Just... Change you're car! says NDP

[InRich]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/04/15/notley-to-albertans-change-your-car?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=Notley+to+Albertans%3A+Change+your+car

Unreal. dumb fucking bitch.

[benz_890]

Change you are car?

[ExtraSlow]

So if we have an almost fully loaded half ton with lots of upgrades, what do we change it into?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
So if we have an almost fully loaded half ton with lots of upgrades, what do we change it into?

Sell it at a loss, then get more debt when you buy a new car.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by benz_890
Change you are car?

Change! You are car!

http://theelusivefish.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/transformer-stick.gif

[flipstah]

I has car.

[r3ccOs]

oh my, and how supercars were at one point, the "justification" for higher education.

[dubhead]

In all honesty does the majority of city slickers in the province really need to drive half tons?

[Team_Mclaren]

I am car?

[soloracer]

Originally posted by dubhead
In all honesty does the majority of city slickers in the province really need to drive half tons?

No comrade, all the citizen class needs are small cars made by the state to get them to the factories. They don't need heat, air conditioning, power seats, power windows or any other luxury items. Because transportation should be like buying an appliance and it should be illegal to buy more than the absolute bare minimum required. A drivers license may be needed to operate the vehicle but a social license...well that must be of the highest consideration.

[revelations]

Im not pro NDP, but shes just incentivizing less carbon emissions.

Do we need 4 ton SUVs to drive around to/from work in an office?
Probably not and the rest of the world (outside North America) seems to get this. They think the whole SUV thing is idiotic.

Its not popular, but I think shes attempting a slight shift towards people being more energy conscious here.

[revelations]

Originally posted by dubhead
In all honesty does the majority of city slickers in the province really need to drive half tons?

Thats what maybe shes trying to get across :dunno:

[dirtsniffer]

All our food can be brought to stores in teslas. Think of the reductions!

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Originally posted by InRich
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/04/15/notley-to-albertans-change-your-car?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=Notley+to+Albertans%3A+Change+your+car

Unreal. dumb fucking bitch.

I mean. She probably knows the difference between your/you're. You could've even copied it from the article.

[flipstah]

Trabants and Nivas for everyone!

[403ep3]

http://img.news.sina.com/life/p/2011/0923/U113P5029T2D399470F26DT20110923164955.jpg

[Skidro]

Give us them EV kick backs and maybe change will happen slightly

Another good point "we can do energy efficient stuff in our houses"

[bjstare]

I'd love to see less large SUVs on the road, they're retarded and unnecessary for the most part.

I can see why people DD half tons - they need it for their weekend toys, and don't want to spend money on buying and maintaining another vehicle. :dunno:

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by Team_Mclaren

I am car?

If this FOB is correcting engrish....man Inrich you dun fucked up hahaha....

[B16EJ8]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz


Change! You are car!

http://theelusivefish.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/transformer-stick.gif

:rofl: :rofl:

[rx7boi]

http://www.mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/geek/2013/05/Initial-D.jpg

[lilmira]

Well I have been changing I'm car every few years.

[drtoohotty1]

51,000 and youre upper middle class :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: sweet!

[jacky4566]

If they wanted to excite change faster they would start offing decent incentives for EV and Hybrid cars. A small tax wont push many people to buy a new car BUT $6000 off, Deal.

[zipdoa]

lol, I love irony.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by jacky4566
If they wanted to excite change faster they would start offing decent incentives for EV and Hybrid cars. A small tax wont push many people to buy a new car BUT $6000 off, Deal.

I'd buy a Tesla 3 with major incentives.

LAY IT UP, NOTLEY!

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz

Change! You are car!

http://theelusivefish.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/transformer-stick.gif

Bravo. :clap:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[soloracer]

Originally posted by revelations
Im not pro NDP, but shes just incentivizing less carbon emissions.

Do we need 4 ton SUVs to drive around to/from work in an office?
Probably not and the rest of the world (outside North America) seems to get this. They think the whole SUV thing is idiotic.

Its not popular, but I think shes attempting a slight shift towards people being more energy conscious here.

