World Politics

[blue_gold_84]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

When you factor in the costs of climate change induced damages, it certainly is a compelling argument.  The cost of doing nothing or delaying doing something is far more in terms of financial, human and environmental than you can seem to wrap your head around.

That is the viewpoint of someone with a lack of imagination.

The cognitive dissonance is stunning. I'd be more inclined to laugh about it if it wasn't derailing this thread.

An EV manufacturer getting gov't support is bad. An O&G producer getting gov't support is ostensibly okay because it's been that way for ages. The ****.

[Bigblue204]

8 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I could care less what the government does to lower prices. If it's taking it from the oil companies....fantastic....even better. What i do know, is that there is a scheduled 15 cent a liter increase in carbon tax coming up in the next couple of weeks. My contention is that it should be delayed given the price of gas right now. If the government, in the meantime or afterwards, wants to find a way to cap the prices at the pump at the expense of the oil companies I'm all for it. They have my complete support.

Yes and if/when they do....oil and gas will STILL increase the price lol. I 100% guarentee it. So instead of the citizens receiving that money (taxes) it'll go to off shore bank accounts. Sounds like it will help! 

Again, oil and gas is RIDICULOUSLY good at making people angry at their governments (or other entities) for the issues oil and gas start.

at the start of the pandemic, when unfortunately a lot of information was coming out, about declining fertility in humans...and evidence was clear that a major factor was oil and plastic. Coincidentally the vaccine was released and almost immediately theories about it's impact on human fertility started...that was not by accident. Oil and gas saw an opportunity to get the spot light off them once again and took it. This is just one example of how easily they can change a narrative because of their grip on society. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Bigblue204

[SpeedFlex27]

18 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

By your own definition, oil and gas are not viable. How do you think they got to the point they are now exactly? Hard work and long hours? Lol. Oil and gas have received and CONTINUE to receive government subsidies. 

Yes those poor oil and gas companies...how hard it must be with all the taxation they face lol. I'll say it again. There is zero reason to reduce the taxes at the pump and zero reasons why the price can NOT be lowered. Taxes have very little to do with it.

Our governments need to grow some ******* balls and do what's right for the people....they won't. But they certainly need to.

Obviously O & G is viable as you fill your car & heat your home everyday. As far as subsidies go, yes they certainly do. But I don't recall Henry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller asking or receiving subsidies to build oil rigs, roadways & service stations along new highways at the start of the 20th Century.

People weren't taxed for riding horses instead of driving an automoble.. They weren't taxed because that was the way of the future.

People weren't taxed when the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane which would eventually lead to commercial airline service in the late 1920's & airports being built. Yeah, sure these companies got favourable deals from local governments but people didn'r pay a constantly increasing airplane tax or an automobile tax while they still used horses. 

You can say what you want about subsidies for O & G & how evil these companies are. But if Tesla can get it or wind generated companies then so should Texaco or Esso. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by SpeedFlex27

[Bigblue204]

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Obviously O & G is viable as you fill your car & heat your home everyday. As far as subsidies go, yes they certainly do. But I don't recall Henry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller asking or receiving subsidies to build oil rigs, roadways & service stations along new highways.

People weren't taxed for having horses instead of the automoble.. They weren't taxed when hotels were being built or restaurants at rest stops came into being because that was the way of the future.

People weren't taxed when the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane which would eventually lead to commercial airline service in the late 1920's & airports being built. Yeah, sure these companies got favourable deals from local governments but people didn'r pay a constantly increasing airplane tax or an automobile tax while they still used horses. 

You can say what you want about subsidies for O & G & how evil these companies are. But if Tesla can get it or wind generated companies then so should Texaco or Esso. 

Lol. Bro do yourself a favour and go learn some history. Because literally almost everything you've said here is incorrect. 

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Obviously O & G is viable as you fill your car & heat your home everyday. As far as subsidies go, yes they certainly do. But I don't recall Henry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller asking or receiving subsidies to build oil rigs, roadways & service stations along new highways.

People weren't taxed for having horses instead of the automoble.. They weren't taxed when hotels were being built or restaurants at rest stops came into being because that was the way of the future.

People weren't taxed when the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane which would eventually lead to commercial airline service in the late 1920's & airports being built. Yeah, sure these companies got favourable deals from local governments but people didn'r pay a constantly increasing airplane tax or an automobile tax while they still used horses. 

You can say what you want about subsidies for O & G & how evil these companies are. But if Tesla can get it or wind generated companies then so should Texaco or Esso. 

Roads? Biggest subsidy of all for automobile companies. 

[SpeedFlex27]

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Obviously O & G is viable as you fill your car & heat your home everyday. As far as subsidies go, yes they certainly do. But I don't recall Henry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller asking or receiving subsidies to build oil rigs, roadways & service stations along new highways at the start of the 20th Century.

