Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1033

Thread: Provincial Climate Change Plan

  1. #201
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    ^ On the news the other night there was somebody saying that there should be a balanced approach and the minster said they'd listen
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Memo to current or future AB gov't: don't sign fixed-rate agreements. Problem solved.
    Then nobody will invest the billions needed to build a power plant, and we won't have enough power. Would you spend billions on a wind farm, solar plant, or new gas power stations, knowing that a future government could just change the legislation / price, making it a complete loss? I wouldn't.

    ^I hope so, to the extent they aren't already sunk, what these rules will do to our power prices, will sink them, otherwise.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-08-2016 at 01:39 PM.

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Memo to current or future AB gov't: don't sign fixed-rate agreements. Problem solved.
    Then nobody will invest the billions needed to build a power plant, and we won't have enough power. Would you spend billions on a wind farm, solar plant, or new gas power stations, knowing that a future government could just change the legislation / price, making it a complete loss? I wouldn't.

    ^I hope so, to the extent they aren't already sunk, what these rules will do to our power prices, will sink them, otherwise.
    There's few guarantees in most other businesses. Oil sand plants were built with some royalty rate stability, but tax rates, exchange rates, labour rates, transportation rates, product/output prices, etc. could all be expected to fluctuate unexpectedly. Even pollution regulations change. They've changed in all kinds of times and places. Then there's financing costs. Not all financing can be cash flow matched over the life of asset, so there's interest rate risk.

    If the risk of change is so great businesses won't build the hugely expensive plants, but they will build small, low cost plants (gas turbine, etc). So system costs might end up being far higher but with less mega-project risk. Production might be built to much closer match demand growth. Then large scale high efficiency plants might come in after-the-fact to steal away assured customers from the higher cost suppliers of small increment growth. (Like a Safeway moving into a town serviced by corner grocery stores).
    Last edited by KC; 10-08-2016 at 02:36 PM.

  4. #204
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Has the Hartland project started or is that old news?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  5. #205

    Default Whoops

    I guess this is how billion dollar policy mistakes happen, when you rely on academics not business people to give you advice:

    Leach admits in hindsight he wished he had a crystal ball or be able to travel back in a time machine and return to the report of the climate change panel he headed.

    Then he could talk about the risk of power outfits handing back electricity contracts losing value.

    "During the time when the government was making these policy decisions all of their analysis was pointing to these things going to remain profitable," says Leach.

    The University of Alberta professor says they "did a bunch of analysis" but "a scenario of the prices being where they are today wasn't there."

    "I thought we covered the bases of likely outcomes."

    But he admits number crunching to account for the increased costs for coal-fired electricity combined with lower prices is something he didn't have.

    "As far as I've seen nobody did," he adds.
    http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...ity-argy-bargy

    It didn't take Enmax, and similar, very long to figure it out...

  6. #206
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ...because the business community predicted the collapse of oil prices so well​?

  7. #207

    Default

    ^they knew they could cancel the contracts, and they did. That price scenario should have been run. When I see a capital project models for business projects, this is normal practice, to build in sensitivities for all possible price scenarios. It was pretty silly to just assume nothing could change, re gas or coal power production prices and power demand levels.
    Last edited by moahunter; 11-08-2016 at 09:21 AM.

  8. #208
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I don't think anyone was predicting such a catastrophic collapse. Normally what models do is incorporate past trends and extrapolate them into the future should any of them happen to create a high, low, and average prediction - the range within is what policy is made for (or business decisions).

    Including such an abnormal collapse of prices would have been statistically irrelevant as an outlier. This collapse is unprecedented - you truly would have needed a crystal ball to see the perfect confluence of geopolitics and market conditions that created it.

  9. #209

    Default

    ^the prices haven't changed that much for gas (its been depressed for years, ever since the fracking revolution started), and the increase for coal is related to these policies / phase out. This was totally predictable, I'm sure at Enmax and Capital Power they rubbed their hands with glee when they saw the opportunity to get out of the contracts because of this bungled report / policy.
    Last edited by moahunter; 11-08-2016 at 09:28 AM.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I don't think anyone was predicting such a catastrophic collapse. Normally what models do is incorporate past trends and extrapolate them into the future should any of them happen to create a high, low, and average prediction - the range within is what policy is made for (or business decisions).

    Including such an abnormal collapse of prices would have been statistically irrelevant as an outlier. This collapse is unprecedented - you truly would have needed a crystal ball to see the perfect confluence of geopolitics and market conditions that created it.
    Yeah it's a common but pretty moronic approach to the real world. It was neither abnormal nor statistically irrelevant - nor unprecedented. The direct causes were different this time, but many commodities go through booms and busts and the triggers of under and overproduction and new technologies offering up alternatives or even greater production are common.

    Similarly, the 1929 stock market collapse will never repeat itself but that doesn't mean that a similar or greater magnitude drop couldn't occur and that there wouldn't be many parallels. Anyone running an analysis would have excluded 1929 data as anomalous - which is moronic because it reflects a reality in the data. (Personally, by early to mid 2008 I'd moved the family's accounts that I controlled to 85% plus cash - selling decades old positions. The parallels and risks were just too great. Moreover, here on c2e I've created several threads about preparing for the possibility of price collapses.)

    Finally, just look around you. Katrina, floods, tsunamis, a global financial collapse, nuclear plants on beaches being flooded, etc. Wouldn't that wake up an academic to the flaws in just extrapolating past trends.

    BTW I've done a bit of forecasting myself but never took it seriously.
    Last edited by KC; 11-08-2016 at 09:45 AM.

  11. #211

    Default

    BC leadership:



    B.C.'s delayed Climate Leadership Plan expected today - British Columbia - CBC News



    Gordon Campbell launched the province's Climate Action Plan, which established the B.C. carbon tax, legislated emission reduction targets and other policies.

    Since Clark succeeded Campbell as Liberal leader and premier in 2011, she has frozen the carbon tax, which was supposed to rise over time, and failed to replace it with any policy to tackle rising emissions, said Mark Jaccard, a professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University and former climate adviser to Campbell.

    "She has not taken any action on climate. She has shown no leadership," said Jaccard.

    "While she was talking about B.C. being a leader and her being a leader by inference, she was actually the antithesis of a leader, so that puts her in the cynical category."

    Greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. have risen since 2012, making it "extremely difficult" for the province to meet its own legislated target for 2020 of cutting emissions by one-third from 2007 levels, according to the province's Climate Leadership Team report.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...oday-1.3726795




  12. #212
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    ^ Wasn't everything in BC tax wise loaded into a Harmonized sales tax including "climate change"?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  13. #213
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,240

    Default

    more bc leadership as bc contemplated reopening the coal mines in tumbler ridge.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...coal-1.3737094

    with a bit more time, we might well see "clean and green alberta" and "dirty but still holier than thou bc"...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #214
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Hicks column today in The Sun is bang on. He has been writing some good stuff since he retired from Hicks on Six. He was wasted there. He and Gunter are head and shoulders above the weak and bland sh*t The Journal coughs up.

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/09/0...ing-to-alberta

  15. #215

    Default

    ^he is bang on.

    Alberta has flourished since the discovery of oil near Leduc in 1947. Instead of a military economic presence, we have the corporate oil headquarters in Calgary. Instead of ship-building, Greater Edmonton provides the industry with equipment, systems and solutions.

    Instead of ship-construction and fishing expertise, we are global leaders in heavy oil/bitumen technology. Unacknowledged, unappreciated, Alberta's scientists have accomplished miracles in lowering the environmental footprint of oil and gas extraction - and could have done the same with coal.

    But, like Louisbourg, our enemies are gathering outside our walls. And even worse, within.

    ...


    I'll tell you what will replace oil and gas.

    Nothing.

    Other than a bit of tourism, nothing replaced ship-building, coal-mining and fishing in the Maritimes.

    If the oil industry fades from this province as fishing faded from the Maritimes, nothing will produce the same jobs, wealth creation and technological innovation.

    Some vision, eh?
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/09/0...ing-to-alberta

  16. #216
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,454

    Default

    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    You are in dream land. Without oil and gas, we will be like Montana, which is geographically about the same as us, but stuff all population, just tourism, farming, and US missile bases (which we probably won't get anytime soon). Unless there is a reason to live in this part of the world (farming, tourism, oil and gas, chemicals processing), nobody is going to choose it ahead of a location closer to population centers / better climate. Hi tech or pharmaceuticals for example, will go to BC or California, we already see that, anytime a high tech company gets anywhere in terms of size, they quickly move on - such locations already have much bigger economies in that respect. We are a world leader in oil and gas technology / processing / extraction, we have no competitive advantages that will make us a world leader in anything else unless its linked to that, other than isolated industries (which are themselves supported by that oil and gas money, like all the UofA research). Populations will just move on to where the opportunities are, its why its so important to keep our opportunities / competitive advantages strong, not to hamstring it with foolish regulations that nobody else in North America are doing, other than places that don't have those advantages.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2016 at 10:17 AM.

