By 2030, all Canada’s efforts will be cancelled out by just 27 days’ worth of China’s increased carbon emissions.

Canada is run by idiots.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced  this month his government would move to impose a minimum price on carbon (i.e., a carbon tax) on any province or territory that did not voluntarily do so by 2018. The question most Canadians are asking is: how much will this new tax cost us?

Figures will vary by household and province, but by 2022, when the tax will be a minimum of $50 a tonne, the average Canadian household could face $2,569 in new taxes. This, pro-carbon taxers insist, is necessary to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions. After all, climate change is a global issue. Surely Canadians must do their part to help solve the problem.

On the surface, this argument is extremely appealing. And sometimes, sacrifices must indeed be made in the service of an important objective. But to get a sense of just how much Canadians’ sacrifices will help in achieving the goal of fighting climate change, it’s worth unpacking the numbers.

We can start with the Trudeau government’s carbon emissions target for 2030, which would bring Canada’s total annual emissions down from 748 megatonnes (Mt) this year, to 524 Mt by 2030. Assuming we can meet that target — and that’s a big assumption — Canada’s total annual emissions would drop by 224 Mt.

Now consider the biggest contributor to global carbon emissions: China. In 2014, China’s annual carbon emissions were estimated at 10,540 Mt. China is a very large and rapidly developing country. It understandably wants to focus on raising the living standards of its people. Yet, despite strong economic growth in recent decades, the country still has hundreds of millions of people living in relative poverty, especially when compared to more developed countries like Canada. Accordingly, its climate change commitments are less stringent than Canada’s: China’s existing policy will see annual carbon emissions rise to about 13,600 Mt in 2030.

Its annual emissions will thus increase about 3,060 Mt over this period, which means that by 2030, all Canada’s efforts will be cancelled out by just 27 days’ worth of China’s increased carbon emissions.

Article here.

 

Advertisements

Canada’s Carbon Tax Will Kill People

I referenced this  paper a few days ago. This blog post extrapolates the numbers to Canada.

After collecting reams of data, and performing careful calculations, the researchers conclude that US heating bills declined noticeably between 2005 and 2010 “due to the boom in shale production of natural gas.”

That price decline, they write, “caused a 1.6% decrease in the winter mortality rate for households using natural gas for heating.”

Only 58% of American households heat with natural gas, so the drop in the death rate for the US population as a whole over a full calendar year works out to about half a percentage point. The bottom line: lower energy prices saved 11,000 lives annually.

Which brings us to the carbon tax recently imposed on all sources of home heating here in more northerly Canada. Enbridge, the company which supplies natural gas to Ontario homes, says it needs to raise the price it charges households by 11% just to pay for this carbon tax.

If deaths drop when heating costs decline, they’ll surely increase when heating costs spike. So let’s not beat around the bush: Canada’s carbon tax is going to kill people.

Extrapolating from those US numbers, 1,100 Canadians will die unnecessarily next winter. And the winter after that. And the one after that. As the size of the carbon tax increases, the number of annual victims may well rise in tandem.

Climate Change Kicks Dutch in the ****

Thats a lot of money.

The cabinet has admitted it used old figures when calculating the impact of energy tax hikes and underestimated the impact on families. On Monday, the national statistics agency CBS said the average household energy bill would go up by some €334 this year, more than double the earlier government estimate of €150. However, economic affairs ministry officials now say they used statistics on energy consumption from 2017, which underestimated the amount of gas and electricity households actually use, much to the fury of MPs. ‘This is undermining trust in the government,’ Labour MP William Moorlag said. ‘It would appear that spending power estimates are based on mathematical models designed by magician Hans Klok.’

The ministry spokesman told the AD that Dutch environmental assessment agency staff were too busy working on plans to tackle climate change to come up with specific estimates last year. In addition, the agency and the CBS use different definitions of what constitutes the average household, the spokesman said. The price of gas and electricity has been pushed up by higher levies on CO2 emissions and the accelerated scaling back of gas extraction in Groningen, as well as a €50 rise in the amount households contribute towards sustainable energy subsidies (ODE).

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

Netherlands: Electric car subsidies largely benefit ‘rich’ Tesla and Jaguar drivers

No surprise.

