The environment is a factor which will determine our economic future. We need to develop more environmentally friendly energy methods and fund our municipalities more reasonably! This will only benefit Canadians in the long run!
In fact, the highly popularized 'softwood lumber dispute' was all about US animosity over what they described as 'unfair, subsidized' stumpage rates, rendering BC wood in particular, several times 'cheaper' than equivalent US lumber. Since such subsidies are clearly affecting Canada's international trade it is becoming essential for the Federal government to somehow elevate these perverse subsidies.
Both levels of government fund and/or conduct ecologically destructive practices such as pesticide spraying, fire suppression, and reforestation through monocultures. While the Federal government in particular supplies an additional 'free' source of research and development funds.
Such high levels of funding, largely through subsidy, are not being practiced in other G8 nations.
Stumpage rates and leases are so low in Canada that industry never even pays close to the 'cash value' of the timber they are extracting, not to mention the forests greater value in terms of ecological services. Historically, such rates paid in provinces have not come close to the cost of running forest departments.
I agree that one of the most important changes that could be made by Canadian government is the shift away from our currently outdated system to a redesigned tax and subsidy policy.
Focusing on forestry policy for my masters degree in environmental studies I am constantly learning how governments (both federal and provincial) have essentially 'given away the forest' -- a public resource.
Government subsidies is such a huge issue. I completely agree they the government is funding many companies that should not be getting to much money from the tax payers. Don't forget, without Canada being on very good terms with the gas companies our economy would probably crash, but the environment should still come first. I hope you take you take your ideas to the masses.
Alberta and Canada's economy is being driven by the oil industry, however the environmental degradation that is taking place there is horrid. If Alberta and the Federal government do not start placing strictor regulations on the oil companies than Alberta will be without an economy or environment after the depletion of thier oil. The question is do you want short term economic gain or long term sustainability?
Did you know for every barrel of oil that is produced in the tarsands we use 2 - 5 barrels of water? I believe that this is by far the biggest environmental issue facing Canadians and it is something that must be acknowledged before we can undertake any other environmental initiatives!
Thanks for you comments Samuel. I agree with you that the Tar Sands are one of the most pressing issues facing our environment and may be the single reason why Canada cannot meet Kyoto. However, I do not agree with the fact that we shouldn't focus on any other environmental initiatives. We can still accomplish significant environmental success in establishing renewable energy while phasing out coal and nuclear power plants.
In transportation we can limit emissions from vehicles by introducing fuel taxes and congestion charges. We can still improve transit systems. We can begin practicing sustainable forestry; regulating water-use and implementing smart growth strategies.
The Alberta tar sands are one of the worst environmental disasters to ever face Canada and it is unfortunate that we are committed to supplying the U.S with our oil through the proportional energy sharing clause in NAFTA. As you mentioned it is going to become the single largest emitter of GHG emissions, it is leading to water depletion and pollution, the boreal forest destruction and tailing ponds. It is also having a detrimental effect on aboriginal lands, especially the DehCho First Nation.
Therefore I recommend the same strategy as proposed by many environmental groups which is a moratorium placed on any expansion of the tar sands until all outstanding social and environmental concerns have been fully studied, and the cumulative impacts of recent development have been established. The government can then use the time to develop a sensible, sustainable strategy for development.
As well, under NAFTA, Canada is essentially locked into an agreement with the USA with the amount of oil that must be exported south. This is locked into place by the NAFTA proportionality clause which states Canada must ship the same levels of oil it has been for the last 3 years to the US, even in case of a shortage.
The Alberta Tarsands are the single largest GHG emitter in Canada. Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership oil production is anticipated to rise 5x that of current levels. This is a huge issue for Canadians and is one of the reasons we were not able to meet the stipulations of Kyoto.
I completely am in support of your clean energy policies. But again, as I have said to others advocating renewable sources of energy, before any positive steps can be taken forward for green energy we MUST acknowledge the problem of the Alberta Tarsands.
Excellent points Thomas backed up by solid research. Your perspective is long overdue and still absent in policy and law. Your policies will help us to "internalize" the view "The economy is a wholely owned subsidiary of the environment." Thank you for your contribution and I wish you the best of luck.
These are marvelous ideas. You have obviously done a lot of research and you present that very well. Canada should adopt all your ideas because they are fantastic.
Tom I really like the way you think! Perhaps if Canada adopted some of your ideas, you'd be able to give that speech from a lush forest rather than a field of weeds with one lonely tree in the background.