  18. #218
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.

  19. #219
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Without infrastructure spending our local economy would be similar to the 1980's.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Without infrastructure spending our local economy would be similar to the 1980's.
    Hicks' history lessons are useless. We had our own history lessons from the past boom and bust and we ignored them. Why would we feel that we should pay attention to other mismanaged economies and look for lessons from them, when we have directly applicable lessons right here, from the 1980s and earlier (the 1950s and 1960s.) We will just get more short-term boom thinking and then bust thinking. Knee-jerk behaviours, that is all.

    Moreover, it got worse as in the 90s the infrastructure spending had stopped and government was downsizing and deciding to go risk-free by paying down the debt. Klein had run up his city's debt way, way up and then did a 180 degree turnaround and decided that zero debt was what the province needed.

    Correct me if I'm wrong: There was minimal new investment in oil and gas in the late 80s. Plus by the late 80s and early 1990s diversification attempts had yielded little. (Remember the little to show for the money attempts? MagCan's huge magnesium plant, along with tech investing like NovaTel?, research parks, and health research funding, etc.) The lack of success of those investments permanently scared away government and the citizens by the time Klien came to power.

    Then in 1990s we were all talking up the emerging forestry sector (Whitecourt) and federal aid/assistance to get oil sands developments Kickstarter again.
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2016 at 03:34 PM.

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    They are creating a soft landing.

    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2016 at 03:42 PM.

  22. #222
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.

    They aren't creating a soft landing. Their game plan, like every other NDP gov't in Canada is tax and spend and keep the public sector unions fat and happy while the debt rises. Then after, in this case, one term they will be turfed.

    Difference this time around is that they had to fly in staff from all over Canada because for, oh I don't know, ever they were so small they didn't even have official party status. And there is also a distinct environmental extremism bent to this gov't. Partly because it was brought in, but also because it already existed in this phone booth party.

    My prediction is when they get turfed the debt will be north of 50 billion and we will never see them get over 5 seats again. You can talk all you want about what Klein did or didn't do, these guys are now running the show and they are going to fail miserably.

  23. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.

    They aren't creating a soft landing. Their game plan, like every other NDP gov't in Canada is tax and spend and keep the public sector unions fat and happy while the debt rises. Then after, in this case, one term they will be turfed.

    Difference this time around is that they had to fly in staff from all over Canada because for, oh I don't know, ever they were so small they didn't even have official party status. And there is also a distinct environmental extremism bent to this gov't. Partly because it was brought in, but also because it already existed in this phone booth party.

    My prediction is when they get turfed the debt will be north of 50 billion and we will never see them get over 5 seats again. You can talk all you want about what Klein did or didn't do, these guys are now running the show and they are going to fail miserably.
    Trust me I'm not an NDP guy but haven't recent polls indicated NDP would still be the party of choice if another election was held? the fact that the Unite the Right movement has achieved nothing to this point and that a huge % of voters work for said government makes me believe we are stuck with them for quite awhile.

  24. #224
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.

    They aren't creating a soft landing. Their game plan, like every other NDP gov't in Canada is tax and spend and keep the public sector unions fat and happy while the debt rises. Then after, in this case, one term they will be turfed.

    Difference this time around is that they had to fly in staff from all over Canada because for, oh I don't know, ever they were so small they didn't even have official party status. And there is also a distinct environmental extremism bent to this gov't. Partly because it was brought in, but also because it already existed in this phone booth party.

    My prediction is when they get turfed the debt will be north of 50 billion and we will never see them get over 5 seats again. You can talk all you want about what Klein did or didn't do, these guys are now running the show and they are going to fail miserably.
    That is not correct. NDP has taken a number of measures against unions. I cannot speak of them in detail because it affects my job. But you would be surprised that it has not been all ideology.

  25. #225
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happydays View Post
    Trust me I'm not an NDP guy but haven't recent polls indicated NDP would still be the party of choice if another election was held? the fact that the Unite the Right movement has achieved nothing to this point and that a huge % of voters work for said government makes me believe we are stuck with them for quite awhile.
    I'm a fiscal conservative, I have probably voted for every party both federally and provincially at one time or another. But the old saying about voting NDP with your heart or head applies to me.

    If I had to choose from all the opposition MLAs right now I'd probably pick the PC Veterinarian Dr. Richard Starkey from Vermilion. But to be honest the pickings are slim. Its not like there are a host of talented and experienced candidates. I think Jean can do a better job than Notley, although she is probably a better politician, just on ideology alone. Kenney isn't a social conservative even though the left plays out to be. The province has moved on from social conservatism, those who can't figure that out will never succeed.

    The unite the right movement isn't really going to be determined until at the very earliest when the PCs pick a new leader. If the Wild Rose and PCs don't unite I still think one will form the next gov't even it is a minority. Unless the price of oil rebounds to over $75 a barrel which seems unlikely but who knows. If the Liberals approve a pipeline that could help too, but it will be their decision, doesn't have anything to do with the NDP. The Liberals will do it because the economy needs the money, not from a high moral ground or to save the environment.

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.

    They aren't creating a soft landing. Their game plan, like every other NDP gov't in Canada is tax and spend and keep the public sector unions fat and happy while the debt rises. Then after, in this case, one term they will be turfed.

    Difference this time around is that they had to fly in staff from all over Canada because for, oh I don't know, ever they were so small they didn't even have official party status. And there is also a distinct environmental extremism bent to this gov't. Partly because it was brought in, but also because it already existed in this phone booth party.

    My prediction is when they get turfed the debt will be north of 50 billion and we will never see them get over 5 seats again. You can talk all you want about what Klein did or didn't do, these guys are now running the show and they are going to fail miserably.


    You'll find the some of the hardest right wingers love debt and use it to the hilt. It's other people's money after all, which is very much in alignment with "Looking out for Number One" attitudes.

    Balanced budgets historically left-wing territory
    By: David McGrane
    Posted: 08/31/2015

    ...When it came to power in 1944, the first thing that the Saskatchewan CCF did was to balance the provincial budget after years of fiscal mismanagement by the Liberals. The CCF then adopted a "pay as you go" philosophy that increased taxes on business to raise spending on social programs. Tommy Douglas never ran a deficit during his 17 years as premier of Saskatchewan and routinely dedicated 10 per cent of government revenues to paying down the provincial government’s debt. Douglas consistently argued that it would be folly to run up public debt because tax revenue would end up going the bankers in the form of debt servicing charges instead of being used on programs that could aid citizens.

    Subsequent NDP governments in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba frequently balanced the provincial budget while continuing to build up welfare state. For example, the Ed Schreyer government produced surpluses in eight out of its nine budgets.

    As we can see, history teaches us that being fiscally responsible does not somehow make a political party instantly right-wing. Similarly, promising to run a deficit does not guarantee a political party left-wing bona fides.
    ...

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...323482351.html
    Of course there will be debatable points due to flaky accounting and issues around what is a deficit, what is debt, net debt, etc
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2016 at 07:13 PM.

  27. #227
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.

    They aren't creating a soft landing. Their game plan, like every other NDP gov't in Canada is tax and spend and keep the public sector unions fat and happy while the debt rises. Then after, in this case, one term they will be turfed.

    Difference this time around is that they had to fly in staff from all over Canada because for, oh I don't know, ever they were so small they didn't even have official party status. And there is also a distinct environmental extremism bent to this gov't. Partly because it was brought in, but also because it already existed in this phone booth party.

    My prediction is when they get turfed the debt will be north of 50 billion and we will never see them get over 5 seats again. You can talk all you want about what Klein did or didn't do, these guys are now running the show and they are going to fail miserably.


    You'll find the some of the hardest right wingers love debt and use it to the hilt. It's other people's money after all, which is very much in alignment with "Looking out for Number One" attitudes.

    Balanced budgets historically left-wing territory
    By: David McGrane
    Posted: 08/31/2015

    ...When it came to power in 1944, the first thing that the Saskatchewan CCF did was to balance the provincial budget after years of fiscal mismanagement by the Liberals. The CCF then adopted a "pay as you go" philosophy that increased taxes on business to raise spending on social programs. Tommy Douglas never ran a deficit during his 17 years as premier of Saskatchewan and routinely dedicated 10 per cent of government revenues to paying down the provincial government’s debt. Douglas consistently argued that it would be folly to run up public debt because tax revenue would end up going the bankers in the form of debt servicing charges instead of being used on programs that could aid citizens.

    Subsequent NDP governments in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba frequently balanced the provincial budget while continuing to build up welfare state. For example, the Ed Schreyer government produced surpluses in eight out of its nine budgets.

    As we can see, history teaches us that being fiscally responsible does not somehow make a political party instantly right-wing. Similarly, promising to run a deficit does not guarantee a political party left-wing bona fides.
    ...

