, etc.
People lowered their thermostat to save on their energy bill. What will they do when that energy becomes more expensive?
Suffer.
No, but if Karen chooses her e-bike over her car to save on gas, the carbon tax is working. You acknowledged this yourself.
No, because Fred in his Ford uses the gas regardless.
The international problem is that Canada is responsible for 1.4% of greenhouse emission while India, China and the US are responsible for 53%. What we're doing is meaningless in the grand scheme of things and yes, we finally agree on something, Canada should be supplying WAY more.
Not sure how that's an international problem, but ok.
[QUOTE=Shifty8 Now]Of course they apply silly, when did I say they didn't[/quote]
[QUOTE=Shifty Before] I'm arguing why it doesn't apply to energy. [/QUOTE]
LMAO. This is such a hilarious self own. Shifty has spent days fecklessly trying to debate that the basic laws of supply and demand QUOTE "doesn't apply to energy" UNQUOTE. A dozen ridiculous anti-economic arguments for this ridiculous claim got disproved and finally he just pretends he wasn't even denying they don't apply all a long.
Pathetic. Inept. Dishonest. Ridiculous. And most of all: endlessly laughable.
if it is produced it HAS to be consumed, meaning the carbons get burned regardless.
It's hilarious you are clinging to this economic illiteracy. If apple makes an iphone it also will get purchased. Maybe they will lower the price, maybe they will produce less in the future, but if it is made it will get sold. It's a transient effect. There is nothing at all special about this principle that means supply and demand QUOTE "doesn't apply to energy" UNQUOTE. LMAO!
Smith for PM!! Great day for Alberta and Canadians
It's hilarious you are clinging to this economic illiteracy. If apple makes an iphone it also will get purchased. Maybe they will lower the price, maybe they will produce less in the future,
WRONG! iPhone isn't a NEED it's a technology that becomes obsolete within a year of being produced.