I think you miss the point - who says government should decide what we drive? Why does your vehicle buying decision have to be based upon "need" only? Why are you judging people for their choice of vehicle? I don't need a bunch of sports cars, but who are you to question if I "need" them? Believe it or not some people in Europe and the rest of the world think it's awesome we can get big SUV's and drive them like we do. Clarkson and May loved the pickups they drove here.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Yeah but this has nothing to do with reducing carbon, they are throwing this at us because they need money

Ding, ding, ding, winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by drtoohotty1
51,000 and youre upper middle class :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: sweet! Wow, I feel so prestigious. I must be rich!! :hitit: :whipped:

[drtoohotty1]

drop in residents have also been upgraded in the notely government to lower middle class... now how can we tax them next :devil:

[Skyline_Addict]

Originally posted by zipdoa
lol, I love irony.

InRich:

Creates thread bashing someone else's intelligence, lacks the grammatical skills of a 3rd grade elementary school student in Nepal.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[D88]

LOL @ face palm title for a thread calling someone out for being dumb.

[redline]

Originally posted by drtoohotty1
51,000 and youre upper middle class :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: sweet!

Well you are a Beyond Baller for sure with that income level:rofl: :rofl: :D

[civic_stylez]

Change your car??

I hope the majority of Albertans that voted for these clowns will change their vote next time!!!

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ExtraSlow]

I have to say, out of all the various way that government get revenue, I approve of consumption taxes most of all.

Over time, like a decade or more, this will have a noticable effect on behaviour. If this tax lasts that long, that is.

[theFlash]

I have to say, it is completely idiotic to introduce a tax without any goals. How much will the millions in taxes reduce emissions? NDP hasn't been able to answer. It is therefore an obvious cash-grab.

And to think I was going to run parallel cats on my rotary... Not anymore. I'm now thinking about removing the cats from all my vehicles. That's how pissed I get when some airhead wants to mess with my freedom.

[Maxx Mazda]

Originally posted by revelations
Im not pro NDP, but shes just incentivizing less carbon emissions.

Do we need 4 ton SUVs to drive around to/from work in an office?
Probably not and the rest of the world (outside North America) seems to get this. They think the whole SUV thing is idiotic.

Its not popular, but I think shes attempting a slight shift towards people being more energy conscious here.

Less carbon emissions? I'm pretty sure my Ecoboost F-150 (a big fuck-off truck! Oh no!) emits less than half the vehicles out there. Maybe I should downsize to an oil/coolant burning '99 Cavalier? I'm sure that's much better for the environment... :whocares:

[killramos]

Originally posted by theFlash
I have to say, it is completely idiotic to introduce a tax without any goals. How much will the millions in taxes reduce emissions? NDP hasn't been able to answer. It is therefore an obvious cash-grab.

And to think I was going to run parallel cats on my rotary... Not anymore. I'm now thinking about removing the cats from all my vehicles. That's how pissed I get when some airhead wants to mess with my freedom.
https://i.imgflip.com/12vugn.jpg

Try not to ruin things for the rest of us.

[jwslam]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I have to say, out of all the various way that government get revenue, I approve of consumption taxes most of all.

Over time, like a decade or more, this will have a noticable effect on behaviour.
yea because so many people quit smoking for savings
:eek: :eek:

As for emmisions testing... good luck VW owners :rofl:

[rage2]

Originally posted by jwslam
As for emmisions testing... good luck VW owners :rofl:
Emissions testing is done on a dyno, they'll be fine. :rofl:

[revelations]

Originally posted by Maxx Mazda
Less carbon emissions? I'm pretty sure my Ecoboost F-150 (a big fuck-off truck! Oh no!) emits less than half the vehicles out there. Maybe I should downsize to an oil/coolant burning '99 Cavalier? I'm sure that's much better for the environment... :whocares:


You have to understand the big/political optics of this. Bringing in logic or reality doesn't apply when it comes to politics. Bike lanes or 30 limits are a perfect example of breaking something that was fine for most.

