Canadian Money Forum banner

Wynne gov't lying to consumers on cap and trade carbon tax on home heating bills

36K views 274 replies 25 participants last post by  carverman 
#1 ·
Wynne is lying when she mentioned in an interview with the media that her carbon tax starting January 2017 will
only add about $6 to the average household heating bill using nat gas.

I used the Union Gas website calculator and submitted my nat gas usage from the 4 coldest months last winter (2015)

on 428 cu meters (january) the cap n trade carbon tax is calculated at $14.12
on 378 cu meters (february) calculation is $12.47
on 310 cu meters (march ) calculation is $10.29
Ok this carbon tax is based on consumption and from May to October, the natural gas usage will not be as high as
in the winter months...lets say 100 cu meters for heating water and some home heat in the early spring and fall
for 2 months ..
on 100 cu meters (may) calculation is $3.30 ($6.60 for the two months of may and October)
for the other 6 months where a/C is used more (except for water heating) lets say it costs 40 cu metres to heat the water
40 x 3.3c = $1.32 (june, july, aug, sept) $1.32

So who is lying here?


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-budget-1.3461834
Gas prices in Ontario will rise about 4.3 cents a litre and residential natural gas bills will go up about $5 a month under
the Liberal government's cap-and-trade plan
.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Carverman, Wynne said it would $6 per month on average. That doesn't mean that everyone but pay $6 more -- some will pay more than that, and some will pay less. That is how average work. It is quite likely that you are not average. Consider yourself to be exceptional.
 
#6 ·
Carverman, Wynne said it would $6 per month on average. That doesn't mean that everyone but pay $6 more -- some will pay more than that, and some will pay less. That is how average work. It is quite likely that you are not average. Consider yourself to be exceptional.
I just finished calculating what my carbon tax will be for the year based on last years consumption.
$57.47 for the winter months ( Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb/March)
$26.40 approx for the other 7 months (may to Oct) hot water heating
------
$83.80 /12 = $6.98 per month... about $7.00 a month
add to that the HST
 
#3 ·
When has that two-faced money-moron and her lousy piece of trash minions said anything that was remotely true? Mclier was even worst.

Very shortly, she'll start buying votes again with our own money, and unfortunately, some feeble minds will fall for it again.
 
#4 ·
#7 · (Edited)
Hopefully those feeble minds of a minority ... mid-year poll:
Kathleen Wynne's Liberals Trailing Tories In Ontario, Poll Suggests


My question is... Will Wynne and her scaly-wag minions get kicked out of office on a non-confidence vote and call for an early election.

It appears Premier's Wynne's chickens have finally come home to roost, and voters have started to notice the controversies surrounding her government," Forum Research president Dr. Lorne Bozinoff said in the poll summary.
Enough is enough. They are killing Ontario's economy with the additional taxes and mismanagement..no wonder they are sometimes referred to as the Fiberals.
 
#11 ·
That's right, everyone who disagrees with you must be brainwashed or self-esteem interested because your point of view is the only need reasonable one. This is why I am trying to stop commenting on these threads.

I am no longer employed by the government, and am not a union member. I am not brainwashed either. I am pretty pissed because of about a lot of things that the Ontario Liberals have done, and would gladly vote for a credible alternative if there were one. I'm not going to vote against a party until there is an alternative I can support.

The Ontario PCs have consistently failed to present themselves as capable of providing good government that is representative of all Ontarians, or a leader that I could support.

Brown has so far continued this sorry tradition, but he still has a few years to up his game before the election, and God knows he doesn't have a high standard to beat vis-vis the Liberals.
 
#14 ·
The Ontario PCs have consistently failed to present themselves as capable of providing good government that is representative of all Ontarians, or a leader that I could support.

Brown has so far continued this sorry tradition, but he still has a few years to up his game before the election, and God knows he doesn't have a high standard to beat vis-vis the Liberals.
We all would like a party that represents all the people all the time, and a leader that's inspiring and will have history books written about them, but that's often fantasy. At this point of time, with a decade and a half of an absolute atrocious record, a monkey that flings it's poo at a board is better at picking policies to help the province. I apologize about the visual, but it really isn't that far off. At least the monkey isn't going to lie about what it's doing.

So Davis, you can wait forever for your prefect Conservative leader to come in on a horse and wow you away, or you can get real and stop day dreaming.
 
#12 ·
Correction:

So, 28 percent of people in Ontario are or used to be employed by the government or unions. No other way to explain that there are still people supporting liberals in Ontario.
Ontario Liberals will come to a sorry end. Other peoples' money will eventually run out. The question is if there will still be any industry left in the province (outside government and retirees).
 