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...323482351.html
    Of course there will be debatable points due to flaky accounting and issues around what is a deficit, what is debt, net debt, etc
    You have to go back to 1944 and you think that is relevant? The federal welfare state didn't start until the Liberals brought it in the 60s. In the 40s there was no EI, CPP or OAS, back in the 40s you had the church and self help basically. Those gov'ts do not resemble todays NDP.

    I'm talking about the NDP gov'ts provincially since then, how have they done? And then ask yourself what end of the spectrum is this present gov't. Are they acting like Liberals? No they are not. They are doubling down with a very very thin amount of expertise and experience. All at a time that could be described as existential for this province. A perfect storm really.

    Talk about what is happening here today.

  28. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ On the news the other night there was somebody saying that there should be a balanced approach and the minster said they'd listen

    Funny, several people in the industry (especially Generation) said, " Hey, we have some suggestions as we too look at coal and its work...and also own large assets in BioMass, Solar, Wind...so we have some experience to back up our claims..." and there were crickets and a couple, "Thanks, now **** off." as a response. Sunshine and lollypops or buh bye...kind of like when many of us told the Blatchford team their ideas didn't translate to this geographic locale...

    I was sure not surprised to see Transmission and Distribution companies line up with the new climate plan. Gee, I wonder who profits from laying all these new T lines for these supposed new generation stations littered all over the province v the large scale generation stations....

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Memo to current or future AB gov't: don't sign fixed-rate agreements. Problem solved.
    Then nobody will invest the billions needed to build a power plant, and we won't have enough power. Would you spend billions on a wind farm, solar plant, or new gas power stations, knowing that a future government could just change the legislation / price, making it a complete loss? I wouldn't.

    ^I hope so, to the extent they aren't already sunk, what these rules will do to our power prices, will sink them, otherwise.
    OK, so I've been on both types of units...market and a unit pair under a PPA. The market unit was more enjoyable to run.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the prices haven't changed that much for gas (its been depressed for years, ever since the fracking revolution started), and the increase for coal is related to these policies / phase out. This was totally predictable, I'm sure at Enmax and Capital Power they rubbed their hands with glee when they saw the opportunity to get out of the contracts because of this bungled report / policy.
    Nope. Actually SUN 1/2 went force majeure...was shut down...and then was sued back into production. SUN 1/2 were pretty much as old as WAB 4. The Generators disliked the PPA's more than the people purchasing the power.

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    Actually, Hick's simplified version is not that far off. Sure, we can diversify somewhat, but the resources we need are not here. We, by simple geography, are pretty hooped in areas like manufacturing etc. I wish it was different.
    Onward and upward

  29. #229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Without infrastructure spending our local economy would be similar to the 1980's.
    Hicks' history lessons are useless. We had our own history lessons from the past boom and bust and we ignored them. Why would we feel that we should pay attention to other mismanaged economies and look for lessons from them, when we have directly applicable lessons right here, from the 1980s and earlier (the 1950s and 1960s.) We will just get more short-term boom thinking and then bust thinking. Knee-jerk behaviours, that is all.

    Moreover, it got worse as in the 90s the infrastructure spending had stopped and government was downsizing and deciding to go risk-free by paying down the debt. Klein had run up his city's debt way, way up and then did a 180 degree turnaround and decided that zero debt was what the province needed.

    Correct me if I'm wrong: There was minimal new investment in oil and gas in the late 80s. Plus by the late 80s and early 1990s diversification attempts had yielded little. (Remember the little to show for the money attempts? MagCan's huge magnesium plant, along with tech investing like NovaTel?, research parks, and health research funding, etc.) The lack of success of those investments permanently scared away government and the citizens by the time Klien came to power.

    Then in 1990s we were all talking up the emerging forestry sector (Whitecourt) and federal aid/assistance to get oil sands developments Kickstarter again.
    Hindsight is all fine and well but the economic situation in the 1980's is similar to what we're facing now.

    On paper however Kline did announce that Alberta was debt free, hence the Ralph bucks we had received later. This reply to your post is written from the computer Purchased by those same Ralph bucks.

    That's when head offices moved to Calgary

    By the mid 1990's our 1982-96 recession was just about over and on the rebound.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    ^^ We have a diversified economy already, canola, forestry, tourism, electricity etc. This whole "Provincial Climate change strategy" is a tax grab. As for manufacturing most of that is back east because they don't have the natural resources to the extent like we do here in Alberta.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    I bet they could cancel the carbon tax, leave corporate tax rates the same AND cut royalty rates to zero and we wouldn't see investment anywhere near what we saw ten years ago. Oil is a commodity investment where huge upfront capital projects are very risky right now with shale availability and a global shift to renewables. The growth of oil demand, which continues unabated will improve oils prospects but the price of oil will determine when it's safe to plough billions into further oil sands expansion. Until the price climbs we will have to rely on cost cutting in that business's technologies to bring in new investment. Maybe new solvent technologies or something.

    They aren't creating a soft landing. Their game plan, like every other NDP gov't in Canada is tax and spend and keep the public sector unions fat and happy while the debt rises. Then after, in this case, one term they will be turfed.

    Difference this time around is that they had to fly in staff from all over Canada because for, oh I don't know, ever they were so small they didn't even have official party status. And there is also a distinct environmental extremism bent to this gov't. Partly because it was brought in, but also because it already existed in this phone booth party.

    My prediction is when they get turfed the debt will be north of 50 billion and we will never see them get over 5 seats again. You can talk all you want about what Klein did or didn't do, these guys are now running the show and they are going to fail miserably.


    You'll find the some of the hardest right wingers love debt and use it to the hilt. It's other people's money after all, which is very much in alignment with "Looking out for Number One" attitudes.

    Balanced budgets historically left-wing territory
    By: David McGrane
    Posted: 08/31/2015

    ...When it came to power in 1944, the first thing that the Saskatchewan CCF did was to balance the provincial budget after years of fiscal mismanagement by the Liberals. The CCF then adopted a "pay as you go" philosophy that increased taxes on business to raise spending on social programs. Tommy Douglas never ran a deficit during his 17 years as premier of Saskatchewan and routinely dedicated 10 per cent of government revenues to paying down the provincial government’s debt. Douglas consistently argued that it would be folly to run up public debt because tax revenue would end up going the bankers in the form of debt servicing charges instead of being used on programs that could aid citizens.

    Subsequent NDP governments in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba frequently balanced the provincial budget while continuing to build up welfare state. For example, the Ed Schreyer government produced surpluses in eight out of its nine budgets.

    As we can see, history teaches us that being fiscally responsible does not somehow make a political party instantly right-wing. Similarly, promising to run a deficit does not guarantee a political party left-wing bona fides.
    ...

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...323482351.html
    Of course there will be debatable points due to flaky accounting and issues around what is a deficit, what is debt, net debt, etc
    You have to go back to 1944 and you think that is relevant? The federal welfare state didn't start until the Liberals brought it in the 60s. In the 40s there was no EI, CPP or OAS, back in the 40s you had the church and self help basically. Those gov'ts do not resemble todays NDP.

    I'm talking about the NDP gov'ts provincially since then, how have they done? And then ask yourself what end of the spectrum is this present gov't. Are they acting like Liberals? No they are not. They are doubling down with a very very thin amount of expertise and experience. All at a time that could be described as existential for this province. A perfect storm really.

    Talk about what is happening here today.
    Why isn't it relevant? Ten years ago if someone said we might have interest rates falling to 1930s levels, I'm sure there'd have been people saying that inflation is a permanent state if affairs, has been for decades and so higher interest rates are a given. If you're young your points of reference are very limited and it seems that everything is ancient history never to be seen again. If you're old, you've seen it all before and expect people will see it all again.

    Moreover, you only just have to go back a few years to find economic conditions in this province that were similar in many ways to today.

    Some things change. Some things cycle. Sometimes lessons are learned.

    BTW, why do you think I'm going back to 1944? That wasn't the end, that was the beginning. So I wasn't "thinking" it was relevant. The subsequent 17 years were, and the ones subsequent to that we're also relevant.
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2016 at 09:59 PM.

  32. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^^ We have a diversified economy already, canola, forestry, tourism, electricity etc. This whole "Provincial Climate change strategy" is a tax grab. As for manufacturing most of that is back east because they don't have the natural resources to the extent like we do here in Alberta.
    I think it has multiple agendas. Carbon is primary. Tax grab. Could be since it's a backdoor sales tax. Government provides services that don't adjust with the price of oil, so it needs tax revenues that more closely track the demand for services. If we increase our population, gov'ts health care and education costs rise. It needs tax revenues that increase with the population.

    Rising oil prices and the hundreds of billions of upfront capital investment plus rising oil royalties have helped Alberta's population double. Canola, forestry, tourism, electricity didn't drive the population growth, oil and gas did. However, when oil prices crash, cheaper US oil becomes available and our royalties drop by 80%, that population doesn't drop by 80%, so the costs don't drop with the price of oil.
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2016 at 10:10 PM.

