Warhippy Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 5 minutes ago, bolt said: Once the fires subside, our Governments will use this tragedy as an opportunity to push their climate agenda. They won’t buy more water bombers, they won’t hire more fire fighters & they won’t manage the forests, they’ll just keep blaming CO2 & us. This is ridiculous my dude. Be better What climate agenda? The one in which we see every single year it's getting worse? Water bombers? We hire teams of pilots staffed by private business at the provincial levels; and while I agree we SHOULD have our military involved it isn't viable. Hiring firefighters is provincial. How exactly do you suggest the forest be managed? I keep hearing this but aside from logging; how? It is again, by the way; provincial. They aren't blaming CO2, they're suggesting rightfully that the warming climate is the issue. They're not wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 10 minutes ago, bolt said: Once the fires subside, our Governments will use this tragedy as an opportunity to push their climate agenda. They won’t buy more water bombers, they won’t hire more fire fighters & they won’t manage the forests, they’ll just keep blaming CO2 & us. Do you really think climate change is not a large contributing factor in the number and severity of the fires we are seeing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 15 minutes ago, bolt said: Once the fires subside, our Governments will use this tragedy as an opportunity to push their climate agenda. They won’t buy more water bombers, they won’t hire more fire fighters & they won’t manage the forests, they’ll just keep blaming CO2 & us. Would you accept the carbon tax as helpful if the funds from that were used to buy water bombers and train fire fighters? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Just set the hottest day on record. Hottest year. Nawww, not human activity. So what is is then??? Maybe head on over to the Climate Change thread. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 5 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: Just set the hottest day on record. Hottest year. Nawww, not human activity. So what is is then??? Maybe head on over to the Climate Change thread. Sadly, detractors of the climate change reality will state that it's just a normal part of the earth's environmental cycle, that humans won't be able to impact it much... .......and then maybe claim god's will as part of their argument, saying that if we had been a little more pious, we'd have been spared the growing cataclysm that their god will use to cleanse the world of sinners. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 4 hours ago, Warhippy said: In fairness this isn't like Clarke/Harper pulling firefighters off of a line for a photo op back in 2014 or whatever. Fires are not political, when they happen they happen and they move the way the wind blows and feed off of what exists. It's awful and while policy certainly can help it is impossible to mitigate or anticipate an issue like we've seen the last 4-5 years in our western provinces and we can not spend our way out of it. While I agree the idea of blaming Trudeau for yet another thing is stupid and childish, we can't really apply blame to anyone for a natural act. I know, couldn't help it. The "Trudeau is the cause of all things" crowd needs some pushback. IF we're going to start the blame game, then Smith is 1st in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 From what I saw, it appears that @bolt would like to see investment in Climate Change mitigation, but not in the root cause of Climate Change.... An odd strategy, IMHO.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 44 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: From what I saw, it appears that @bolt would like to see investment in Climate Change mitigation, but not in the root cause of Climate Change.... An odd strategy, IMHO.... To be fair a set portion of the carbon tax should be used to combat fires and mitigation (there is tons on the mitigation side that can be done that currently is not) as fires seem to be huge contributor to Canada's carbon footprint. This is a Canada problem not just provincial, as Canada as a country is known for its dense population of trees. The government of Canada also has tons of data on the financial costs of these fires to the economy and Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said: To be fair a set portion of the carbon tax should be used to combat fires and mitigation (there is tons on the mitigation side that can be done that currently is not) as fires seem to be huge contributor to Canada's carbon footprint. This is a Canada problem not just provincial, as Canada as a country is known for its dense population of trees. The government of Canada also has tons of data on the financial costs of these fires to the economy and Canadians. I would have no issue with this, but I also think we should clarify.... Mitigation efforts are funded by both federal and provincial bodies. Since the Carbon Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, those funds have to come out of general revenue. Either way, the cost is borne by the taxpayer. The difference being, if CT revenue is earmarked for wildfire mitigation efforts, it means less money that goes to rebates for lower income folks. Basically, is just shuffling the same amount of money around. To be clear, I was being somewhat flippant in my earlier post. No politician is sitting around saying "too bad, so sad" to the people of Jasper, just as they weren't a few years ago to the people in Ft. McMurray. While I agree that their may have been poor planning in regards to our readiness to deal with what seems to be an annual problem, I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that we have known for quite some time that our actions were contributing to the issue, but not everyone was willing to do something about it.....or even admit that it was a problem, for that matter..