Not bad research, but a national transit system comparable to that of Europe or Japan? Quick question. How much bigger is Canada than any country in Europe?
We have also started subsidizing environmentally friendly vehicles, and taxing unfriendly ones.
I like your points, you're right, as a society Canada is pretty dirty. But I don't see an answer in your video.
THe answer is we need to eliminate perverse subsidies and redirect those subsidies into sustainable practices. We need to stop subsidizing practices that lead to pollution and start subsiding environmentally friendly iniativies.
Canada is much larger than and EU nation, but a it is possible to improve our transit slowly over the next decade so we have a good transit system nationally. The Federal government needs to take a leadership role in susbsidizing operating costs.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association has developed a national transit stategy for Canada. Two key recommendation involve: a) Federal transit investment of $2 billion a year to maintain, renew, and expand transit services. b) tac incentives for individuals to choose transit such as income tax exemptions. This would allow Canada to reduce vehicle emmisions.
Yes we have started subsidizing environmentally friendly vehicles and taxing unfriendly ones through Corporate Fuel Efficency Standards (Cafe). However, Fuel taxes are a more effective method of reducing emmisions for two reasons. 1) a gas tax applys to all drivers while Cafe standards only apply to those buying new vehicles. 2) A gas tax increases the cost of each mile driven, while Cafe standards reduce the cost, encouraging additional driving.
Yo man, I love to see you making these type things; people need to be more into there work; it's good hearing this shit from someone I trust to look into it in an acceptable way. Keep it up, I'll always be reading to listen.
Thomas Morel,
The environment is a factor which will determine our economic future. We need to develop more environmentally friendly energy methods and fund our municipalities more reasonably! This will only benefit Canadians in the long run!
Happy Holidays!
Aman Brar
CNGPM Candidate
amanbrar7 4 years ago
4/4
In fact, the highly popularized 'softwood lumber dispute' was all about US animosity over what they described as 'unfair, subsidized' stumpage rates, rendering BC wood in particular, several times 'cheaper' than equivalent US lumber. Since such subsidies are clearly affecting Canada's international trade it is becoming essential for the Federal government to somehow elevate these perverse subsidies.
aroyle0707 4 years ago
Thanks for you comments...An excellent example of how our tax dollars are being used to harm our environment
MorelT 4 years ago
3
Both levels of government fund and/or conduct ecologically destructive practices such as pesticide spraying, fire suppression, and reforestation through monocultures. While the Federal government in particular supplies an additional 'free' source of research and development funds.
Such high levels of funding, largely through subsidy, are not being practiced in other G8 nations.
aroyle0707 4 years ago
2
Stumpage rates and leases are so low in Canada that industry never even pays close to the 'cash value' of the timber they are extracting, not to mention the forests greater value in terms of ecological services. Historically, such rates paid in provinces have not come close to the cost of running forest departments.
aroyle0707 4 years ago
I agree that one of the most important changes that could be made by Canadian government is the shift away from our currently outdated system to a redesigned tax and subsidy policy.
Focusing on forestry policy for my masters degree in environmental studies I am constantly learning how governments (both federal and provincial) have essentially 'given away the forest' -- a public resource.
aroyle0707 4 years ago
Hey Tom,
Government subsidies is such a huge issue. I completely agree they the government is funding many companies that should not be getting to much money from the tax payers. Don't forget, without Canada being on very good terms with the gas companies our economy would probably crash, but the environment should still come first. I hope you take you take your ideas to the masses.
DanRounding 4 years ago
Thanks for the comment Dan
Alberta and Canada's economy is being driven by the oil industry, however the environmental degradation that is taking place there is horrid. If Alberta and the Federal government do not start placing strictor regulations on the oil companies than Alberta will be without an economy or environment after the depletion of thier oil. The question is do you want short term economic gain or long term sustainability?
MorelT 4 years ago
Did you know for every barrel of oil that is produced in the tarsands we use 2 - 5 barrels of water? I believe that this is by far the biggest environmental issue facing Canadians and it is something that must be acknowledged before we can undertake any other environmental initiatives!
samuelfbaron 4 years ago
Thanks for you comments Samuel. I agree with you that the Tar Sands are one of the most pressing issues facing our environment and may be the single reason why Canada cannot meet Kyoto. However, I do not agree with the fact that we shouldn't focus on any other environmental initiatives. We can still accomplish significant environmental success in establishing renewable energy while phasing out coal and nuclear power plants.