The NDP is trying to change the image of AB in order to make our exports more palatable to other markets. Adding "carbon" taxes/etc. will appeal to the green side of politics in other areas, who are considering AB products.

[revelations]

I think you miss the point - who says government should decide what we drive? Why does your vehicle buying decision have to be based upon "need" only? Why are you judging people for their choice of vehicle? I don't need a bunch of sports cars, but who are you to question if I "need" them? Believe it or not some people in Europe and the rest of the world think it's awesome we can get big SUV's and drive them like we do. Clarkson and May loved the pickups they drove here.


IMO - the governtment is simply incentivizing common-sense thinking. Do I need a 4 ton SUV to drive my kids to school? Absolutely not, but if I wish to have one because I WANT TO, then I can go ahead and pay more taxes on a product that consumes more energy.

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by revelations



IMO - the governtment is simply incentivizing common-sense thinking. Do I need a 4 ton SUV to drive my kids to school? Absolutely not, but if I wish to have one because I WANT TO, then I can go ahead and pay more taxes on a product that consumes more energy.

:thumbsup:

[btimbit]

I'd love to get a new car. Can't afford it.

Thanks NDP

[MalibuStacy]

Originally posted by revelations



You have to understand the big/political optics of this. Bringing in logic or reality doesn't apply when it comes to politics. Bike lanes or 30 limits are a perfect example of breaking something that was fine for most.

The NDP is trying to change the image of AB in order to make our exports more palatable to other markets. Adding "carbon" taxes/etc. will appeal to the green side of politics in other areas, who are considering AB products.

Careful now, that kind of talk will get you banned...

I personally hold the idea that if you don't really need a big vehicle like a truck or SUV, then don't drive one. This was much the reason why I got rid of my Malibu with the chev 350, because I could actually value the fun of driving the vehicle to the costs of running it. There are better options for people with families then just trucks (AKA the fuel efficient sedan or van)

If you want something which burns fuel then you should pay more at the pump. Raising the overall price of gas encourages more incentive to drive less, bike more and downsize. May I mention that this frees up the roads and helps foster a healthier community.

I could carry-on on this tangent but I know its fruitless. Most of you will whine and stomp your feet like a child about raising the price of gas, but at the end of the day you wont change anything, you would rather complain :dunno:

Note I now drive a 2001 ford Taurus and it more expensive on gas than my HHR but its temporary till I find new wheels.

[M.alex]

Originally posted by revelations

The NDP is trying to change the image of AB in order to make our exports more palatable to other markets. Adding "carbon" taxes/etc. will appeal to the green side of politics in other areas, who are considering AB products.

nobody considers import/export based on how green you are. It needs to be more cost effective/superior product in order to open new market. You think the US would welcome our pipelines with open arms if we said 'but but but we have lots of windmills so we're cool bro!'

[littledan]

Originally posted by revelations



You have to understand the big/political optics of this. Bringing in logic or reality doesn't apply when it comes to politics. Bike lanes or 30 limits are a perfect example of breaking something that was fine for most.

The NDP is trying to change the image of AB in order to make our exports more palatable to other markets. Adding "carbon" taxes/etc. will appeal to the green side of politics in other areas, who are considering AB products.

i'm fairly certain the only thing that will increase our export market for petro products will be a god damned pipeline getting us to tidewater

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by MalibuStacy
Raising the overall price of gas encourages more incentive to drive less, bike more and downsize.

No, not really. For most people that just isn't a real world option.

Raising the price of things pointlessly like this just increases my cost of living and my cost of operations and THAT just results in me raising my prices to recoup costs which makes you pay more for your things. :dunno:

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by revelations



You have to understand the big/political optics of this. Bringing in logic or reality doesn't apply when it comes to politics. Bike lanes or 30 limits are a perfect example of breaking something that was fine for most.

The NDP is trying to change the image of AB in order to make our exports more palatable to other markets. Adding "carbon" taxes/etc. will appeal to the green side of politics in other areas, who are considering AB products.

Notley couldn't even convince her own party that the introduction of a carbon tax in Alberta made our oil 'greener'.

How can we expect her to convince foreign governments?

