• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Doug Ford, #jail2023

Alex D. from TRIBE on Utility Room
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
wickedken said:
Nice deflection. Why won't you talk about Wynne's carbon policy?
Click to expand...

Deflection to what? I was just bored of our immigration discussion and needing to pull everything out of you like a dentist pulling teeth. Shouldn't have been that hard for you to cough up the recognition that Trump and Dofo are race baiting politicians hitting fear buttons with respect to immigrants and using it as a political wedge and an integral part of their brand.

This was a fresh post, just pointing out yet more, fresh, peer reviewed evidence in addition to the mountains of evidence that support pricing carbon into the economy as a policy that saves money in the long term. Here are examples I have shared before on the same theme: here here here

For people following where the evidence leads and monitoring recent analyses on this in climate science/financial risk (insurance companies are becoming increasingly interesting sources on these questions) - this latest study should buttress the contention that even imperfect attempts at pricing carbon into the economy should be pursued, because they de-risk us substantially against future costs.

Wynne's carbon policy could have been better if in addition to closing down coal (amazing that we did that!), we opened up a lot more nuclear. That said, it probably was a saver in the long term all things considered. And not building out nuclear is a common sin across the developed world these days.

The policy is better than not having a carbon policy, as the benefits described in this growing body of evidence show us that we save more in the long run. It is another study (yet another!) supporting the prudence of pricing carbon into the economy and the benefits we get. The benefits come from comparison against Do Nothing scenarios where carbon is not priced in - the benefits come ultimately from a less severe global warming impact so we pay less in the future - trillions less.

The DoFo policy of rolling back carbon pricing schemes to the previous status quo increases the risk profile with which we enter the next decades and century, however incrementally, its clearly a step backwards that is more likely to generate future costs greater than present costs it saves. At least according to the evidence, I mean, if you care about that.
 
Last edited:
wickedken

wickedken

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
Deflection to what? I was just bored of our immigration discussion and needing to pull everything out of you like a dentist pulling teeth. Shouldn't have been that hard for you to cough up the recognition that Trump and Dofo are race baiting politicians hitting fear buttons with respect to immigrants and using it as a political wedge and an integral part of their brand.

This was a fresh post, just pointing out yet more, fresh, peer reviewed evidence in addition to the mountains of evidence that support pricing carbon into the economy as a policy that saves money in the long term. Here are examples I have shared before on the same theme: here here here

For people following where the evidence leads and monitoring recent analyses on this in climate science/financial risk (insurance companies are becoming increasingly interesting sources on these questions) - this latest study should buttress the contention that even imperfect attempts at pricing carbon into the economy should be pursued, because they de-risk us substantially against future costs.

Wynne's carbon policy could have been better if in addition to closing down coal (amazing that we did that!), we opened up a lot more nuclear. That said, it probably was a saver in the long term all things considered. And not building out nuclear is a common sin across the developed world these days.

The policy is better than not having a carbon policy, as the benefits described in this growing body of evidence show us that we save more in the long run. It is another study (yet another!) supporting the prudence of pricing carbon into the economy and the benefits we get. The benefits come from comparison against Do Nothing scenarios where carbon is not priced in - the benefits come ultimately from a less severe global warming impact so we pay less in the future - trillions less.

The DoFo policy of rolling back carbon pricing schemes to the previous status quo increases the risk profile with which we enter the next decades and century, however incrementally, its clearly a step backwards that is more likely to generate future costs greater than present costs it saves. At least according to the evidence, I mean, if you care about that.
Click to expand...

Wynne's carbon policy could also have been better if it included hard targets and restrictions on carbon usage, plus also not allowing polluting factories to simply buy their way out of their obligations. Didn't we go to the same policy courses at York? Bad policy is bad policy, and half a policy is bad policy.
 
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
Thats a too sinplistic way to look at things.

Policy evolves overtime as things are tried and tweak, pricing carbon into the economy is exactly the right way to go

Dofo had a chance to evolve the policy and move it forward, instead he decided to go back to status quo, which if everybody does it, ensures we pay the highest future costs and sacrifice more

Going backwards and refusing to price carbon into the economy while indulging climate denialist fantasy, as his tribe is wont to do, is exactly the wrong policy for ontario.