MorelT 4 years ago
In transportation we can limit emissions from vehicles by introducing fuel taxes and congestion charges. We can still improve transit systems. We can begin practicing sustainable forestry; regulating water-use and implementing smart growth strategies.
MorelT 4 years ago
The Alberta tar sands are one of the worst environmental disasters to ever face Canada and it is unfortunate that we are committed to supplying the U.S with our oil through the proportional energy sharing clause in NAFTA. As you mentioned it is going to become the single largest emitter of GHG emissions, it is leading to water depletion and pollution, the boreal forest destruction and tailing ponds. It is also having a detrimental effect on aboriginal lands, especially the DehCho First Nation.
MorelT 4 years ago
Therefore I recommend the same strategy as proposed by many environmental groups which is a moratorium placed on any expansion of the tar sands until all outstanding social and environmental concerns have been fully studied, and the cumulative impacts of recent development have been established. The government can then use the time to develop a sensible, sustainable strategy for development.
MorelT 4 years ago
Finally someone I see eye to eye with! Thanks for the quick response!
samuelfbaron 4 years ago
As well, under NAFTA, Canada is essentially locked into an agreement with the USA with the amount of oil that must be exported south. This is locked into place by the NAFTA proportionality clause which states Canada must ship the same levels of oil it has been for the last 3 years to the US, even in case of a shortage.
samuelfbaron 4 years ago
The Alberta Tarsands are the single largest GHG emitter in Canada. Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership oil production is anticipated to rise 5x that of current levels. This is a huge issue for Canadians and is one of the reasons we were not able to meet the stipulations of Kyoto.
samuelfbaron 4 years ago
Hi Thomas,
I completely am in support of your clean energy policies. But again, as I have said to others advocating renewable sources of energy, before any positive steps can be taken forward for green energy we MUST acknowledge the problem of the Alberta Tarsands.
samuelfbaron 4 years ago
Excellent points Thomas backed up by solid research. Your perspective is long overdue and still absent in policy and law. Your policies will help us to "internalize" the view "The economy is a wholely owned subsidiary of the environment." Thank you for your contribution and I wish you the best of luck.
jrfergee 4 years ago
These are marvelous ideas. You have obviously done a lot of research and you present that very well. Canada should adopt all your ideas because they are fantastic.
MrsEmilyDepp 4 years ago
Tom I really like the way you think! Perhaps if Canada adopted some of your ideas, you'd be able to give that speech from a lush forest rather than a field of weeds with one lonely tree in the background.
christinejanette 4 years ago
Not bad research, but a national transit system comparable to that of Europe or Japan? Quick question. How much bigger is Canada than any country in Europe?
We have also started subsidizing environmentally friendly vehicles, and taxing unfriendly ones.
I like your points, you're right, as a society Canada is pretty dirty. But I don't see an answer in your video.
aieris 4 years ago
THe answer is we need to eliminate perverse subsidies and redirect those subsidies into sustainable practices. We need to stop subsidizing practices that lead to pollution and start subsiding environmentally friendly iniativies.
Canada is much larger than and EU nation, but a it is possible to improve our transit slowly over the next decade so we have a good transit system nationally. The Federal government needs to take a leadership role in susbsidizing operating costs.
MorelT 4 years ago
The Canadian Urban Transit Association has developed a national transit stategy for Canada. Two key recommendation involve: a) Federal transit investment of $2 billion a year to maintain, renew, and expand transit services. b) tac incentives for individuals to choose transit such as income tax exemptions. This would allow Canada to reduce vehicle emmisions.
MorelT 4 years ago
Yes we have started subsidizing environmentally friendly vehicles and taxing unfriendly ones through Corporate Fuel Efficency Standards (Cafe). However, Fuel taxes are a more effective method of reducing emmisions for two reasons. 1) a gas tax applys to all drivers while Cafe standards only apply to those buying new vehicles. 2) A gas tax increases the cost of each mile driven, while Cafe standards reduce the cost, encouraging additional driving.
MorelT 4 years ago
Sounds good. I was just looking for a bit more information in my comment, and you seem to know what you're talking about, which is all that matters.
Good work researching everything.
aieris 4 years ago
Yo man, I love to see you making these type things; people need to be more into there work; it's good hearing this shit from someone I trust to look into it in an acceptable way. Keep it up, I'll always be reading to listen.
jeffbiggar 4 years ago
This guy has my vote, obviously done the research, and has a very convincing idea.
pertplus2in1 4 years ago