[blownz]

I am perfectly fine paying an additional ~5 cents a liter for gas as AB gas will still be cheaper than BC and I don't mind paying for what I use. My problem is with the rebate cheques going to those making less than $51K. By doing that this is no longer about the environment and just another "steal from the rich, give to the poor" scheme. If it was really about the environment then everyone no matter what your wage should pay the same.

Presumably the people under $51K a year on average drive more compact sedans like a civic/corolla vs larger SUV's compared to the people making over $51K. So the "rich" are already going to pay more of this tax. Plus they will typically have larger homes and pay more for natural gas.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by blownz
I am perfectly fine paying an additional ~5 cents a liter for gas as AB gas will still be cheaper than BC and I don't mind paying for what I use. My problem is with the rebate cheques going to those making less than $51K. By doing that this is no longer about the environment and just another "steal from the rich, give to the poor" scheme. If it was really about the environment then everyone no matter what your wage should pay the same.

Presumably the people under $51K a year on average drive more compact sedans like a civic/corolla vs larger SUV's compared to the people making over $51K. So the "rich" are already going to pay more of this tax. Plus they will typically have larger homes and pay more for natural gas.

Totally agree. It's the classic maneuver. We aren't fascist, we're "national socialist."

Quick, let's confuse everyone into thinking this isn't an obvious cash grab.

Everyone should pay their fair share if it's truly about the environment and not about punishing hard working Albertan's.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by MalibuStacy
Raising the overall price of gas encourages more incentive to drive less, bike more and downsize. May I mention that this frees up the roads and helps foster a healthier community.

So... How exactly is this going to help Calgary Transit? Oh right... Guess everyone should trade their bus pass in for a bicycle?

This is a straight up cash grab from a government who refuses to downsize the public sector and is bringing in a PST through the back door.

It has nothing to do with environmentalism but is strictly a new way to raise revenue for the government.

[btimbit]

Originally posted by MalibuStacy


Careful now, that kind of talk will get you banned...

I personally hold the idea that if you don't really need a big vehicle like a truck or SUV, then don't drive one. This was much the reason why I got rid of my Malibu with the chev 350, because I could actually value the fun of driving the vehicle to the costs of running it. There are better options for people with families then just trucks (AKA the fuel efficient sedan or van)

If you want something which burns fuel then you should pay more at the pump. Raising the overall price of gas encourages more incentive to drive less, bike more and downsize. May I mention that this frees up the roads and helps foster a healthier community.

I could carry-on on this tangent but I know its fruitless. Most of you will whine and stomp your feet like a child about raising the price of gas, but at the end of the day you wont change anything, you would rather complain :dunno:

Note I now drive a 2001 ford Taurus and it more expensive on gas than my HHR but its temporary till I find new wheels.

I don't disagree in theory, but real life isn't that simple. The problem is that I do actually need such a big vehicle, yet they want to price me out of it anyway. Now what do I do, if I can't get to work, and can't do my job even if I did get there? Then what, NDP will say just go get a different job where I don't need it? So now I'm forced to get rid of a vehicle I enjoy driving, and leave a job I enjoy doing. What the hell kind of freedom is that?

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by btimbit
I don't disagree in theory, but real life isn't that simple. The problem is that I do actually need such a big vehicle, yet they want to price me out of it anyway. Now what do I do, if I can't get to work, and can't do my job even if I did get there? Then what, NDP will say just go get a different job where I don't need it? So now I'm forced to get rid of a vehicle I enjoy driving, and leave a job I enjoy doing. What the hell kind of freedom is that? I'm sorry...I thought this was CANADA!!! :clap: :eek:

*Edit..no sarcasm directed to you. This policy is outrageous. Fukcing NDP.

[btimbit]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
I'm sorry...I thought this was CANADA!!! :clap: :eek:

Lol. That did come off a little too "G'vmant wants to take my jerb" ish, but it annoys me that this take from the rich to give to the poor stuff is only going to end up being "Take from the average and give it to the below average"

It isn't going to take much from the rich, but it's going to screw over regular people

[Xtrema]

Rick Bell with a trolling headline on the sun, you don't say.

lol

Consumption taxes is about behavioral shaping.