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) 20 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: I would have no issue with this, but I also think we should clarify.... Mitigation efforts are funded by both federal and provincial bodies. Since the Carbon Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, those funds have to come out of general revenue. Either way, the cost is borne by the taxpayer. The difference being, if CT revenue is earmarked for wildfire mitigation efforts, it means less money that goes to rebates for lower income folks. Basically, is just shuffling the same amount of money around. To be clear, I was being somewhat flippant in my earlier post. No politician is sitting around saying "too bad, so sad" to the people of Jasper, just as they weren't a few years ago to the people in Ft. McMurray. While I agree that their may have been poor planning in regards to our readiness to deal with what seems to be an annual problem, I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that we have known for quite some time that our actions were contributing to the issue, but not everyone was willing to do something about it.....or even admit that it was a problem, for that matter..... If they are serious about fighting climate change and the are going to advertise the carbon tax as the tool to fight it, then a set amount should have to be used for this effort. funding low income subsidies should come from other sources or the remainder after the set amount. Or you might as well just call it the anti travel tax. "Basically, is just shuffling the same amount of money around." Not really you also get the cost saving of preventing these fires. Which I'm sure you would get close to what you would put into prevention back. By creating more firebreaks they can also hopefully lower the price of lumber and build more houses while they are at it. Edited July 25 by Bure_Pavel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said: If they are serious about fighting climate change and the are going to advertise the carbon tax as the tool to fight it, then a set amount should have to be used for this effort. funding low income subsidies should come from other sources or the remainder after the set amount. Or you might as well just call it the anti travel tax. "Basically, is just shuffling the same amount of money around." Not really you also get the cost saving of preventing these fires. Which I'm sure you would get close to back what you would put into prevention. By creating more firebreaks they can also hopefully lower the price of lumber and build more houses while they are at it. I think you missed the point. If you plan to set aside money from the Carbon tax to fight wildfires, but still plan to give the same CT rebates, you have to take the money from General revenue. Hence "just shuffling money around". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) 4 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: I think you missed the point. If you plan to set aside money from the Carbon tax to fight wildfires, but still plan to give the same CT rebates, you have to take the money from General revenue. Hence "just shuffling money around". Then lower the rebates or restrict to the people who need it the most, its based on a percentage of gas usage anyways. The ones who are not working I would assume are already paying less as they are driving less and taking less flights. Prevention is almost always cheaper that reacting after shit hits the fan, in a balanced budget that leaves more government money for programs and such. Edited July 25 by Bure_Pavel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said: Then lower the rebates or restrict to the people who need it the most, its based on a percentage of gas usage anyways. The ones who are not working I would assume are already paying less as they are driving less and taking less flights. It's not just gas though. It's natural gas and heating oil. I'm not sure lowering the rebate threshold would be a popular move. When you take firefighting costs from general revenue, it doesn't affect people the same way. It's ultimately paid by the taxpayer, but it's not something that people notice, as they would a rebate check that stops coming.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 minute ago, RupertKBD said: It's not just gas though. It's natural gas and heating oil. I'm not sure lowering the rebate threshold would be a popular move. When you take firefighting costs from general revenue, it doesn't affect people the same way. It's ultimately paid by the taxpayer, but it's not something that people notice, as they would a rebate check that stops coming.... We could, however, solve the issue by increasing the carbon tax. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 3 minutes ago, King Heffy said: We could, however, solve the issue by increasing the carbon tax. Good news its already doubled over the last 3 years and is set to double again over the next 5 years, didn't seem to fix things much though. April 1, 2019: $39.10 per 10³m³ (approximately $1.00/GJ) April 1, 2020: $58.70 per 10³m³ (approximately $1.50/GJ) April 1, 2021: $78.30 per 10³m³ (approximately $2.00/GJ) April 1, 2022: $97.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $2.50/GJ) April 1, 2023: $123.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $3.25/GJ) April 1, 2024: $152.50 per 10³m³ (approximately $4.00/GJ) April 1, 2025: $181.10 per 10³m³ (approximately $4.75/GJ) April 1, 2026: $209.70 per 10³m³ (approximately $5.50/GJ) April 1, 2027: $238.30 per 10³m³ (approximately $6.25/GJ) April 1, 2028: $266.