People weren't taxed for riding horses instead of driving an automoble.. They weren't taxed because that was the way of the future.

People weren't taxed when the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane which would eventually lead to commercial airline service in the late 1920's & airports being built. Yeah, sure these companies got favourable deals from local governments but people didn'r pay a constantly increasing airplane tax or an automobile tax while they still used horses. 

You can say what you want about subsidies for O & G & how evil these companies are. But if Tesla can get it or wind generated companies then so should Texaco or Esso. 

I was reacting to the applause Norway got on an earlier post, Jcon. 

[blue_gold_84]

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Obviously O & G is viable as you fill your car & heat your home everyday. As far as subsidies go, yes they certainly do. But I don't recall Henry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller asking or receiving subsidies to build oil rigs, roadways & service stations along new highways at the start of the 20th Century.

People weren't taxed for riding horses instead of driving an automoble.. They weren't taxed because that was the way of the future.

People weren't taxed when the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aeroplane which would eventually lead to commercial airline service in the late 1920's & airports being built. Yeah, sure these companies got favourable deals from local governments but people didn'r pay a constantly increasing airplane tax or an automobile tax while they still used horses. 

You can say what you want about subsidies for O & G & how evil these companies are. But if Tesla can get it or wind generated companies then so should Texaco or Esso. 

[SpeedFlex27]

Just now, JCon said:

Roads? Biggest subsidy of all for automobile companies. 

but there was no road tax in 1910 for future roadways like the carbon tax today... for future green development. That's my point.

[JCon]

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

but there was no road tax in 1910 for future roadways like the carbon tax today... for future green development. That's my point.

Carbon pricing comes back to those that pay it. How you choose to reinvest that money is up to you. 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Norway.... Let's tax everything for the future. For EV's. For infrastructure. Let's punish peiople for driving gasoline powered vehicles. That's what you read. 

Just now, JCon said:

Carbon pricing comes back to those that pay it. How you choose to reinvest that money is up to you. 

I don't get to do that. What do I invest??? 

[Bigblue204]

I'm not in favour of subsidies myself. But pretending like our society hasn't been largely made possible due to subsidies is hilarious to say the least. And yes if one type of energy company is getting them most should, to be fair. That's just how our broken world works.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't get to do that. What do I invest??? 

What do you do with your cheque? 

[SpeedFlex27]

I'm all for renewables but not at the cost of hurting people financially. And please don't tell me that hurting people is a good thing because it forces them to make choices. Sick people deciding whether to pay for heating or starving is a choice, as well. That is simply social engineering at its worst. 

2 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I'm not in favour of subsidies myself. But pretending like our society hasn't been largely made possible due to subsidies is hilarious to say the least. And yes if one type of energy company is getting them most should, to be fair. That's just how our broken world works.

That's right. That was partly my point. Once again, I'm not against renewables. Just the way it's being brought in. 

[JCon]

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm all for renewables but not at the cost of hurting people financially. And please don't tell me that hurting people is a good thing because it forces them to make choices. Sick people deciding whether to pay for heating or starving is a choice, as well. That is simply social engineering at its worst. 

We have other social safety nets to help take care of that. That's not social engineering, that's taking care of everyone. 

You get more back than you pay for carbon pricing. 

Too long have we pushed our problems to the next generation. 

[blue_gold_84]

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Norway.... Let's tax everything for the future. For EV's. For infrastructure. Let's punish peiople for driving gasoline powered vehicles. That's what you read. 

You don't seem to know much about Norway. You have seem to have absolutely no idea how taxation functions. You also seem to think subsidies are bad but only when it's EV producers getting them.

[SpeedFlex27]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

What do you do with your cheque? 

Right now? Not much. I'm not one of these rich seniors who have property in Mexico or constantly travel. My car is 10 years old but in really good condition. We live in a modest home in Calgary. I put away some money for retirement but wish I would've done more. Money's tight. 

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm all for renewables but not at the cost of hurting people financially. And please don't tell me that hurting people is a good thing because it forces them to make choices. Sick people deciding whether to pay for heating or starving is a choice, as well. That is simply social engineering at its worst. 

I am all in favour of returning to 1950's levels of taxation on the wealthy and corporations.  They call it the Golden Age for a reason.

As for the nonsense about penalizing ICE vehicle owners.  The total cost of ownership of an EV is lower and will become much lower as the industry expands and options for lower purchase price models increases.  Even though owners will save a ton on vehicle operation, you are against giving some of those savings to provide safe road infrastructure because you have an irrational fear of tax.  

So "costs" are fine with you as long as it doesn't filter back to society in the form of tax.

I think I get you now.

[JCon]

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

Right now? Not much. I'm not one of these rich seniors who have property in Mexico or constantly travel. My car is 10 years old but in really good condition. We live in a modest home in Calgary. I put away some money for retirement but wish I would've done more. Money's tight. 

Right but carbon pricing doesn't hurt your bottom line. You get more than you pay. 