[D88]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I have to say, out of all the various way that government get revenue, I approve of consumption taxes most of all.

Over time, like a decade or more, this will have a noticable effect on behaviour. If this tax lasts that long, that is.

I 100% agree. You're not expected to adjust your lifestyle choices immediately but it will sure influence them in the future. Not a bad idea at all.

[blownz]

Originally posted by D88


I 100% agree. You're not expected to adjust your lifestyle choices immediately but it will sure influence them in the future. Not a bad idea at all.

True but then don't give rebate cheques back to those making under $51K a year. What does that tell them? "Don't worry about the environment and keep being an underachiever and the government will just send you more money from the 'rich'..."

[That.Guy.S30]

Dear NDP. I bring my classic car out of storage on Sunday. Prepare for a greenhouse gas increase. Thanks and fuck you.

Oh btw I'm pretty sure my SUV emits less than my classic car. :poosie:

[D88]

Originally posted by blownz


True but then don't give rebate cheques back to those making under $51K a year. What does that tell them? "Don't worry about the environment and keep being an underachiever and the government will just send you more money from the 'rich'..."

You're right and maybe that's their bid at keeping the vote of the low income populace especially for those who cry the end of the world saying they can't afford it. However, this is written in the budget highlights:

"Over the next 5 years the carbon levy is projected to collect $9.6 billion, which will be reinvested into Alberta’s economy.

$6.2 billion will be spent on diversification of our energy economy and creating jobs, including:

$3.4 billion for large scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology
$2.2 billion for green infrastructure like transit
$645 million for Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new provincial agency that will support increasing energy efficiency for homes and businesses"

So definitely not all of it is going back to the poor.

[littledan]

Originally posted by D88


You're right and maybe that's their bid at keeping the vote of the low income populace especially for those who cry the end of the world saying they can't afford it. However, this is written in the budget highlights:

"Over the next 5 years the carbon levy is projected to collect $9.6 billion, which will be reinvested into Alberta’s economy.

$6.2 billion will be spent on diversification of our energy economy and creating jobs, including:

$3.4 billion for large scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology
$2.2 billion for green infrastructure like transit
$645 million for Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new provincial agency that will support increasing energy efficiency for homes and businesses"

So definitely not all of it is going back to the poor.

FFS... if they are going to reach into our pockets, please just use it to balance the damn budget instead of creating a new 1/2 BILLION $$ bureaucracy. KUDATAH!

[jwslam]

Originally posted by That.Guy.S30
Oh btw I'm pretty sure my SUV emits less than my classic car. :poosie:
So... all beyond users are rallying to remove cat converters?

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by D88


You're right and maybe that's their bid at keeping the vote of the low income populace especially for those who cry the end of the world saying they can't afford it. However, this is written in the budget highlights:

"Over the next 5 years the carbon levy is projected to collect $9.6 billion, which will be reinvested into Alberta’s economy.

$6.2 billion will be spent on diversification of our energy economy and creating jobs, including:

$3.4 billion for large scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology
$2.2 billion for green infrastructure like transit
$645 million for Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new provincial agency that will support increasing energy efficiency for homes and businesses"

So definitely not all of it is going back to the poor.

Why do you believe any of those promises will happen? I remember a similar tune sung about some fast ferries in a province I lived in to the west of here, we all know where that ended up.

"New provincial agency". Perfect that's exactly what we need :nut: furthermore why do we need an agency? I thought we were going to change everyone's behaviour through taxation, isn't that why our lovely Premier told me to buy a different car?

The whole situation is just completely insane.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz


Change! You are car!



http://img1.joyreactor.com/pics/comment/gif-human-car-transformer-543865.gif

[Aleks]

Originally posted by jwslam

So... all beyond users are rallying to remove cat converters?

My fire pit will be going all summer to get as much carbon out before the "upper middle class" fire pits start being taxed.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by D88


I 100% agree. You're not expected to adjust your lifestyle choices immediately but it will sure influence them in the future. Not a bad idea at all.

