Scott Moe and Danielle Smith say the exemption should also be applied to natural gas, as the majority of people in their provinces use it to heat their homes.
Scott Moe and Danielle Smith say the exemption should also be applied to natural gas, as the majority of people in their provinces use it to heat their homes.
Both natural gas and heating oil contribute co2 emissions. One just got a carbon tax exemption for some reason. Not sure what your blind hatred for Alberta has to do with inconsistently applied carbon tax rules.
Because Danielle Smith and Scott Moe are horrible human beings actively gaslighting Canadians towards supporting terrible policy, and rational people can see right through that shit and hate everything about it?
Sure, fuck Smith and Moe, my politics are the same as yours, but that’s not what you said. You told a random person to go fuck themselves. Then you said that of the province of Saskatchewan, a province with two NDP leaning cities with tons of progressives.
I’m disappointed in Lemmy for rewarding such mindless “own the cons” behaviour. I expect that nonsense from the far right.
You want me to quit with my blind hatred of Alberta? Then shut up with your fucking ads!
I'm sick of watching them, I'm sick of hearing them. I live in Ontario and don't give a shit about what your province or MAGA-loving Premier has to say.
Canadian who lives in Alberta here. I just want to point out that the majority of Calgarians, Edmontonians, as well as Banff / Canmore voted NDP in the election earlier this year:
The person you're responding to can't see the difference between the people who live in a province and their political leaders... while living in a province that voted in Doug Ford.
While I don't agree with their reaction. In spite of the inconsistency, I see this as still accomplishing the goal. Part of the rationale behind the carbon tax is incentivizing a move away from CO2 emitting sources through cost. The high cost of heating oil even without the tax could be argued as incentive enough. Whether it was a move simply meant to "buy" votes in Atlantic Canada and whether the exemptions was a good move anyway... Don't know.
Good point. I'm not familiar enough with the cost of heating oil. The cynic in me can definitely see this as a political move to shore up votes in Atlantic Canada.
Because heating oil is dirtier (i.e. more carbon intensive), the carbon tax is higher per unit of energy produced for heating oil than for natural gas.
The federal carbon tax currently costs 12 cents extra per cubic metre of natural gas, 10 cents extra per litre of propane and 17 cents extra per litre of furnace oil.
So for roughly the same amount of energy produced, heating oil generates roughly 50% more carbon emissions and has a corresponding 50% higher carbon tax. Makes sense.
But, put another way, folks out east have a 50% higher carbon tax burden to heat their homes than folks out west. So lowering or eliminating the tax for folks using heating oil has a greater impact on affordability than for folks burning nat gas.
Now, IMO, the right solution, if the goal is to improve affordability for Canadians in the short term, is to lower the carbon tax on heating oil, not eliminate it outright. Just set the tax to 12c a liter for heating oil and 12c per m3 for nat gas. Nice and fair, even if it's a regressive environmental policy.
In practice, though, let's face it, there's probably politics at play, here. After all, it's Smith that's blowing millions of Alberta taxpayer dollars to advertise in opposition to the feds environmental policies for decarbonizing the electrical grid, among many other things. One has to wonder if she and Moe hadn't been so damn antagonistic, if the carbon tax changes would've been structured differently...