And, you're only talking upfront costs for vehicle ownership. We have to deal with the long-term effects of adding that much carbon back into the atmosphere. 

 

 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

We have other social safety nets to help take care of that. That's not social engineering, that's taking care of everyone. 

You get more back than you pay for carbon pricing. 

Too long have we pushed our problems to the next generation. 

You see, that's where we differ politically. I consider the movement to renewables & the way it's being done as social engineering. We'll never agree. As far as the social side of politics goes, I'm with you all the way. On that we agree. Hard to lose my fiscal conservative roots. Especially at my age.

[JCon]

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

You see, that's where we differ politically. I consider the movement to renewables & the way it's being done as social engineering. We'll never agree. As far as the social side of politics goes, I'm with you all the way. On that we agree. Hard to lose my fiscal conservative roots. Especially at my age.

Right because the upfront cost is very low now. But, the long-term costs to food and water are immeasurable. 

Roads are social engineering but no one has a problem when we repair/replace a road. 

[Goalie]

Isn't the biggest problem with EV is price and actually convincing people to buy electric? 

I'm putting solar panels on my cabin this summer... it's a 30 by 40 foot cabin. Cost of solar? 22000 but we do get quite a bit back once installed. We pay 22k. We get back about 11k. 

[SpeedFlex27]

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I am all in favour of returning to 1950's levels of taxation on the wealthy and corporations.  They call it the Golden Age for a reason.

As for the nonsense about penalizing ICE vehicle owners.  The total cost of ownership of an EV is lower and will become much lower as the industry expands and options for lower purchase price models increases.  Even though owners will save a ton on vehicle operation, you are against giving some of those savings to provide safe road infrastructure because you have an irrational fear of tax.  

So "costs" are fine with you as long as it doesn't filter back to society in the form of tax.

I think I get you now.

Costs to me are important. How many people can afford a vehicle that is $70,000 just to drive an EV?? That cost has to come down significantly if everyone will drive them. They are elite vehicles in my mind. When they become affordable, I'd consider it. Chances are, ny driving days will be over or I'll be dead by then.

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Right because the upfront cost is very low now. But, the long-term costs to food and water are immeasurable. 

Roads are social engineering but no one has a problem when we repair/replace a road. 

EV's will need roads so that's maintenace & not social engineering. Social engineering is when governments or companies try to alter society's behaviour or thoughts.  A carbon tax is social engineering, therefore. 

[JCon]

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Costs to me are important. How many people can afford a vehicle that is $70,000 just to drive an EV?? That cost has to come down significantly if everyone will drive them. They are elite vehicles in my mind. When they become affordable, I'd consider it. Chances are, ny driving days will be over or I'll be dead by then.

They start under $40k now. 

4 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

EV's will need roads so that's maintenace & not social engineering. Social engineering is when governments or companies try to alter society's behaviour or thoughts.  A carbon tax is social engineering, therefore. 

Roads have always been social engineering, you're just used to it. All infrastructure is social engineering. 

[SpeedFlex27]

11 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

You don't seem to know much about Norway. You have seem to have absolutely no idea how taxation functions. You also seem to think subsidies are bad but only when it's EV producers getting them.

First of all I've been paying taxes since 1971 when I got my fist job in HS at aresturant washing dishes in Winnipeg so I have an idea how they wor. Second, I read that post on Norway. Taxes on gasoline powered vehicles to pay for EV infrastructure. basically punishing drivers to get them to buy EV's. Every indusrty has subsidies. I already agreed with JCon about that. My point is O & G wa saround & functioning powering society long before any subsidies came their way. Unlike the Elon Musk's of the world relying on them to finance his Tesla vehicles long before they were viable. His company wouldn't exiist without government subsidies. But that's okay. Every industry has subsidies so Musk is entitled for Tesla to get them as well. 

5 minutes ago, JCon said:

They start under $40k now. 

 

That's still unaffordable to a lot of people. They need to be similar prices to gasoline powered cars like a Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion. Then they'll have something. I've no doubt that it'll get there someday but not right now. 

[Bigblue204]

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

First of all I've been paying taxes since 1971 when I got my fist job in HS at aresturant washing dishes in Winnipeg so I have an idea how they wor. Second, I read that post on Norway. Taxes on gasoline powered vehicles to pay for EV infrastructure. basically punishing drivers to get them to buy EV's. Every indusrty has subsidies. I already agreed with JCon about that. My point is O & G wa saround & functioning powering society long before any subsidies came their way. Unlike the Elon Musk's of the world relying on them to finance his Tesla vehicles long before they were viable. His company wouldn't exiist without government subsidies. But that's okay. Every industry has subsidies so Musk is entitled for Tesla to get them as well. 

This is 100% wrong. There is no truth tovthis at all. The ONLY reason oil and gas was made a reliable source of energy is BECAUSE of subsidies.