Wrong, all this does is punish those in the middle class. Take DiCaprio for example. The guy is a rabid climate alarmist. So how have increased levies and taxes changed his behaviour? None, he continues flying everywhere, cruising in expensive yachts and consuming those horrible carbon producing products he says he hates Instead he buys "carbon credits" and continues the lifestyle he says is killing everyone. And he is fully on board with current climate theory. Now how about a billionaire who really doesn't give a damn? Think his behaviour will change? When even rich climate change assholes who are telling everyone else what they should do won't change? I guess the thought is you can buy your way out of it if you have enough money. But for anyone else tough darts - if you can't afford it I guess it's too bad, you get to be the sacrificial lambs. And where does the money go? Down the rabbit hole of government pet projects.

And you know what? I am OK with people being able to afford it - just don't feed me the bullshit that any of it is to change the climate. It's an excuse to spread the wealth - something I am willing to bet is the real agenda

[revelations]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


So... How exactly is this going to help Calgary Transit? Oh right... Guess everyone should trade their bus pass in for a bicycle?

This is a straight up cash grab from a government who refuses to downsize the public sector and is bringing in a PST through the back door.

It has nothing to do with environmentalism but is strictly a new way to raise revenue for the government.

Its a win/win/win in the governments eyes as they can:

a) create the APPEARANCE of being "greener" for the rest of the politicians who have to deal with AB

b) create additional income while incentivizing rational thinking (we dont need 4 ton SUVs to drive kids to school)

c) maybe reduce worldwide CO2 by ~0.000001% (which still passes as an APPEARANCE of reduction)

[revelations]

Originally posted by M.alex
nobody considers import/export based on how green you are.

Thats just plain false. AB has a horrible environmental "image" in the minds of the public and politics outside our province. Trying to get politicians to approve pipelines, or other things about AB (because all they care about is getting reelected) is all part of this green bs game.

Right or wrong, the NDP are at least trying to make a change in this image (no, I did not vote NDP).

[heavyD]

Originally posted by revelations



IMO - the governtment is simply incentivizing common-sense thinking. Do I need a 4 ton SUV to drive my kids to school? Absolutely not, but if I wish to have one because I WANT TO, then I can go ahead and pay more taxes on a product that consumes more energy.

Yeah I'm fine with this. There's simply way too many pickup trucks being used as commuters in this province and those people should be free to choose to commute with the vehicle of their choice but they will have to accept that it's just going to cost them a little more.

[Darell_n]

People need to stop driving VW, Audi, Porsche diesels and buy more trucks. Save the environment!

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by revelations


Thats just plain false. AB has a horrible environmental "image" in the minds of the public and politics outside our province. Trying to get politicians to approve pipelines, or other things about AB (because all they care about is getting reelected) is all part of this green bs game.

Right or wrong, the NDP are at least trying to make a change in this image (no, I did not vote NDP).

I don't agree with the way they are going about it, but I agree with you 100% on that. A lot of my BC friends have this mentality that we all drive catless trucks, work in the oilfield and don't appreciate nature. My favorite is when people say "Alberta's so flat." How I know that you've never been here. :rofl:

[flipstah]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point


I don't agree with the way they are going about it, but I agree with you 100% on that. A lot of my BC friends have this mentality that we all drive catless trucks, work in the oilfield and don't appreciate nature. My favorite is when people say "Alberta's so flat." How I know that you've never been here. :rofl:

Rocky Mountains are so flat. ROFL.

[D88]

Originally posted by soloracer


Wrong, all this does is punish those in the middle class. Take DiCaprio for example. The guy is a rabid climate alarmist. So how have increased levies and taxes changed his behaviour? None, he continues flying everywhere, cruising in expensive yachts and consuming those horrible carbon producing products he says he hates Instead he buys "carbon credits" and continues the lifestyle he says is killing everyone. And he is fully on board with current climate theory. Now how about a billionaire who really doesn't give a damn? Think his behaviour will change? When even rich climate change assholes who are telling everyone else what they should do won't change? I guess the thought is you can buy your way out of it if you have enough money. But for anyone else tough darts - if you can't afford it I guess it's too bad, you get to be the sacrificial lambs. And where does the money go? Down the rabbit hole of government pet projects.