And there is yet more evidence, fresh, on this page, showing just how stupid it is to avoid taking serious action on climate policy and pricing carbon into the economy. It pays back long term because pricing carbon in reduces its use more effectively than most other measures, and takes degrees off of future scenarios, which means trillions saved

Someone who claims to take care of the peoples money should pick the policy that reduces future costs not increases them
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
Bernnie Federko said:
What the fuck are these degenerate assholes thinking
Click to expand...

Maybe Ontario Proud/Bircherite stuff like "taking our country back"?? Maybe the Clash of Civilizations??

Maybe something about the Perfidy of the Moslem?

Maybe stuff about how strong and tough they are to beat up a father in front of his young daughters?
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
workdowntown

workdowntown

TRIBE Member

Sidenote: Canada is the only place I've ever gotten racial abuse in my life.
I'm white as fucking Casper but still remember a tatted 'faces of meth'-looking cunt in Ontario shouting 'race traitor' at myself and my filipina ex-gf.
 
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
workdowntown said:

Sidenote: Canada is the only place I've ever gotten racial abuse in my life.
I'm white as fucking Casper but still remember a tatted 'faces of meth'-looking cunt in Ontario shouting 'race traitor' at myself and my filipina ex-gf.
Click to expand...

Its the american conservative media's influence on the Canadian public. the Fox Newsification/Rush Limbaugh-ification of the Canadian right proceeds apace.

"Illegal Alien" is a pure American import and is not even a concept with currency in Canada since its origination was in American political discourse. No one used the term here.

After turning their backs on our own historical tradition of Toryism, our conservatives only Look South.
 
Last edited:
ndrwrld

ndrwrld

TRIBE Member
FYI...that incident @ Sobeys.
Victim declined to press charges. Red Shirted fucktard released with a warning. No Charges.

His name is quite sought after right now.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
wickedken said:
this sounds like starting a policy without a plan.
Click to expand...

No - its pretty much how every policy we have works, at every level of government, except for the freshest policy that has only hit the real world in recent days.

Every single piece of law we have has had years of court cases, amendments and change shaping and changing it.

Every health care system in every province has rule changes and updates.

Every curriculum in school gets tweaked - Ontario just tweaked itself back to 1998, which itself was a tweak on some version of the policy they had been changing for 50 years.

If there was an imperfect carbon policy out the gate?

That is just real life.

You show me the one time the government put forward a policy and it was perfect on day 1 and never changed.

Think about it - name 1 for me!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
KickIT

KickIT

TRIBE Member
Personally I think the Wynne Liberals did a horrible job selling what the Carbon Tax does and tie the value back to the demographic state of the voter.

For instance, as a middle class family doing renovations to our home, the benefit of the Green Ontario Fund to help pay or pay outright for in-house upgrades like the Nest/Ecobee, or energy efficient appliances, or solar roofs and electric cars would not only curb my emmisions, but also cut my hydro bill from increased energy efficiency.

For poorer families, the fund should've been used to retrofit low income housing with more energy efficient appliances, saving the province/consumer long term or even help subsidize hydro bills in areas where transmission fees were an issue.

In the long run, the carbon tax is better for everyone by increasing energy efficiency, reducing consumption and hydro bills, reduces emmisions (eliminated smog) spurred innovation and new industry and could've led to further democratization of hydro through home generated solar power. But by not properly crafting that story for the electorate, it allowed the issue to come down to a simple $.10 a litre saving off gas which is like what? $10-20 a month in savings? Greener homes and vehicles would generate a hell of a lot more savings than that.
 
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
No - its pretty much how every policy we have works, at every level of government, except for the freshest policy that has only hit the real world in recent days.

Every single piece of law we have has had years of court cases, amendments and change shaping and changing it.

Every health care system in every province has rule changes and updates.

Every curriculum in school gets tweaked - Ontario just tweaked itself back to 1998, which itself was a tweak on some version of the policy they had been changing for 50 years.