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ On the news the other night there was somebody saying that there should be a balanced approach and the minster said they'd listen

    Funny, several people in the industry (especially Generation) said, " Hey, we have some suggestions as we too look at coal and its work...and also own large assets in BioMass, Solar, Wind...so we have some experience to back up our claims..." and there were crickets and a couple, "Thanks, now **** off." as a response. Sunshine and lollypops or buh bye...kind of like when many of us told the Blatchford team their ideas didn't translate to this geographic locale...

    I was sure not surprised to see Transmission and Distribution companies line up with the new climate plan. Gee, I wonder who profits from laying all these new T lines for these supposed new generation stations littered all over the province v the large scale generation stations....

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Memo to current or future AB gov't: don't sign fixed-rate agreements. Problem solved.
    Then nobody will invest the billions needed to build a power plant, and we won't have enough power. Would you spend billions on a wind farm, solar plant, or new gas power stations, knowing that a future government could just change the legislation / price, making it a complete loss? I wouldn't.

    ^I hope so, to the extent they aren't already sunk, what these rules will do to our power prices, will sink them, otherwise.
    OK, so I've been on both types of units...market and a unit pair under a PPA. The market unit was more enjoyable to run.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the prices haven't changed that much for gas (its been depressed for years, ever since the fracking revolution started), and the increase for coal is related to these policies / phase out. This was totally predictable, I'm sure at Enmax and Capital Power they rubbed their hands with glee when they saw the opportunity to get out of the contracts because of this bungled report / policy.
    Nope. Actually SUN 1/2 went force majeure...was shut down...and then was sued back into production. SUN 1/2 were pretty much as old as WAB 4. The Generators disliked the PPA's more than the people purchasing the power.

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    Actually, Hick's simplified version is not that far off. Sure, we can diversify somewhat, but the resources we need are not here. We, by simple geography, are pretty hooped in areas like manufacturing etc. I wish it was different.
    A couple thoughts:

    We're like a one company town where the mine is no longer economic and so the future just isn't great no matter how one looks at it.

    Most of the world's big old cities aren't great, attractive diversified places. They have big populations where most people just manage to get by. Lots of people, lots of competition and lots of problems including very limited access to opportunity because old money locks up the core jobs for family, friends and connections. The rest fight amongst themselves for the scraps.

  34. #234
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^^ We have a diversified economy already, canola, forestry, tourism, electricity etc. This whole "Provincial Climate change strategy" is a tax grab. As for manufacturing most of that is back east because they don't have the natural resources to the extent like we do here in Alberta.
    I think it has multiple agendas. Carbon is primary. Tax grab. Could be since it's a backdoor sales tax. Government provides services that don't adjust with the price of oil, so it needs tax revenues that more closely track the demand for services. If we increase our population, gov'ts health care and education costs rise. It needs tax revenues that increase with the population.

    Rising oil prices and the hundreds of billions of upfront capital investment plus rising oil royalties have helped Alberta's population double. Canola, forestry, tourism, electricity didn't drive the population growth, oil and gas did. However, when oil prices crash, cheaper US oil becomes available and our royalties drop by 80%, that population doesn't drop by 80%, so the costs don't drop with the price of oil.
    Since the would be carbon tax is illusory because of those multiple agendas and lots of Government services are already privatized, AGT for example. Since the NDP are left wing, I doubt we'll see any privatization. Thus your first paragraph supports what I already said; Tax grab.

    China alone last year invested ~$29B here in Alberta or was it the year before (can't remember now) and Alberta's population grew by 1.8%+since April.

    http://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/Population

    Even the US oil fracking industry is under pressure due to earthquakes, which paints our oil in better light. Koch brothers might need to revise their dirty oil campaign strategy.

    http://2015.cenmag.org/oil-gas-indus.../#.V85LjDWPT_U
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  35. #235
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  36. #236
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  37. #237
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    ^ Oh brother, over reacting or what? We've got larger concerns on planet earth like Jihadi nutcases blowing people up bent on turning our society back 500 years. And these whackos are crying because of a tree? Meanwhile thousands of trees are affected with pine beetle disease every year and many more by fire. Yeesh.
    Last edited by envaneo; 06-09-2016 at 03:00 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  38. #238
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Oh brother, over reacting or what? We've got larger concerns on planet earth like Jihadi nutcases blowing people up bent on turning our society back 500 years. And these whackos are crying because of a tree? Meanwhile thousands of trees are affected with pine disease every year and many more by fire. Yeesh.
    There are so many of theses people who are brainwashed into causes without even knowing what it's about . I talked about this in Race to white house thread . No one critical thhinks anymore they obey what they are told by a box that tells them their propaganda daily. This is also done in learning institutions as well. They want people to react not think. I don't post these videos to troll I just do it in hope people start waking up. Climate change is the biggest con game of all time. Carbon is produced by every living thing it's critical to life. But the establishment has conned people to think it's harmfull. and these people with good hearts but are incapable of critical thought eagerly fight for a cause they were duped about ,throw out some made up graphs have debates about it and their media darlings scare you and boom.. Like the ones signing the petition on banning water lol. The install the fear and havoc then come up with the solutions and in every instance we get ****** over.
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 06-09-2016 at 01:26 AM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    ^Idealistic more then likely. Most of these people knew exactly what they are doing, like that guy that stormed into the NEB hearing last week. In your video above, they are overreacting for the camera. Its called play the media for example the "save our footbridge" people at the Valley line ground breaking ceremony last April. As soon as the protestors showed up the media gravitated to them like a moth to light. it could have been any protest for any cause. Find a big event nearby insert your cause here and crash the party with signs and shouting slogans. It happens all the time. Find any gathering of protestors that have been on site for the day. As soon as the cameras are trained on the protestors, they get loud. Do you think they have been at it all day? Of course not. Play the media. They don't even need to evoke fear, just be loud for the 30 second time slot. What's really amusing here is the protestors through the lens of the media would want you to believe these "passionate" people have been at this since the crack of dawn, too funny.
    Last edited by envaneo; 06-09-2016 at 04:00 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  40. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Oh brother, over reacting or what? We've got larger concerns on planet earth like Jihadi nutcases blowing people up bent on turning our society back 500 years. And these whackos are crying because of a tree? Meanwhile thousands of trees are affected with pine beetle disease every year and many more by fire. Yeesh.
    Pine beetle and forest fires are related to climate change, and maybe part of any long term global warming trend.

    Environmentalists are a bit like those people that lament the destruction of old historic sites by ISIS. They see the fair rare 800-1,000 year old or whatever trees as irreplaceable treasures. However, like these old city sites, old trees get replaced through the course of time.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Oh brother, over reacting or what? We've got larger concerns on planet earth like Jihadi nutcases blowing people up bent on turning our society back 500 years. And these whackos are crying because of a tree? Meanwhile thousands of trees are affected with pine disease every year and many more by fire. Yeesh.
    There are so many of theses people who are brainwashed into causes without even knowing what it's about . I talked about this in Race to white house thread . No one critical thhinks anymore they obey what they are told by a box that tells them their propaganda daily. This is also done in learning institutions as well. They want people to react not think. I don't post these videos to troll I just do it in hope people start waking up. Climate change is the biggest con game of all time. Carbon is produced by every living thing it's critical to life. But the establishment has conned people to think it's harmfull. and these people with good hearts but are incapable of critical thought eagerly fight for a cause they were duped about ,throw out some made up graphs have debates about it and their media darlings scare you and boom.. Like the ones signing the petition on banning water lol. The install the fear and havoc then come up with the solutions and in every instance we get ****** over.
    Great post. Nice change.

    Global warming will have beneficiaries and victims like any climate change. It will be disruptive and future humans will face all kinds of unexpected and unpredictable consequences.

  42. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    Horse Hills high tech park in the NE that's pre-sold and is being fast tracked for new industrial development would like a word with you. Edmonton's economy is far more diverse than most seem to realize. There's a reason why, during a huge oil recession, Calgary's towers are empty and ours are full. Calgary's entire economy is based on oil. Calgary tripped and fell over with the price of oil, while Edmonton slightly stumbled.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  43. #243
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Most of the world's big old cities aren't great, attractive diversified places. They have big populations where most people just manage to get by. Lots of people, lots of competition and lots of problems including very limited access to opportunity because old money locks up the core jobs for family, friends and connections. The rest fight amongst themselves for the scraps.
    I don't agree. Large cities are the most upwardly mobile places on earth. There is ample data to prove it. Economist Edward Glaeser has done an excellent study on this topic in his book Triumph of the City. He finds, and I agree, that large groups of people create opportunity for wealth creation. The existence of a mass of poor people proves his point, he says, because those people realize that their life is still better in the city than in the country. They choose to live in the most upwardly mobile place that they know. And that place is a large, dense city.