#13 ·
Except that a lot of people working in government see what is going on with the party in power and get sick of it. I worked for Conservative and Liberal governments in Ontario and at the the federal level, and see this happen.

The notion that anyone who works for government is a fallacy. I knew lots of Tories and New Democrats in government. But more importantly, the people bi worked with one that it was their job to serve b the governer of the day, and the public interest.

And suggesting that I owe them some debt because I used to work for the government is ridiculous. I started in both levels of government under Conservatives. I got to retire by saving and investing well despite the Liberals freezing managers' salary for six years. People tend not to think highly of party that freezes their salaries for that long.
 
#15 ·
That's just the thing: we aren't allowed to choose a money that flings poo at a dartboard. Last time, the only alternative was Tim Hudak, who would have been worse than the monkey. If only there were still a New Democratic Party to give us a third choice, not that I'm crazy about social democrats, but they seem to have disappeared altogether.
 
#17 ·
Brown has not impressed me so far: playing to SoCons to get elected, then trying to bury them. Trying to use the sex Ed curriculum against the Liberals in a by election, then running away from that as quickly as he could. Not really coming up with much in the way of policy other than opposing the Liberals. But as I wrote, he has a few years yet to get his act together, so I'll keep an open mind and see how things look at election time. I think it is safe to say that few here would keep an open mind about Wynne regardless of what she does in the next few years. For me, I'll gather all the info and make my decision when the time comes.
 
#18 ·
I think it is safe to say that few here would keep an open mind about Wynne regardless of what she does in the next few years. For me, I'll gather all the info and make my decision when the time comes.

Quite a few people kept an open mind about Wynn, after a decade of the Dalton McGunity horror show. How well did that turn out? What's that quote from Einstein about doing the same over and over again and expecting a different result? What did he call it? Insanity was it?

Good on you for trying to keep an open mind, but feel free to call me cynical. 15 years, dozen and dozens of scandals, police investigations, an economy in the toilet, and the biggest debt of any sovereign state later, and I have no faith left.
 
#20 ·
Carverman, I no longer have a salary. Your CPP and OAS are being increased for inflation. I don't like paying more for fuel than anyone else, but I also think n it's high time that we do something about carbon beyond clapping our hands over our ears and shouting "I can't hear you." The only way to get people and business to produce less carbon is to start charging for it.

As an aside it is unfortunate that when some one starts a thread with a premise that gets disproved (like Wynne is lying about the cost), it never gets removed from the heading.
 
#24 ·
I dispute that. Most scientists dispute that. Stephen Hawking disputes that. All the big scientific organizations dispute that. NASA disputes that. The NOAA disputes that. So you are demonstrably when you say it's indisputable. Bombast doesn't make you right, and doesn't win arguments.
 
#27 ·
Sorry, Carverman, the heading and your first post claim that Wynne is lying when she says the average household will pay $6 more because you estimate that you will pay $7 more.

Your claim is based on your failure to understand the difference between an average and you.

Your later objections to the effectiveness of the policy in combating climate change don't change that.
 
#28 ·
She is still lying to me. Based on my nat gas consumption of 2016, I will be paying a lot more in the heating season for nat gas.

I don't care what Wynne is saying about averages. When Enbridge adds 3.3c for every cu M of nat gas i consume, in the winter months, January, depending on how cold it gets, will require about 400 cuMetres of nat gas for heat and hot water.

At 3.3 c per Cu M of carbon tax..that's $13.20 extra added to my monthly gas bill on top of the other charges and HST. That is far more per month than the $6 a month extra that the carbon tax wil add that she was talking about to the press.

It's all BS from the Wynne gov't. They are more interested in padding their provincial treasury than trying to address global warming.

My reasons are in my previous post.

At least Saskatchewan had the sense not to get involved with this carbon tax cash grab scheme as it will
do nothing to prevent global warming.
 
#29 ·
The auditor general has serious doubts this tax grab will do any good for climate change, and I believe her. But let's put aside the debate on climate change, formerly known as global warming. Question is, do you trust the current gang of clowns to administer the program properly? And the answer is a resounding HELL NO.

Given their fabulous track record with absolutely everything they touch, I have no doubt in no time we're gonna start hearing about the myriad of scandals and waste with this program as well.
 
#30 ·
When Wynne tells you about the implant on n the average household, that's all she is telling you. She isn't feeling you what the impact is on you. Saying, "I don't care about averages so she lying" does not make any sense, and I'm sure that you can see that.