If there was an imperfect carbon policy out the gate?

That is just real life.

You show me the one time the government put forward a policy and it was perfect on day 1 and never changed.

Think about it - name 1 for me!
Click to expand...

And actually you can think of ways that changing governments, changing parties in control - moved policy into new areas where it needed to evolve. Maybe the PCs were missing something and the libs put in a tweak or three, then vice versa.

Overtime we are better for the greater diversity of constructive influence we let act on a policy. It takes a bit of a pre-existing consensus of facts between parties and good faith - a belief in public service and stewardship of Canada.

If each party goes into tribes and universes of their own facts and just hits the "undo" button there is no progress, only regression. Or one step forward one step back stasis.
 
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
KickIT said:
Personally I think the Wynne Liberals did a horrible job selling what the Carbon Tax does and tie the value back to the demographic state of the voter.

For instance, as a middle class family doing renovations to our home, the benefit of the Green Ontario Fund to help pay or pay outright for in-house upgrades like the Nest/Ecobee, or energy efficient appliances, or solar roofs and electric cars would not only curb my emmisions, but also cut my hydro bill from increased energy efficiency.

For poorer families, the fund should've been used to retrofit low income housing with more energy efficient appliances, saving the province/consumer long term or even help subsidize hydro bills in areas where transmission fees were an issue.

In the long run, the carbon tax is better for everyone by increasing energy efficiency, reducing consumption and hydro bills, reduces emmisions (eliminated smog) spurred innovation and new industry and could've led to further democratization of hydro through home generated solar power. But by not properly crafting that story for the electorate, it allowed the issue to come down to a simple $.10 a litre saving off gas which is like what? $10-20 a month in savings? Greener homes and vehicles would generate a hell of a lot more savings than that.
Click to expand...

There was clearly plenty of opportunity to make the policy better! ;)

One wonders if any better marketing of the policy would appease the Ostriches running the Ontario PC party though.
 
KickIT

KickIT

TRIBE Member
Don't need to appease the PC party, they simply played on strings of an uninformed electorate who see 10cents/litre savings as trumping any savings from improved infrastructure (public/private) that increased energy efficiency.
 
Bernnie Federko

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Agree - They didn't do a great job rolling it out. We spent well north of a quarter million last year reconstructing our bungalow into a 2 story detach, and while we got a couple of things via rebate (Ecobee 3 being one), we got fuck all for our 20k in super efficient double pane windows, our complete insulation job, natural gas throughout, Hi end hi effecincy furnace, etc. And yes we had it all rated post reno. Our electrical bill last month with the central AC on was a hundred and twenty bucks. Since we moved back in during Christmas, same thing. This with kids and a my wife at home full time with a newborn (so we're consuming gas, electricity, and water around the clock)...

The shitty thing is, DoFo and his gang don't seem keen on their own plan and that's even worse...

On the Windows, etc, the rating system for the L's plan was nuts. The windows alone don't make sense for anyone's house south of North Bay...

KickIT said:
Personally I think the Wynne Liberals did a horrible job selling what the Carbon Tax does and tie the value back to the demographic state of the voter.

For instance, as a middle class family doing renovations to our home, the benefit of the Green Ontario Fund to help pay or pay outright for in-house upgrades like the Nest/Ecobee, or energy efficient appliances, or solar roofs and electric cars would not only curb my emmisions, but also cut my hydro bill from increased energy efficiency.

For poorer families, the fund should've been used to retrofit low income housing with more energy efficient appliances, saving the province/consumer long term or even help subsidize hydro bills in areas where transmission fees were an issue.

In the long run, the carbon tax is better for everyone by increasing energy efficiency, reducing consumption and hydro bills, reduces emmisions (eliminated smog) spurred innovation and new industry and could've led to further democratization of hydro through home generated solar power. But by not properly crafting that story for the electorate, it allowed the issue to come down to a simple $.10 a litre saving off gas which is like what? $10-20 a month in savings? Greener homes and vehicles would generate a hell of a lot more savings than that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top