    As for one company towns, they all end up the same way: stagnant. They lack the necessary structures to actually create growth and wealth, like an array of complementary firms, trading connections, etc. Jane Jacobs went through this topic quite well in The Economy of Cities.

    If you really think that Edmonton is the equivalent of a one-company town, the solution is not for that company to return and be successful once again. That's like saying the solution for an alcoholic is to drink more.

  44. #244
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    Horse Hills high tech park in the NE that's pre-sold and is being fast tracked for new industrial development would like a word with you. Edmonton's economy is far more diverse than most seem to realize. There's a reason why, during a huge oil recession, Calgary's towers are empty and ours are full. Calgary's entire economy is based on oil. Calgary tripped and fell over with the price of oil, while Edmonton slightly stumbled.
    Not so fast, there. Our office vacancy rate is ~12%, poised to rise to 18% next year.

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/06/0...in-the-country
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  45. #245
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Oh brother, over reacting or what? We've got larger concerns on planet earth like Jihadi nutcases blowing people up bent on turning our society back 500 years. And these whackos are crying because of a tree? Meanwhile thousands of trees are affected with pine beetle disease every year and many more by fire. Yeesh.
    Pine beetle and forest fires are related to climate change, and maybe part of any long term global warming trend.

    Environmentalists are a bit like those people that lament the destruction of old historic sites by ISIS. They see the fair rare 800-1,000 year old or whatever trees as irreplaceable treasures. However, like these old city sites, old trees get replaced through the course of time.
    I read where the Fort MacMurray fire was caused by arson. As for the pine beetle is a infestation/disease. That's what those people were looking into at the Fox creek crash recently. Pine beetle or mountain/bark pine beetle can't survive in -20 weather for more then a few days. But hold on is global warming really the cause of the spread of pine beetle? not according to this:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/...e-beetle-link/
    Last edited by envaneo; 06-09-2016 at 12:55 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Alberta is not the maritimes. Edmonton will develop a diversified economy like all large cities on earth. It already is developing one. The columnist has a very simplistic view of what an 'economy' is.
    The only economy that this city is developing under the NDP is in the public sector which isn't sustainable even at the best of times. We better hope that oil rebounds.
    Horse Hills high tech park in the NE that's pre-sold and is being fast tracked for new industrial development would like a word with you. Edmonton's economy is far more diverse than most seem to realize. There's a reason why, during a huge oil recession, Calgary's towers are empty and ours are full. Calgary's entire economy is based on oil. Calgary tripped and fell over with the price of oil, while Edmonton slightly stumbled.
    Not so fast, there. Our office vacancy rate is ~12%, poised to rise to 18% next year.

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/06/0...in-the-country
    12% appears average based on stats I could find. We'll hit 18% because of new inventory, not move outs. Calgary is sitting at 25% today, and Brookfield isn't even complete yet. Edmonton is fine.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  47. #247

    Default

    TVgate. Twice as much! All environmentalists should delay upgrading their TVs until defeat devices are banned.

    Pollution levels keep rising as does pressure for carbon taxes etc yet on the consumption end everyone just uses more, while blaming the producers like Alberta.

    TV energy efficiency ratings 'flawed' - BBC News
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37441108
    Last edited by KC; 23-09-2016 at 07:18 AM.

  48. #248
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,380

    Default

    my nephew wrote to Waterloo Region newspaper a very good article

    I hope something can do better in Alberta too


    The provincial Liberals recently announced that, as of January 1, the provincial portion of the HST will be removed from electrical bills.
    While I don't expect many to complain about the $150 or so a year this action will save in household utility bills, it is no doubt a move driven by short-term political necessity, rather than long-term planning.
    But it does raise the question, what's next for Ontario hydro? What can be done to truly drive down rates?
    The particular complexities of Ontario's electricity market make that a convoluted answer. The grid system at large must be maintained to a capacity for annual peak demand — those few very hot summer afternoons where half the province has AC running full blast, spiking consumption. To ensure that capacity is maintained, long-term contracts are awarded to electricity generators. As a result, the maintaining cost of the grid is fairly static.
    The problem begins to arise with the fact that electrical demand in Ontario has been falling for a decade or so, but not uniformly. While overall demand has dropped, that hot summer afternoon peak demand has not. As a result, the fixed cost to maintain peak demand must be met with a shrinking revenue base.
    Legislation signed by Mike Harris set conditions that exacerbate this problem. Previously, Ontario Hydro was an at-cost generator and distributor, meaning customers were charged what it cost to produce the electricity. Harris modified the structure to require profit generation, assuming it would aid in driving down prices.
    Consequentially, Hydro One is required by law to turn a profit, despite overall falling revenue from decreasing demand. To adhere by this requirement while maintaining peak demand capacity, the Ontario Energy Board has no choice but to raise rates.
    But what to do to reduce rates?
    Well, assuming peak demand remains steady — and the consumption driven by this very hot summer is suggesting that it will — the answer is rather counter-intuitive. To reduce rates, overall demand for electricity must rise again, but not at peak hours which would require further demand capacity.
    And incidentally, the Liberals are already moving forward on the most effective means to increase off-peak consumption. The province's subsidizing electric vehicles will drive adoption of a new source of electrical consumption primarily utilized at night when overall electrical demand is lowest.
    Large-scale adoption of electric vehicles will increase revenue to Ontario's grid system, allowing rates to drop.
    While an electric vehicle owner's electricity bill may rise, this would be offset by corresponding reductions in gasoline expenditure.
    The Liberals have an ambitious plan in place to reduce electricity rates through the use of electric vehicle subsidies rather than the elimination of taxes.
    What remains to be seen is if they will survive this political dark cloud to see if their plan will work.


    Dustin Carey of Windsor is an alumnus of the University of Waterloo’s Master of Climate Change program.


    http://www.therecord.com/opinion-sto...-electricity-/
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  49. #249

    Default

    ^Your nephew hit the nail right on the head with that letter. It seems this is the way Alberta is heading if the NDP cast and crew stay in power. Soaring utility costs plus all the rate riders, distribution costs, variables we can handle.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  50. #250

    Default

    ^I wonder how many businesses will drop off the grid, it might make the most sense for many of them, to generate their own power. Every business that does, just leaves even more cost for consumers / business who remain on it.

  51. #251

    Default

    ^Well if businesses got solar panels doesn't the power the business does not use go back on the grid?. The business would just have to ensure that they install enough power for their use and some left over. I'm not sure how solar power works on cloudy days or on those days they have to go back on the grid.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  52. #252
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Your nephew hit the nail right on the head with that letter. It seems this is the way Alberta is heading if the NDP cast and crew stay in power. Soaring utility costs plus all the rate riders, distribution costs, variables we can handle.
    So you're agreeing, the NDP in Alberta need to heavily subsidize electric vehicles as a solution?

  53. #253

    Default

    ^ What makes you think I think the NDP should heavily subsidize electric cars?.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  54. #254
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^ What makes you think I think the NDP should heavily subsidize electric cars?.
    You agreed with jagators63 nephews letter. Or did you not read it all? Because that was what it says is the solution to Ontarios problem. Everyone having electric cars. To increase electrical demand at non-peak times.

  55. #255

    Default

    ^gemini didn't say we have the same problems as ontario NOW, just that we could in the future. I guess that if we did have those problems with expensive over-supply, then yes, using that supply with electric cars would be a good thing.

    I don't think we'll have that problem. We haven't been over-building solar and wind, we haven't over-pair to over-build Nuclear, and while our excessively rapid coal phase-out will end up costing us it won't have the same impact.
    There can only be one.

  56. #256

    Default

    Anyway, interesting Column in the National Post - Andrew Coyne and the economists he cites figure that a carbon tax is by far the most efficient and lowest-cost way to reduce emissions, but he doesn't figure that our governments will have the courage to do it right. So we'll probably get more shortsighted wind subsidies.

    His economist figured we would need a $200/ton carbon tax to meet Canada's (relatively modest) Climate goals by 2035?. That's about 45c a liter on gas.

    That is, in light of what we were paying without any carbon tax just a couple years ago, not the end of the world.
    There can only be one.

  57. #257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^gemini didn't say we have the same problems as ontario NOW, just that we could in the future. I guess that if we did have those problems with expensive over-supply, then yes, using that supply with electric cars would be a good thing.

    I don't think we'll have that problem. We haven't been over-building solar and wind, we haven't over-pair to over-build Nuclear, and while our excessively rapid coal phase-out will end up costing us it won't have the same impact.
    Does Ontario not go onto the USA grid at some point?. If they do would it not mean that Ontario's taxpayers are subsidizing American power.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  58. #258
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,637

    Default

    ^ Yes. I remember a large-scale blackout in the early 2000's when I was still living in Southwestern Ontario. The cause of the blackout was a failed transformer (or something like that) in the States. Maybe Ohio or New York State? But everything is so connected out there, that it blacked out most of Ontario, and big parts of the American Great Lake Region for a few days.