And you know what? I am OK with people being able to afford it - just don't feed me the bullshit that any of it is to change the climate. It's an excuse to spread the wealth - something I am willing to bet is the real agenda

I'm sceptical of the use of "agendas" as it alludes to conspiracies that haven't been proven (ie. suggesting the carbon levy and other environmental conservation initiatives are ploys to further dissolve the middle class) and I'm not a fan of "rich privilege" either but the truth is, the middle and lower classes make up 80% or more of Canada's population so influencing these demographics' spending behaviour is still the best measure to combat climate change. While individually, the carbon footprint from wealthy people is several magnitudes higher than that coming from a middle or lower class individual, as a collective, I would wager the carbon output from the wealthy is still significantly lower than the output from the entirety of Canada's 80%.

I'm not saying that I'm happy to be spending more towards this cause since I will likely not be alive long enough to enjoy the benefits if any even materialize. We're betting on time scales that exceed the lives of anyone on this planet. That's why it's so difficult to get passed selfish behaviours which lead us to this mess of climate change to begin with. The wealthy predominantly became rich off selfishness so they're the least likely to change their behaviour and they have the unique ability to resist it (they can afford to). People like me who are middle class, unfortunately have to suffer the most but, in a way, I support the ability of our government to enact (force if you will) this policy on us since there is a chance it can make a difference. It at least has the potential of doing more than we have been doing up to this point.

[max_boost]

oh yes. downsize to a civic or corolla because the NDP said so!

[n1zm0]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
Change! You are car!


p2AgUudfcQA?t=40s

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by max_boost
oh yes. downsize to a civic or corolla because the NDP said so! Actually I did, I went from 5.7/5.0 V8 gas guzzlers to a low emissions civic :angel: Go Notley Go!

[suntan]

Originally posted by D88


I'm sceptical of the use of "agendas" as it alludes to conspiracies that haven't been proven (ie. suggesting the carbon levy and other environmental conservation initiatives are ploys to further dissolve the middle class) and I'm not a fan of "rich privilege" either but the truth is, the middle and lower classes make up 80% or more of Canada's population so influencing these demographics' spending behaviour is still the best measure to combat climate change. While individually, the carbon footprint from wealthy people is several magnitudes higher than that coming from a middle or lower class individual, as a collective, I would wager the carbon output from the wealthy is still significantly lower than the output from the entirety of Canada's 80%.

I'm not saying that I'm happy to be spending more towards this cause since I will likely not be alive long enough to enjoy the benefits if any even materialize. We're betting on time scales that exceed the lives of anyone on this planet. That's why it's so difficult to get passed selfish behaviours which lead us to this mess of climate change to begin with. The wealthy predominantly became rich off selfishness so they're the least likely to change their behaviour and they have the unique ability to resist it (they can afford to). People like me who are middle class, unfortunately have to suffer the most but, in a way, I support the ability of our government to enact (force if you will) this policy on us since there is a chance it can make a difference. It at least has the potential of doing more than we have been doing up to this point. Then both the AB and Fed gov't should say this. Let's see what happens next.

Both parties got voted in on major parts of their platform message being "the rich are screwing you!11!!!".

[soloracer]

Originally posted by D88


I'm sceptical of the use of "agendas" as it alludes to conspiracies that haven't been proven (ie. suggesting the carbon levy and other environmental conservation initiatives are ploys to further dissolve the middle class) and I'm not a fan of "rich privilege" either but the truth is, the middle and lower classes make up 80% or more of Canada's population so influencing these demographics' spending behaviour is still the best measure to combat climate change. While individually, the carbon footprint from wealthy people is several magnitudes higher than that coming from a middle or lower class individual, as a collective, I would wager the carbon output from the wealthy is still significantly lower than the output from the entirety of Canada's 80%.