Yes, Canada is a small contributor to CO2 emissions in a world of 200 countries, but Canadians are close to the top of the league in terms of how much each of us produces, which is many times more than the CO2 each Chinese person produces.

There is no way we can ask any other country to control their emissions of we're not willing to do it ourselves.

You may not agree with the logic of this, and you are entitled to your opinion, as are people who agree with it. The repeated trope of some CMFers in these discussions that anyone who disagrees with them is lying, stupid, a sheep, or part of a conspiracy is what makes these discussions entirely useless.

It really justs ends up as a shouting match providing no illumination at all.
 
#52 ·
Yeah, I just calculated mine on a typical 1100 sq. ft. bungalow to be $9.24 per month. That's the nice thing about averages, you get to include all sorts of tail effects from people who use almost zero gas. Carbon pricing will do little other than provide another drag on the economy of Ontario. The revenue, whether neutral or not, won't have an effect on carbon emissions IMO.

ltr
 
#34 ·
The simple truth is Canadians are being punished for something that unless the largest nations in the world get on board it will not make one iota of difference. Not one bit of difference at all.

This will only make Canada less competitive in the global marketplace, and impact all the local businesses that depend on disposable income.
 
#35 · (Edited)
The simple truth is Canadians are being punished for something that unless the largest nations in the world get on board it will not make one iota of difference. Not one bit of difference at all.
This will only make Canada less competitive in the global marketplace, and impact all the local businesses that depend on disposable income.
"
Thank you Bobsyouruncle"; This is my feeling on this carbon tax SCAM that the Wynne gov't and her Ontario Fiberals are trying to convince us that it's for our own good, but in fact, it's just another cash grab that they can get away with because most people don't understand, that no matter how much you tax people on using fossil fuels..it WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE on a GLOBAL SCALE in today's modern society worldwide .

The weather patterns don't just hang over Ontario, so Wynne can tell us..yes, my carbon footprint/carbon tax is making some difference..the air temperature is more stable and the winters are back to being cold again.
In fact the jet stream and other weather phenomena moves around all the time. It creeps down from the polar
regions and Siberia..and who is on the other side of the polar region? Russia...and Putin is not about to
impose a carbon tax on his population anytime soon..in fact he is probably secrety laughing at these
Canadian fools.

A couple hundred years, ago in a diffent rural society relying on horse drawn everything, society as a whole didn't generate the huge amount of carbon dioxide we do today, so no matter how the provincial gov'ts "juggle' their mismanaged funds then try to pull the wool over our eyes, that they are doing something about it..

In tge end folks...IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE in relation to global temperatures, when other countries don't subscribe to the same plan.
 
#38 ·
Carbon taxes don't necessarily hurt competitiveness. We can provide export support to carbon intensive industries when exporting to lax jurisdictions. And revenues from carbon taxes should be used to reduce taxes that are more harmful, like corporate and personal income taxes. I think you would also need to give some refundable tax credits/GST rebate-style transfer to offset the regressive effects of carbon tax.
 
#41 ·
Andrewf has nailed the issue here. And the issue is not nomenclature; the issue is human-produced greenhouse gases causing climate change which threatens human populations. CO2 emissions in China, by the way, actually fell a little this year, although it is not clear how much of thatb results from environmental policy and how much from economic slowdown. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...s-china-coal-use-drop-reduction-a7416011.html
 
#49 ·
Andrewf has nailed the issue here. And the issue is not nomenclature; the issue is human-produced greenhouse gases causing climate change which threatens human populations.
That is 100% false. The alarmists keep ignoring the most important fact in this issue. That fact is that no one has proven that increased CO2 will cause irreversible harm, or will even be bad. NO ONE.

The only man-made warming seems to be the adjustments to the temperature data:

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
 
#44 · (Edited)
On a per person basis, Canadians are among those causing the biggest mess by a very wide margin. (2011: Canada - 16.24 tonnes of CO2/person, China - 6.52 tonnes/person.) Because there are so many more Chinese, their total production swamps ours, but individually, we are far worse culprits.

We have no business asking China or anyone else to clean up their acts if we are not willing to do so first.

As far as it being impossible to clean up, I refuse to give up on this planet. It is my favourite planet, and all my stuff is here. I couldn't look my nieces and nephews in the eye and say "I won't do anything to stop screwing up the planet. You're on your own, suckers."
 
#46 ·
1. US emits more CO2 PER PERSON than Canada does.