  59. #259

    Default

    To handle peak demand, interruptible rates allowed the operator to send out notice to large contracted users to cut their demand. With today's tech I think such rates could be offered to far more users willing to cut back demand during peak periods, in exchange for lower electricity rates. This lowers costs and thus rates for everyone by eliminating the need to build additional peak demand capacity.

    Capitalism, bankruptcy and liquidation is also a very effective means to reduce cost to users by making those who ended up with the higher cost excess capacity take a loss and sell their capacity (plant) for pennies on the dollar so a new owner can offer the product at a new Loewe price. (Possibly setting in motion a domino effect of rolling bs kruptcies and liquidation as a leap frog process occurs.
    Last edited by KC; 24-09-2016 at 07:40 AM.

  60. #260
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Anyway, interesting Column in the National Post - Andrew Coyne and the economists he cites figure that a carbon tax is by far the most efficient and lowest-cost way to reduce emissions, but he doesn't figure that our governments will have the courage to do it right. So we'll probably get more shortsighted wind subsidies.

    His economist figured we would need a $200/ton carbon tax to meet Canada's (relatively modest) Climate goals by 2035?. That's about 45c a liter on gas.

    That is, in light of what we were paying without any carbon tax just a couple years ago, not the end of the world.
    I agree. Bring in a real carbon tax and let the market sort out the rest, whether it is renewables, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, or something else.

  61. #261

    Default

    Very interesting article. I feel that those driven by global warming dogma over reality tend to want to see carbon capture fail.

    Graham Thomson: Alberta NDP not celebrating carbon capture milestone

    GRAHAM THOMSON, EDMONTON JOURNAL
    More from Graham Thomson, Edmonton Journal
    Published on: September 27, 2016 | Last Updated: September 27, 2016 6:25 AM MDT


    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...nt-celebrating
    Also, didn't Thomson really criticize carbon capture a few years back?
    Last edited by KC; 27-09-2016 at 07:09 AM.

  62. #262
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    ^ This is exactly why a carbon tax (and only a carbon tax) is the best approach. Let the industry decide whether it is cheaper to capture CO2 and pump it underground or not to generate it in the first place. Governments should not be pushing one way or the other.

  63. #263

    Default

    Surprise, surprise. (See article below) Their front end nuclear rehab cost overload is melting down to kill off all other options. They probably should have just mothballed or put into runoff some of their nuclear and focused on less costly incremental renewables.


    The massive up front charges on the nuclear rehabs basically used up all leeway for introducing other option.

    Ontario cancels plans for more green energy

    http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/ontario-...rgy-1.3090677#
    Last edited by KC; 27-09-2016 at 11:45 AM.

  64. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ This is exactly why a carbon tax (and only a carbon tax) is the best approach. Let the industry decide whether it is cheaper to capture CO2 and pump it underground or not to generate it in the first place. Governments should not be pushing one way or the other.
    Won't work because business will take too short a term focus. I'm guessing that we are now at a stage where only a multi pronged approach will have a hope of working. Bias of any sort (private or public) will be like trying to pick the long term winners in the stock market among the high tech businesses.

  65. #265

    Default Dislike of carbon tax deepens as Albertans get ready to pay up

    Brutal poll results for Notley, that are only going to get worse as our power bills skyrocket:



    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...eady-to-pay-up

  66. #266

    Default

    Are they going to skyrocket? Or are they going to rise marginally at a rate that most users won't notice? Mostly the latter. The degree to which the carbon tax will increase any particular bill in the near future won't be more than the typical fluctuation in monthly usage.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  67. #267

    Default

    ^Projections are that electricity bills will triple over the next few years. Just have a look at Ontario, and what happened there, with similar policies.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2610760/al...l-association/

    The NDP announced in November that coal would be phased out completely by 2030.

    The Coal Association of Canada says that is just going to hurt consumers.

    It says power bills could triple by as early as 2021.

  68. #268

    Default



    Regulated electricity rates (red line) in 2016 are at a historical low (since deregulation). Even if they doubled from today, we've paid higher rates (ex inflation) before.
    https://ucahelps.alberta.ca/historic-rates.aspx
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  69. #269

    Default

    ^doesn't mean I am going to be happy when my condo electricity bill goes from 45 per month to 135 per month, and it will be a bigger jump for houses. That's enough to tip a lot of people into insolvency today, even with rebates.

  70. #270

    Default

    Where's these projections about electricity costs skyrocketing in Alberta? All you're doing right now is unsubstantiated fearmongering to push your own political agenda & biases.

    If you are really concerned about the price of electricity going forward you should be signing an electricity agreement with a competitive retailer to lock in your rates for a given period.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  71. #271

    Default

    ^post 267 just above "power bills could triple by as early as 2021".

    Its not fear mongering, its reality of what is going to happen. The idea that you can put a massive carbon tax, and accelerated coal phase out in place ahead of previously agree to phase out, and not have a huge cost for consumers, when the policy favors expensive renewable energy ahead of dirt cheap natural gas, is naïve. Someone is going to have to pay for the capital for all those new solar farms, and wind farms to replace existing assets we are paying for. Most Albertans realize that now, just look at the poll results.
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-09-2016 at 10:27 AM.

  72. #272

    Default

    Haha, I don't really count the fearmongering of the coal industry as a valid & unbiased projection. How about you find something not cooked up by the industry (rightfully) most affected by the phase out of carbon producers before you start preaching it as the gospel truth.

    Are you currently on a fixed-price electricity agreement or the regulated rate option? Why or why not?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  73. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Are you currently on a fixed-price electricity agreement or the regulated rate option? Why or why not?
    If you can get one, that locks in ALL the costs, including future carbon taxes, great. Good luck with that, you go ask for it.

    As to the projections, if it is going to be so cheap, why isn't the province telling us that? The answer is they don't have a ******* clue, they implemented this tax without even realizing how devastating it is going to be, just like in Ontario.
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-09-2016 at 10:55 AM.

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Love it. You lefties were whining all about change in the Government and how great its going to be to finally get rid of those evil pc's. I told you guys before the election what was going to happen, that the NDP's playbook is all about tax and spend. Well here it is. At times c2e has all the maturity of a face book page (like that's credibility) I warned you lefties and you laughed at me. I love it when your plan back fires. Good old Jim is looking pretty good now huh? Who's laughing now? Me. LOLLOLOLOL!
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  75. #275

    Default

    Good thing our carbon tax is nothing like Ontario's cap& trade plus green subsidy surcharge plus rebuild nukes costs.

    So, not at all like Ontario.

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If you can get one, that locks in ALL the costs, including future carbon taxes, great. Good luck with that, you go ask for it.

    As to the projections, if it is going to be so cheap, why isn't the province telling us that? The answer is they don't have a ******* clue, they implemented this tax without even realizing how devastating it is going to be, just like in Ontario.
    I have no desire to sign a fixed-price electricity contract, as I'm familiar with the electricity market & how it works in Alberta. I understand the repercussions of a carbon tax on generation facilities, what PPAs are along with their role in utility pricing, along with the impact they will have on AESO including the effect on pricing as they are ended. As such, I have no desire to lock-in my rates as I do not ascribe to the coal market's Chicken Little projections & their attempt to maintain the current subsidy they enjoy through the offloading the environmental cost of their business onto the public writ large.

    You're the one that's preaching the sky is falling, but only insofar as it pushes your agenda & maintains your 4th rate agent provocateur schtick on the forums. You don't actually believe what you're peddling enough to take any action to mitigate the doom you're prophesizing. Thanks for the laughs on this Friday morning. I needed a good chuckle.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  77. #277

    Default Provincial Climate Change Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Brutal poll results for Notley, that are only going to get worse as our power bills skyrocket:



    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...eady-to-pay-up
    As the time comes closer to implementation, I expected the fear mongering would increase and that would affect public opinion in the short term. However, after it is implemented people may find it was not as bad as claimed. Also a lot of people will then realize they get rebates to cover some or much of the increased cost. After people realize the sky is not falling, support for it may actually recover and the credibility of the chicken little types who claim that everything the government does is a catastrophe may be what goes down.