I'm not saying that I'm happy to be spending more towards this cause since I will likely not be alive long enough to enjoy the benefits if any even materialize. We're betting on time scales that exceed the lives of anyone on this planet. That's why it's so difficult to get passed selfish behaviours which lead us to this mess of climate change to begin with. The wealthy predominantly became rich off selfishness so they're the least likely to change their behaviour and they have the unique ability to resist it (they can afford to). People like me who are middle class, unfortunately have to suffer the most but, in a way, I support the ability of our government to enact (force if you will) this policy on us since there is a chance it can make a difference. It at least has the potential of doing more than we have been doing up to this point.

From Ban Ki Moon today during the signing of the latest climate agreement:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon thanked Trudeau for his leadership on climate action and "Canada's strong commitment for ratification as well financial support."

"We are in a race against time," Ban said at the opening of the ceremony, urging all countries to quickly sign the treaty.

"Let us never forget — climate action is not a burden," said Ban. "Indeed, it offers many benefits. It can help us eradicate poverty, create green jobs, defeat hunger, prevent instability and improve the lives of girls and women. Climate action is essential to achieve the sustainable development goals."


I thought the goal of Climate action was to stop the planet from warming? Instead it’s morphed into this grand social experiment. When did eradicating poverty, defeating hunger, improving lives of girls and women and preventing instability become the focus? It just lends credence to the theory that this whole movement is less about science and more about social engineering. If a technology came about that completely removed carbon from vehicle emissions does anyone here honestly think the climate movement would be happy? Or would they try another tact to push their social agenda - oil is bad, green is the only way.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by soloracer
I thought the goal of Climate action was to stop the planet from warming?

If this was really the case we would be building nuclear plants. Instead people are shutting them down and going back to coal like Germany... The whole movement is just full stupid ATM lots of hand waving with no solutions.

Nukes it's the only way and yet no one wants to do anything on that front.

[revelations]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


If this was really the case we would be building nuclear plants. Instead people are shutting them down and going back to coal like Germany... The whole movement is just full stupid ATM lots of hand waving with no solutions.

Nukes it's the only way and yet no one wants to do anything on that front.

:werd: While its good to promote general efficiency and common sense practices in the general population (reduce, reuse, recycle) the governments in Europe and NA dont seem to get common sense.

Its all about BS optics. One reactor in Japan goes underwater in an insane event and suddenly the idiots in charge decide that Nuclear power is not green because it can affect their reelection chances.

Finland is one of the few countries that are EXPANDING their nuclear power production as it makes sense for them (even through AREVA botched one reactor build and are paying up the ass to fix).

Finland was also one of the closest neighbours to Chernobyl and was affected by the radiation yet the population in Finland is very pro-nuclear because common sense build and design practices are done there (not 40 year old designs) prevail and nuclear accidents are non-existant.

[suntan]

Originally posted by soloracer


From Ban Ki Moon today during the signing of the latest climate agreement:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon thanked Trudeau for his leadership on climate action and "Canada's strong commitment for ratification as well financial support."

"We are in a race against time," Ban said at the opening of the ceremony, urging all countries to quickly sign the treaty.

"Let us never forget — climate action is not a burden," said Ban. "Indeed, it offers many benefits. It can help us eradicate poverty, create green jobs, defeat hunger, prevent instability and improve the lives of girls and women. Climate action is essential to achieve the sustainable development goals."


I thought the goal of Climate action was to stop the planet from warming? Instead it’s morphed into this grand social experiment. When did eradicating poverty, defeating hunger, improving lives of girls and women and preventing instability become the focus? It just lends credence to the theory that this whole movement is less about science and more about social engineering. If a technology came about that completely removed carbon from vehicle emissions does anyone here honestly think the climate movement would be happy? Or would they try another tact to push their social agenda - oil is bad, green is the only way. The feeling is that BIG OIL runs things.

See, once BIG OIL is out of the picture, you won't be spending $x on heating your house, going places or having goods and services available to you.

Instead, you will pay $3x to BIG SOLAR for the same privilege.

(Oh, and $x to BIG OIL still because base power is still needed).