2. CO2 has low global warming potential. Methane - 30 times more potential. N2O, CFCs - hundreds of times more. China emits significantly more substances with high global warming potential than Canada does (per person). Canada's release of C02 is neither here nor there.

3. The issue of CO2 in atmosphere - if that concerns you so much - can be easily solved by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Indeed, this is being done in Canada, albeit on a small scale. A large scale project would be way, way cheaper than dumb taxes.
 
#60 ·
I was mistaken about it being an anonymous blog. It seems that it is mostly written by "Tony Heller", which is a pseudonym for Steven Goddard. What kind of Scottish word under an assumed name? According to Wikipedia, Goddard has a BS in geology and a master's in electrical n engineering. A BS is not an advanced degree, although it is in a fairly related field. Electrical engineering won't tell you much about climate science. He has presented at a Heartland Institute conference, the Heartland Institute being funded by the oil industry which profits from CO2 production.
 
#61 ·
I don't care if you don't like who wrote the article. Please tell us what part of the article was inaccurate...the data presented came from known government sources. Big Oil had nothing to do with it....it's just another weak and shallow attempt to dismiss anything that you don't agree with.
 
#64 ·
Let's agree that few of us have qualifications to discuss climate scinence. Clearly CO2 has global warming potential, but the scale, the speed and the impact of other factors are debatable. Right now we can't predict what happens next month with a 90% confidence, all models predicting remote future are highly uncertain.

Here are the facts:
- Canada emits 1.6% of global CO2 emissions
- Taxing energy and high energy prices are bad for the industry and economy. Otherwise 1970s would have been high growth years and Ontario would be the fastest growing economy.
- Our southern neighbour is going to pump as much CO2 and as fast as they can
- If CO2 were to become an actual and immediate threat, there are straightforward technologies for removing it from the air.
 
#66 ·
If CO2 was considered to be a major threat to the global billionaire community, exactly how many days until a tariff would be slapped on Commie China until they cut way back on their CO2 emissions? 30 days, 60 days? This whole stupid scam only fools the braindead sheep.
 
#74 ·
Sigh. I don't usually weigh in to political arguments, but I think all of us share a responsibility to occasionally speak up.

The link between human activity and temperature change is very credibly established by multiple strands of scientific research. Does that mean it's "100% proven"? Probably not (though that depends on what "proven" means). It does mean it is a well-established, robust theory with vastly more evidence behind it than the claim "no, human activity is not meaningfully contributing to climate change". Furthermore, when we deal with major societal risk factors, we need to mitigate them when we feel they are reasonably likely not once we are "100% certain" they will happen. Why do we spend lots of societal money putting up fences and barriers where someone could get hurt (but probably won't) but resist spending societal money to reduce carbon emissions since it isn't proven to every crackpot's satisfaction that we're 100% scr**ed if we don't?

It will be interesting to see to what extent fairly low carbon taxes on fossil fuels, such as those starting in Ontario, nudge reduction in fossil fuel demand. Certainly when oil was 2x its current price, people drove a bit less, invested in more fuel-efficient cars and better home insulation, turned down the thermostat a bit; airlines replaces fuel-guzzling planes with more fuel-efficient ones, etc. When energy prices retreated, people did less of that. But I heard from an economist with a good reputation last week that many think the carbon tax will need to be tripled from the upcoming levels to make a real difference. We shall see.

In the meanwhile, we survived with $100+ oil. We can survive taxing oil from $50 to $60 or $75 or whatever. And I prefer a chunk of that going into my government's general revenues than the $$$ we were paying into OPEC countries' slush funds a few years ago.
 
#83 ·
All valid points, except for conclusion. First of all, worldwide economy didn't do all that well when the prices were $100+. Canada was, of course, benefiting by selling expensive oil to the US, but the effect of this additional taxation is going to be very different for obvious reasons - US production won't be subject to the same burdens. Secondly (and crucially), at issue is price differential between energy costs in Canada and in the US.

When companies decide where to set up shop, it becomes part of the equation. At the time when the US is about to slash taxes and regulations, Canada is introducing EXTRA costs. This will have a devastating effect, which we are already observing in Ontario.
 
#75 ·
The 97% figure is valid, but it is applied too broadly. It refers to a sample of active climate scientists, not the broader scientific community. There have been other studies, including by the US National Academy of Science, that support the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of climate science experts believe that humans are causing climate change.

"The study found roughly 90 percent of the climate researchers were convinced that rising temperatures are being caused by human activity, while 10 percent were not convinced. But the more expertise the researchers had, the greater their consensus."
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...yer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top