  78. #278

    Default 63% of Albertans oppose NDP carbon tax, poll suggests; 53 per cent disapprove of Climate Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You're the one that's preaching the sky is falling, but only insofar as it pushes your agenda & maintains your 4th rate agent provocateur schtick on the forums. You don't actually believe what you're peddling enough to take any action to mitigate the doom you're prophesizing. Thanks for the laughs on this Friday morning. I needed a good chuckle.
    As I said, I don't believe any company will mitigate it right now, there will be riders and taxes on whatever you lock in. As to being a provocateur schtick, isn't it funny how 47% of Albertan's strongly disapprove of the carbon tax, like me, and only 12% strongly approve, like you?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-tax-1.3784326

  79. #279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    However, after it is implemented people may find it was not as bad as claimed. Also a lot of people will then realize they get rebates to cover some or much of the increased cost. After people realize the sky is not falling, support for it may actually recover and the credibility of the chicken little types who claim that everything the government does is a catastrophe may be what goes down.
    All I can say, is have a look at what has happened in Ontario. They are cancelling the exact type of projects NDP is pushing, because of the devastation it has caused with power prices there (which is flowing on, to make their auto industry uncompetitive, not just households struggling).
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-09-2016 at 11:38 AM.

  80. #280
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    You lefties wanted the NDP here. Look what they did in Saskabush before Wall Good news is the Alberta NDP could be just a one hit wonder.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  81. #281

    Default

    So do you think climate change is real? If so, should we do something to try stop it? If so, what is the alternative you propose?

    If you ask a question only about a tax in a poll you are not likely to get a lot of support, but there is a lot more to this issue.

  82. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Projections are that electricity bills will triple over the next few years. Just have a look at Ontario, and what happened there, with similar policies.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2610760/al...l-association/

    The NDP announced in November that coal would be phased out completely by 2030.

    The Coal Association of Canada says that is just going to hurt consumers.

    It says power bills could triple by as early as 2021.
    That article has absolutely nothing in it to substantiate any of their claims. They just say the words "it could triple". It could rain diamonds tomorrow too, if we're going to make completely unsubstantiated claims of what could happen. Show me how they came up with that.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post

    As I said, I don't believe any company will mitigate it right now, there will be riders and taxes on whatever you lock in. As to being a provocateur schtick, isn't it funny how 47% of Albertan's strongly disapprove of the carbon tax, like me, and only 12% strongly approve, like you?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-tax-1.3784326
    I didn't say I was for or against it. I was saying I was informed about it. Try and keep up.

    Riders are also only the provenance of regulated rate providers, not competitive deregulated providers. If you have an electricity contract with a provider the only riders you'd ever be subjected to would be for distribution & transmission, neither of which are directly affected by carbon taxation. You insinuate that things will turn out just like Ontario but don't seem to have the foggiest clue how electricity works in Alberta.

    But then again, ignorance has never stopped you from pushing your half-baked agendas before so why now?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  84. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Projections are that electricity bills will triple over the next few years. Just have a look at Ontario, and what happened there, with similar policies.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2610760/al...l-association/

    The NDP announced in November that coal would be phased out completely by 2030.

    The Coal Association of Canada says that is just going to hurt consumers.

    It says power bills could triple by as early as 2021.
    Apparently Onatrio's cost increases are largely due to massive overages on nukes. So is that a valid comparison?

    Also, AFUDC and other regulated costs on current plant construction were largely affected by the high interest rates of the day. Today, massive construction projects can be done for far, far lower interest rates. Rate guarantees by the province could drive costs down further. If done during recessionary times, additional savings could also be had. So, a switchover to alternative energies might be well timed.

    However, my view is that carbon capture may make our coal plants viable, plus they are a cheap, reliable source of power so they should be held in reserve and possibly run at minimal capacity or semi-mothballed but somehow prep'ed before peak demand periods so that the province can avoid the worst of any conversion. We'd lose bragging rights to being coal free but we'd gain bragging rights to rate smoothing effectiveness and having optionality on power. Maybe the province would buy up the stranded assets and handle such 'emergency' service to minimize private sector gaming of the grid and rates.



    And I also stand on my earlier post about interruptible rates.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    To handle peak demand, interruptible rates allowed the operator to send out notice to large contracted users to cut their demand. With today's tech I think such rates could be offered to far more users willing to cut back demand during peak periods, in exchange for lower electricity rates. This lowers costs and thus rates for everyone by eliminating the need to build additional peak demand capacity.

    Capitalism, bankruptcy and liquidation is also a very effective means to reduce cost to users by making those who ended up with the higher cost excess capacity take a loss and sell their capacity (plant) for pennies on the dollar so a new owner can offer the product at a new Loewe price. (Possibly setting in motion a domino effect of rolling bs kruptcies and liquidation as a leap frog process occurs.
    Last edited by KC; 30-09-2016 at 01:26 PM.

  85. #285

    Default Provincial Climate Change Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Projections are that electricity bills will triple over the next few years. Just have a look at Ontario, and what happened there, with similar policies.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2610760/al...l-association/

    The NDP announced in November that coal would be phased out completely by 2030.

    The Coal Association of Canada says that is just going to hurt consumers.

    It says power bills could triple by as early as 2021.
    That article has absolutely nothing in it to substantiate any of their claims. They just say the words "it could triple". It could rain diamonds tomorrow too, if we're going to make completely unsubstantiated claims of what could happen. Show me how they came up with that.
    I am not sure why people are trying to compare Alberta to Ontario here. Alberta does not have high cost aging nuclear reactors that are need of a lot of refurbishment, like Ontario does. That is a big part of the electricity cost problem there.

    Also, Ontario does NOT actually have a carbon tax. However, BC does and people there seem to generally be ok with it and have got used to it.

    I suspect the debate about Alberta's carbon tax will soon become very academic anyways when the Federal government levels the playing field with a national carbon tax, which will probably happen fairly soon. Then places like Saskatchewan which have resisted a carbon tax could end up in the same position as us or worse. At least with the Alberta carbon tax, the money will stay in Alberta and the decisions on it will be made by the Alberta government.

  86. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Apparently Onatrio's cost increases are largely due to massive overages on nukes. So is that a valid comparison?.
    A lot of the cost in Ontario is related to various wind and solar power projects. B.C. is not comparable, because B.C. has abundant hydro, they never had the accelerated coal phase out our NDP is forcing (I accept coal needed to be phased out as per the original time lines, but not like this, and to be replaced by gas, not cost inefficient wind and solar). The cost of those plants that have to be replaced well before their life is over, will be borne by you and me. We will see who is right though as the new prices phase in. No doubt many of the people on here saying this isn't going to happen will find a way to blame Klein, or evil corporations, or someone else when it happens.
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-09-2016 at 02:12 PM.

  87. #287

    Default Provincial Climate Change Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Apparently Onatrio's cost increases are largely due to massive overages on nukes. So is that a valid comparison?.
    A lot of the cost in Ontario is related to various wind and solar power projects. B.C. is not comparable, because B.C. has abundant hydro, they never had the accelerated coal phase out our NDP is forcing (I accept coal needed to be phased out as per the original time lines, but not like this, and to be replaced by gas, not cost inefficient wind and solar). The cost of those plants that have to be replaced well before their life is over, will be borne by you and me. We will see who is right though as the new prices phase in. No doubt many of the people on here saying this isn't going to happen will find a way to blame Klein, or evil corporations, or someone else when it happens.
    The cost of wind and solar has also come down a lot over they years with technological advances and economies of scale and is continuing to come down. Ontario went ahead earlier, so as pioneers they faced a more difficult situation. I am sure we can learn from their experience, but I don't think our situations are that similar.

  88. #288

    Default Trudeau’s magical, mystery climate plan

    ^the whole thing is as pointless as the Paris agreement, which Trudeau is signing onto, even though he knows the goals are impossible:

    Trudeau is never going to achieve Harper’s targets -- 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 30% below by 2030 -- because our current level of technology makes it impossible to do so without causing a massive recession.

    Harper was never going to achieve Harper’s targets.

    In fact, no Canadian prime minister going back to Brian Mulroney, through Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Harper and, as we shall soon see, Trudeau, has ever come close to meeting his promised emission cuts, which keep getting watered down even though they’re still impossible to meet today.

    ...

    The B.C. government itself says its revenue neutral carbon tax, widely praised as one of the best in the world, is only going to reduce B.C.’s emissions by three megatonnes (Mt) annually by 2020.

    By contrast, if Trudeau is to make good on Harper’s target for 2020, which is now his target, Canada will have to reduce its emissions by 146 Mt.

    That’s the equivalent of shutting down Canada’s electricity sector, which emits 78.2 Mt of GHG annually, along with most of the agriculture sector, which emits 72.9 Mt of GHG annually, in less than five years.

    Canada would need a carbon tax of at least $150-per-tonne to achieve these kinds of emission cuts that quickly, which would destroy our economy.

    The only way to achieve cuts at the level and speed the Trudeau government is promising would be through a revenue neutral scheme called carbon fee and dividend, in which every dollar the government imposes in carbon taxes is returned to the public through equal, monthly, dividend cheques.

    But our politicians aren’t going to do that because it wouldn’t increase government revenues, which is their real aim, as opposed to reducing emissions.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/28...y-climate-plan
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-09-2016 at 03:16 PM.

  89. #289
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    So do you think climate change is real? If so, should we do something to try stop it? If so, what is the alternative you propose?