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $7.25/GJ) April 1, 2029: $295.40 per 10³m³ (approximately $8.00/GJ) April 1, 2030: $324.00 per 10³m³ (approximately $8.75/GJ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe King Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Since we struggle to use less fossil fuel we not look into using some of the carbon tax on scrubbers. I was just checking out the Climeworks Orca in Iceland,it removes 4000 tonnes of carbon a year. I know it's expensive but what are all these fires costing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 32 minutes ago, Joe King said: Since we struggle to use less fossil fuel we not look into using some of the carbon tax on scrubbers. I was just checking out the Climeworks Orca in Iceland,it removes 4000 tonnes of carbon a year. I know it's expensive but what are all these fires costing. you don't need to look that far away. Check out carbon engineering in Squamish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnstorm Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 19 hours ago, bolt said: Are Provinces responsible for National Parks? Does the Federal Governement bare no responsibility for the destruction of Jasper? Regardless of what province our national parks are located in they fall under federal government jurisdiction and protected through federal legislation. The imminent threat of fire in Jasper National Park due to hundreds of square kilometres of dead standing trees within the park was brought to the federal governments attention in the HOC 7 years ago. Tonight the entire nation mourns the loss of our crown jewel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 3 hours ago, Barnstorm said: Regardless of what province our national parks are located in they fall under federal government jurisdiction and protected through federal legislation. The imminent threat of fire in Jasper National Park due to hundreds of square kilometres of dead standing trees within the park was brought to the federal governments attention in the HOC 7 years ago. Tonight the entire nation mourns the loss of our crown jewel. Again, the feds are in charge of the maintenance of infrstructure and stewardship whtin national parks. But they have zero firefighting teams and never have. That is the provincial jurisdiction. End argument. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 23 hours ago, bolt said: Are Provinces responsible for National Parks? Does the Federal Governement bare no responsibility for the destruction of Jasper? 3 hours ago, Barnstorm said: Regardless of what province our national parks are located in they fall under federal government jurisdiction and protected through federal legislation. Tonight the entire nation mourns the loss of our crown jewel. Yes, National Parks are run by the Federal Government via Parks Canada. They have a Wildfire Management Service that is not that large and must work with other agencies. Parks Canada also imports and exports resources, personnel and equipment from/to other Canadian fire management agencies (ex: BC Wildfire, Société de protection des forêts contre le feu, AB Wildfire). Additionally, Parks Canada works with other Government of Canada departments and levels of government including: Public Safety Canada Natural Resources Canada Provincial and territorial emergency response agencies, municipal and regional governments Indigenous governments and communities In 2023, Parks Canada deployed 660 total personnel representing 34 different parks or sites to 10 unique locations across Canada https://parks.canada.ca/nature/science/conservation/feu-fire/incendies-wildfires Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ev-battery-materials-plant-loyalist-township-halts-construction-1.7276431 Why does the Liberals always bet on the obvious losing horse? How many billions are the taxpayer losing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) 13 hours ago, Warhippy said: Again, the feds are in charge of the maintenance of infrstructure and stewardship whtin national parks. But they have zero firefighting teams and never have. That is the provincial jurisdiction. End argument. They should if the truely cared about climate change. Nothing is stopping them from investing in a National park fire service Edited July 26 by bolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Meanwhile our incompetent PM is vacationing in Tofino for another 8 days. Maybe we'll get a statement from him when he's done vacationing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 3 minutes ago, bolt said: Meanwhile our incompetent PM is vacationing in Tofino for another 8 days. Maybe we'll get a statement from him when he's done vacationing. It's summer. EVERY MP and even Poindexter Poilivere are on vacation. Why is he not allowed to actually enjoy one himself? Why is Keane Bexte not harassing the over 330 other MPs in parliament for being on vacation? The level of harassment is kind of insane. If any "reporter" from a fringe piece of shit like the rebel with the whining milque toast credentials of Keane Bexte did that to Pierre he'd be calling it radical leftist harassment. This individual literally drove up to tofino, searched high and low to find the sitting PM and then chased him around with a camera while he was hanging with his kids. That doesn't seem a bit sad and suspect to you? All to get a few minutes of footage which he absolutely edited in a manner to push a certain narrative. Just sad. 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 15 minutes ago, bolt said: They should if the truely cared about climate change. Nothing is stopping them from investing in a National park fire service You are really grasping at straws with this one Bolt. I'm not sure you care how weak an argument is as long as there is a chance to blame the left for something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.