Around half the government fund to stimulate people to drive electric cars has ended up in the hands of ‘rich Tesla and Jaguar drivers’, the Volkskrant said on Wednesday.

Last year, the government said it would fund tax breaks totaling €700m for electric car drivers. But almost half the 25,000 electric cars bought in the Netherlands in 2018 were Teslas and Jaguars with a price tag of €80,000 to €120,000, the paper said. In particular, the sale of Teslas rose 260% last year.

The paper bases its claims on answers to MPs’ questions given by tax minister Menno Snel in parliament on Tuesday evening. This means that CDA leader Sybrand Buma’s comments that ‘prosecco-drinking Tesla drivers’ have profited from the tax break at the ‘expense of the ordinary man in the street’ are largely true, the paper said.

It points out that the subsidies for electric cars are mainly funded by higher taxes paid by petrol and diesel car owners.

The government had assumed 11,000 electric cars would be bought in 2018, with an average price of €43,000. Instead, 25,000 were bought for an average of €63,000 each. This, the paper says, means the subsidy scheme has overrun its budget by ‘a couple of hundred million euros’.

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

French government prepared to back down on carbon tax increase to €88

How do you stop a carbon tax increase? Riot. A six month reprieve.

I was listening the the CBC (Canadas left-wing state-subsidized media) and not once did they mention the actual cost of this carbon tax was going to be a jump from €55 to €88.

Canada’s carbon tax is 30$. France was going to increase their carbon tax to 132$.

Don’t be surprised if Canada’s will jump that high if Trudeau is re-elected.

After the recent riots in France at the margins of the ‘yellow vests’ movement, the carbon tax adopted under François Hollande is expected to be revised downwards. EURACTIV France reports.

Having been expected to attend COP24 in Poland on Monday 3 (December), French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe cancelled his visit and instead held an increasing number of meetings with French MPs and ministers.

This resulted in a decision to back down on the French carbon tax, which has been criticised by the ‘yellow vests’ since the movement started a month ago.

It seems that the increasing tension, demonstrations and violence, and particularly the support of the French population for the ‘yellow vests’ movement – which is still strong – are the reasons for this U-turn, which will take the form of a freeze on the tax increase scheduled for January 2019.

The tax was supposed to increase from €55 to €88 per tonne of CO2 emitted on this date.

Heating with Natural Gas vs. Electricity in BC (Canada)

Update/Correction: The author of the blog post noted in one list:

BASIC CHARGE ($0.4065/day) = 148.37

And didn’t carry it the list with the total.

And the delivery charge is 4.296 per GJ = 429.60 (100GJ for the year)

  1. DELIVERY CHARGE = $429.60
  2. BASIC CHARGE ($0.4065/day) = 148.37
  3. STORAGE AND TRANSPORT = $75.80
  4. COST OF THE GAS = $154.90
  5. MUNICIPAL OPERATING FEE = $20.40
  6. CARBON TAX = $173.82
  7. CLEAN ENERGY LEVY = $2.64
  8. GST = $42.73

GAS total corrected to: 1048.26

Not quite as dramatic a difference … but still huge.

  • End of Correction
  • Original post below

Great blog article comparing Heating with Natural Gas vs. Electricity in BC

The conclusion: Gas Wins at 1/4 of the price.

You pay more in GST for electricity than the actual cost of the gas.

 

A typical home in the southern interior will use 100 GJ (or 27,778kWh)  of energy to heat for a year. Smaller homes and more efficient furnaces can improve on this number, as can global warming because of warmer winters. Bigger homes or poorly insulated homes will use more.

Assuming that you require 100 GJ of heat for your home for the year, your gas costs will be:

  1. DELIVERY CHARGE = $42.96
  2. STORAGE AND TRANSPORT = $75.80
  3. COST OF THE GAS = $154.90
  4. MUNICIPAL OPERATING FEE = $20.40
  5. CARBON TAX = $173.82
  6. CLEAN ENERGY LEVY = $2.64
  7. GST = $42.73

TOTAL = $899.89

Using traditional baseboard heaters, the same amount of energy would cost you over $4,000/year with BC Hydro.

  1. 27,778 kWh at $0.13260/kWh = $3,683.34
  2. RATE RIDER = $184.17
  3. GST = 193.38

TOTAL = $4,060.88