    If you ask a question only about a tax in a poll you are not likely to get a lot of support, but there is a lot more to this issue.
    Climate change/global warming is junk science its a make work project to get the population involved in something that doesn't exist. Global warming or what ever you want to call it is a left wing political concept. The media loves it because (most are left wing) it's sexy when the real elephant in the room is over population. The birth rate in developing countries is partially to be blamed for this because society is mainly Patriarchal. Its survival of the family unit, strength in numbers. The alternative is to stop the birth rate (like that will ever happen) the status quo is not sustainable. Climate change is nothing more then a way to justify a tax grab imo. I'm old enough to know the difference that our air quality hasn't changed. This is not as complex as its made out to be. Governments make it complex.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  90. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    So do you think climate change is real? If so, should we do something to try stop it? If so, what is the alternative you propose?

    If you ask a question only about a tax in a poll you are not likely to get a lot of support, but there is a lot more to this issue.
    Climate change/global warming is junk science its a make work project to get the population involved in something that doesn't exist. Global warming or what ever you want to call it is a left wing political concept. The media loves it because (most are left wing) it's sexy when the real elephant in the room is over population. The birth rate in developing countries is partially to be blamed for this because society is mainly Patriarchal. Its survival of the family unit, strength in numbers. The alternative is to stop the birth rate (like that will ever happen) the status quo is not sustainable. Climate change is nothing more then a way to justify a tax grab imo. I'm old enough to know the difference that our air quality hasn't changed. This is not as complex as its made out to be. Governments make it complex.
    You might want to look deeper than the sound bites from the folks on the news. Climate change is being witnessed in every facet of our current lives. Increased CO2 levels in the air causing greenhouse effects. Increased CO2 levels in the ocean, creating acidification which is leading to mass die-offs of reefs and total destruction of fisheries. Glaciers are receding at a record pace. Ice shelves are melting.

    There's an infinite number of ways we're witnessing the effects of this. Does climate change on its own? Of course it does. Is human activity accelerating warming at unprecedented levels? That appears to be the case. Regardless of whether it is natural or man-made, warming will devastate human civilization, so we need to do something about it. Maybe you won't be around long enough to give a crap, but if we plan on sticking around as a species, we do.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  91. #291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    So do you think climate change is real? If so, should we do something to try stop it? If so, what is the alternative you propose?

    If you ask a question only about a tax in a poll you are not likely to get a lot of support, but there is a lot more to this issue.
    Climate change/global warming is junk science its a make work project to get the population involved in something that doesn't exist. Global warming or what ever you want to call it is a left wing political concept. The media loves it because (most are left wing) it's sexy when the real elephant in the room is over population. The birth rate in developing countries is partially to be blamed for this because society is mainly Patriarchal. Its survival of the family unit, strength in numbers. The alternative is to stop the birth rate (like that will ever happen) the status quo is not sustainable. Climate change is nothing more then a way to justify a tax grab imo. I'm old enough to know the difference that our air quality hasn't changed. This is not as complex as its made out to be. Governments make it complex.
    You might want to look deeper than the sound bites from the folks on the news. Climate change is being witnessed in every facet of our current lives. Increased CO2 levels in the air causing greenhouse effects. Increased CO2 levels in the ocean, creating acidification which is leading to mass die-offs of reefs and total destruction of fisheries. Glaciers are receding at a record pace. Ice shelves are melting.

    There's an infinite number of ways we're witnessing the effects of this. Does climate change on its own? Of course it does. Is human activity accelerating warming at unprecedented levels? That appears to be the case. Regardless of whether it is natural or man-made, warming will devastate human civilization, so we need to do something about it. Maybe you won't be around long enough to give a crap, but if we plan on sticking around as a species, we do.
    So population control will be paramount.

    You can't increase Canada's population by millions in just a few years and expect the new arrivals to live like they did in their old country. They will adopt the high consumption pattern of current Canadians, which is exactly what politicians and the business sector and possibly the vast majority of Canadians want - because it's a key element in how we continue to grow our economies.

  92. #292
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    So do you think climate change is real? If so, should we do something to try stop it? If so, what is the alternative you propose?

    If you ask a question only about a tax in a poll you are not likely to get a lot of support, but there is a lot more to this issue.
    Climate change/global warming is junk science its a make work project to get the population involved in something that doesn't exist. Global warming or what ever you want to call it is a left wing political concept. The media loves it because (most are left wing) it's sexy when the real elephant in the room is over population. The birth rate in developing countries is partially to be blamed for this because society is mainly Patriarchal. Its survival of the family unit, strength in numbers. The alternative is to stop the birth rate (like that will ever happen) the status quo is not sustainable. Climate change is nothing more then a way to justify a tax grab imo. I'm old enough to know the difference that our air quality hasn't changed. This is not as complex as its made out to be. Governments make it complex.
    lol

  93. #293
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,454

    Default

    This thread was designed for discussion of the Alberta Government's response to climate change. We already have a thread for climate change denialism.

  94. #294

    Default

    I was just looking up ways we could heat our cabin off grid with solar or wind. Guess what, no way in hell. So this raises the issue of unavoidable spending on heating ones home. The GST exempted food costs because people had to eat. Wouldn't the same logic apply to natural gas for some per capital consumption level that everyone needs to spend to survive.

  95. #295

    Default

    Albertans' attitudes of the past... 2002. 72 per cent of people want ratification (of Kyoto). And this is back when polls had some respectability.


    But several polls this year show most Albertans are in favour of the Kyoto accord. One poll, commissioned by the provincial government itself and released in June, suggests 72 per cent of people in Alberta want ratification.

    And last week, a poll conducted for Greenpeace concluded that almost 60 per cent of Albertans surveyed wanted Chrétien to announce his intention to ratify the accord.


    http://www.codehappy.net/apolyton/threads/60839-1.htm


    Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto
    http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/02/pm_kyoto020902

    Page 1450 is interesting as it's the Alberta Governments position under Klein. So what changed over the next decade and a half?

    http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...330_01_han.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 01-10-2016 at 08:45 PM.

  96. #296
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So population control will be paramount.

    You can't increase Canada's population by millions in just a few years and expect the new arrivals to live like they did in their old country. They will adopt the high consumption pattern of current Canadians, which is exactly what politicians and the business sector and possibly the vast majority of Canadians want - because it's a key element in how we continue to grow our economies.
    No, coercive population control is not "paramount" or even required. Every single nation on the planet that becomes developed with a highly educated citizenry and most importantly equality of the sexes sees it's birth rate plummet to at or below replacement level. Development, education, and rights in the poorest nations are what is needed. Not something as misguided as China's one child policy.

  97. #297
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,790

    Default

    ^ But by reducing the population of this planet reduces the anthropogenic activity of global warming/climate change. China has the right idea. Society at large needs to change its patriarchal attitudes to matriarchal ones. Its not going to change over night when and if that happens.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  98. #298

    Default

    So, Trudeau proposes a phased in 50$ per ton tax, and Notley has said, "not without a pipeline".

    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/notley-sa...line-1.3099762

    However, Notley said the province would not support the federal government’s plan.

    "With regard to the federal government’s proposals today, Alberta will not be supporting its proposal absent serious concurrent progress on energy infrastructure, to ensure we have the economic means to fund these policies.

    “It is time for the Government of Canada to act on this issue. Albertans have contributed very generously for many years to national initiatives designed to help other regions address economic challenges. What we are asking for now is that our landlock be broken, in one direction or another, so that we can get back on our feet.”

    The Alberta Government has brought in a climate plan of its own, which includes a carbon tax starting in 2017, a plan to phase-out coal-fired power generation by 2030 and to reduce methane emissions by 45 percent by 2025.
    I don't like Notley's party, but I do like her, she says some good stuff there.

    Saskatchewan and Northern Territories are just saying "No". So, we are headed, not surprisingly perhaps, to another constitutional showdown. Can the Federal government "force" a province to tax carbon? Or would that breach a provinces constitutional rights to exploit its own resources?
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-10-2016 at 01:47 PM.

  99. #299

    Default

    There's been no great push to ban a/c around the world... 12 years to just a freeze in use.
    So here's a relevant question: why them? And with carbon reductions, why us?

    12 more years of growth in those countries adds the equivalent of how many more coal plants?


    Monumental deal to cut HFCs, fastest growing greenhouse gases

    Excerpt:

    "Other developing countries, specifically India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the Gulf states will not freeze their use until 2028."


    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37665529


    Excerpt:
    "State John Kerry said last month that they currently emit as much pollution as 300 coal-fired power plants each year.

    That amount will rise significantly over the coming decades as air conditioning units and refrigerators reach hundreds of millions of new people."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hydrofl...ment-1.3806786
    Last edited by KC; 15-10-2016 at 08:23 AM.

  100. #300
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787355043821416448 keep drinking the kool aid folks those at top knows climate change is a scam
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •