Carbon Tax --> public transit

[David Dalton]

Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.

For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.

On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.

But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.

And I think the NDP would support the LIberals in such an
initiative, maybe even to the extent of forming a coalition
before the next election.

[David Dalton]

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.
And I think the NDP would support the LIberals in such an
initiative, maybe even to the extent of forming a coalition
before the next election.

And indeed, the planned transition to electric vehicles
is not practical; instead (or as well) there must be a
rapid evolution of private cars to public transit.

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by David Dalton

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.
And I think the NDP would support the LIberals in such an
initiative, maybe even to the extent of forming a coalition
before the next election.

And indeed, the planned transition to electric vehicles
is not practical; instead (or as well) there must be a
rapid evolution of private cars to public transit.

Location, location, location, Dave. Electrics only really
make any sense in dense urban environments, where they really
do rock ;-)

Dhu

[David Dalton]

Post by David Dalton

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.
And I think the NDP would support the LIberals in such an
initiative, maybe even to the extent of forming a coalition
before the next election.

And indeed, the planned transition to electric vehicles
is not practical; instead (or as well) there must be a
rapid evolution of private cars to public transit.

Location, location, location, Dave. Electrics only really
make any sense in dense urban environments, where they really
do rock ;-)
Dhu

Perhaps hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would have a longer
range and better performance in low temperatures.

And in the long term I envisage a hyperloop backbone,
perhaps partly funded by Elon Musk.

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by David Dalton

Post by David Dalton

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.
And I think the NDP would support the LIberals in such an
initiative, maybe even to the extent of forming a coalition
before the next election.

And indeed, the planned transition to electric vehicles
is not practical; instead (or as well) there must be a
rapid evolution of private cars to public transit.

Location, location, location, Dave. Electrics only really
make any sense in dense urban environments, where they really
do rock ;-)
Dhu

Perhaps hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would have a longer
range and better performance in low temperatures.

The only problem with using carbo-hydrates (e.g. Kerosene) is the
use of fossil carbs. Otherwise, being as most of the biology
of our planet is carbohydrates, it's possible to make and use
carbo fuels that won't poison the planet's plants and animals.

Until someone shows me a *functioning* Fusion Reactor, they're
gonna be burning COAL in China and India to make electricity
AND Hydrogen.

Germany too: they're back to burnin' brown coal 'cause they've
shut down their nukes and don't have access to the Russian
gas they'd hoped to replace them with.

Dhu

Post by David Dalton
And in the long term I envisage a hyperloop backbone,
perhaps partly funded by Elon Musk.

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:27:54 -0230

Post by David Dalton
Perhaps hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would have a longer
range and better performance in low temperatures.

Nope.

Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more
because:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/opinion/canada-wants-to-put-you-in-prison-before-you-commit-a-thoughtcrime/

No, Canada!

The country that brought you debanking protesters and government-assisted suicide for the poor now wants to criminalize speech to lock up people for life and to put wrongthinkers under house arrest if the state sees a chance they will commit a crime.

Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

The chillingly titled Online Harms Act was introduced in February by
Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Pissed at your girlfriend? Tell the government she’s likely to commit a hate crime and have her house-arrested.

Worse, one provision in the bill would “increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment.”

We’re sure a law that criminalizes “advocating for genocide” could never be twisted to criminalize support for Israel.

The pro-Hamas left will have a field day.

The law would saddle social media companies that refuse to bend the knee with insane fines reaching up to 6% of global revenue.

In short, it would be the end of free expression in Canada.

[The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning]

Cites NYpost. Supercrossposts. Yawn.

A pearl of wisdom I found on the pleroma network, grace de
***@rawr.sillydragon.ca: "If your community harbors known neo Nazi
sympathizers who are recruiting from your people, ban them. Don't wait for
JAQ-offs and rules lawyers to cross the lines you've set in stone. They're
more experienced at being slippery shysters than you are at being ban-
happy, and they'll happily dance around you all day long, because they
know you won't act. You're the buffet, and they won't shit where they eat,
until they're ready to move on to the next buffet."

Usenet admins wonder why Usenet is dead.

As of Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:26:27 -0600, in message

Post by Phil Hendry's Chop shop

Perhaps hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would have a longer range and
better performance in low temperatures.

Nope.
Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more

[clipped for time]

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:25:16 -0230

Post by David Dalton
there must be a
rapid evolution of private cars to public transit.

Shaddup commie turd.

Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more
because:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/opinion/canada-wants-to-put-you-in-prison-before-you-commit-a-thoughtcrime/

No, Canada!

The country that brought you debanking protesters and government-assisted suicide for the poor now wants to criminalize speech to lock up people for life and to put wrongthinkers under house arrest if the state sees a chance they will commit a crime.

Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

The chillingly titled Online Harms Act was introduced in February by
Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Pissed at your girlfriend? Tell the government she’s likely to commit a hate crime and have her house-arrested.

Worse, one provision in the bill would “increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment.”

We’re sure a law that criminalizes “advocating for genocide” could never be twisted to criminalize support for Israel.

The pro-Hamas left will have a field day.

The law would saddle social media companies that refuse to bend the knee with insane fines reaching up to 6% of global revenue.

In short, it would be the end of free expression in Canada.

[Dave Smith]

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.

That's an excellent idea and was likely the real intention of the Carbon
TAX, because that's what it is, a tax. There was never anything in there
to actually do anything other than to hit us up for more money. They
claim is is revenue neutral because they send rebates. I do get a
rebate cheque once in a while. I got my natural gas bill yesterday and
the carbon tax is $58. Then there is HST on top of that, so another $8
tax on the tax for a total of $66 extra on me bill because of the carbon
tax. That's more than my rebate, and that doesn't include the carbon
tax I pay on the gasoline for my car. It's tax.

Post by David Dalton
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.

If they had been taking the bus instead of hitch hiking for free rides
there might have been enough business to keep the buses running. They
could just as easily have stuck to the old economic regulatory controls
on buses. Licensing used to me strictly controlled and any company that
wanted the gravy runs had to take on some of the loser routes. Besides,
it is only speculation that those women went missing on the highway.
There is a good chance they were killed by someone in their own community.

Post by David Dalton
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.

How is someone expected to make enough money to keep buses running
reliably and safely when they can only hope to carry a few students
home for the weekend?

Post by David Dalton
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.

I live in a rural area and there is no public transit. Why should I pay
more than $100 a month in carbon tax to subsidize mass transit in the
cities? Let them pay for their own transit.

Post by David Dalton
And I think the NDP would support the LIberals in such an
initiative, maybe even to the extent of forming a coalition
before the next election.

Let's see if the NDP will have the balls to make it a real carbon tax by
cutting the rebates. If the theory behind the Carbon Tax is to make
polluters pay then make then actually pay instead of allowing the
Liberals to buy more votes by pretending to charge them and then sending
a cheque from the government once in a while to make them think they are
getting something for free.

[David Dalton]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.

That's an excellent idea and was likely the real intention of the Carbon
TAX, because that's what it is, a tax. There was never anything in there
to actually do anything other than to hit us up for more money. They
claim is is revenue neutral because they send rebates. I do get a
rebate cheque once in a while. I got my natural gas bill yesterday and
the carbon tax is $58. Then there is HST on top of that, so another $8
tax on the tax for a total of $66 extra on me bill because of the carbon
tax. That's more than my rebate, and that doesn't include the carbon
tax I pay on the gasoline for my car. It's tax.

Post by David Dalton
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.

If they had been taking the bus instead of hitch hiking for free rides
there might have been enough business to keep the buses running. They
could just as easily have stuck to the old economic regulatory controls
on buses. Licensing used to me strictly controlled and any company that
wanted the gravy runs had to take on some of the loser routes. Besides,
it is only speculation that those women went missing on the highway.
There is a good chance they were killed by someone in their own community.

Post by David Dalton
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.

How is someone expected to make enough money to keep buses running
reliably and safely when they can only hope to carry a few students
home for the weekend?

As I said above, it was also used by seniors and others travelling
for medical appointments and shopping during the week. And
I am advocating for it to be subsidized by revenue from the
Carbon Tax/

Post by Dave Smith

Post by David Dalton
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.

I live in a rural area and there is no public transit. Why should I pay
more than $100 a month in carbon tax to subsidize mass transit in the
cities? Let them pay for their own transit.

As I said in my original post, I am advocating for the
creation of public transit in rural areas.

[Dave Smith]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Dave Smith

Post by David Dalton
Instead of the federal government giving back much of the Carbon
Tax in rebates, they should direct the money to improving public
transit nationally, including in rural areas.

That's an excellent idea and was likely the real intention of the Carbon
TAX, because that's what it is, a tax. There was never anything in there
to actually do anything other than to hit us up for more money. They
claim is is revenue neutral because they send rebates. I do get a
rebate cheque once in a while. I got my natural gas bill yesterday and
the carbon tax is $58. Then there is HST on top of that, so another $8
tax on the tax for a total of $66 extra on me bill because of the carbon
tax. That's more than my rebate, and that doesn't include the carbon
tax I pay on the gasoline for my car. It's tax.

Post by David Dalton
For example, in recent years there has been a loss of Greyhound
in Western Canada, and that contributes to the ongoing crisis
os missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, since
many of them resort to hitchhiking.

If they had been taking the bus instead of hitch hiking for free rides
there might have been enough business to keep the buses running. They
could just as easily have stuck to the old economic regulatory controls
on buses. Licensing used to me strictly controlled and any company that
wanted the gravy runs had to take on some of the loser routes. Besides,
it is only speculation that those women went missing on the highway.
There is a good chance they were killed by someone in their own community.

Post by David Dalton
On a local (Newfoundland) basis, several years ago there was
a loss of Fleetline bus, which used to operate on the coastal
Conception Bay Highway between St. John’s and Conception
Bay North, and which was a valuable service fo students
travelling home for the weekend and for seniors and others
going into the city for medical appointments or shopping.

How is someone expected to make enough money to keep buses running
reliably and safely when they can only hope to carry a few students
home for the weekend?

As I said above, it was also used by seniors and others travelling
for medical appointments and shopping during the week. And
I am advocating for it to be subsidized by revenue from the
Carbon Tax/

Sure... tax the hell out of everyone so that they can't afford to do
things themselves. People travelling to medical appointments don't want
to have to rely on public transit. Someone coming home from treatment
doesn't want to be standing around waiting for a bus, get jostled around
and then have to walk to their homes from the bus stop.

Post by David Dalton

Post by Dave Smith

Post by David Dalton
But of course there could also be an improvement in public
transit in urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.

I live in a rural area and there is no public transit. Why should I pay
more than $100 a month in carbon tax to subsidize mass transit in the
cities? Let them pay for their own transit.

As I said in my original post, I am advocating for the
creation of public transit in rural areas.

Most rural areas have experimented with public transit. It didn't work.

[David Dalton]

Post by Dave Smith
Most rural areas have experimented with public transit. It didn't work.

It will work if there are sufficient incentives for it and also
increased usage, and disincentives against using private
cars, especially gasoline-powered ones.

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Dave Smith
Most rural areas have experimented with public transit. It didn't work.

It will work if there are sufficient incentives for it and also
increased usage, and disincentives against using private
cars, especially gasoline-powered ones.

We already have solar-powered transport. They're called horses.
In fact you could almost make a case for them being multi-fueled
vehicles. But they don't run any better on Hydrogen or Plutonium
than people do.

Dhu

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:33:58 -0230

Post by David Dalton
It will work if there are sufficient incentives for it and also
increased usage, and disincentives against using private
cars, especially gasoline-powered ones.

Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more
because:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/opinion/canada-wants-to-put-you-in-prison-before-you-commit-a-thoughtcrime/

No, Canada!

The country that brought you debanking protesters and government-assisted suicide for the poor now wants to criminalize speech to lock up people for life and to put wrongthinkers under house arrest if the state sees a chance they will commit a crime.

Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

The chillingly titled Online Harms Act was introduced in February by
Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Pissed at your girlfriend? Tell the government she’s likely to commit a hate crime and have her house-arrested.

Worse, one provision in the bill would “increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment.”

We’re sure a law that criminalizes “advocating for genocide” could never be twisted to criminalize support for Israel.

The pro-Hamas left will have a field day.

The law would saddle social media companies that refuse to bend the knee with insane fines reaching up to 6% of global revenue.

In short, it would be the end of free expression in Canada.

[The Bjornsdottirs - Reinhilde]

As of Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:02:34 -0400, in message

Post by Dave Smith
Sure... tax the hell out of everyone so that they can't afford to do
things themselves. People travelling to medical appointments don't want
to have to rely on public transit. Someone coming home from treatment
doesn't want to be standing around waiting for a bus, get jostled around
and then have to walk to their homes from the bus stop.

Why not? Because PT is shit? Then the public policy should be to make PT
better, and also put ebike and powerchair charging at every bus stop (to
which feed a bus ticket for up to a kWh of juice). Don't put people in the
position of having to walk, or drive a 4 ton soot-belching death trap,
when they're vulnerable, such as after a medical appointment.

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

But of course there could also be an improvement in public transit in
urban (including small cities) and suburban areas.

I live in a rural area and there is no public transit. Why should I
pay more than $100 a month in carbon tax to subsidize mass transit in
the cities? Let them pay for their own transit.

You benefit from people in the cities being able to get to the rural areas
to buy your shit from your farmstand directly without needing to drive,
proceeds all to you net of production expenses, GST, PST and climate
action tax rather than from some marked up weaselhead in the city who
brings their belching diesel truck there and back.

Also, if the tracks run through your village, should you not want to be
able to board the train, swipe your CC for an underpriced fare, and get to
town, without the stress of highway driving?

Post by Dave Smith

As I said in my original post, I am advocating for the creation of
public transit in rural areas.

Most rural areas have experimented with public transit. It didn't work.

Can you explain what you mean by "didn't work"? Profitability? Because
transit systems in settlements urban and rural aren't supposed to be
profitable until you get to Hong Kong scale, with dedicated track and 3rd-
rail and ridership similar to the entire airline industry. They're
supposed to be bleeding on the ledger. The price society as a whole pays
to not be in a real life Mad Max. The deficit is made up by reductions in
the costs of things like lost productivity for communities when working
people get abducted because they hitch-hiked, family grief when nonworkers
get abducted, police time and effort on investigating abductions in
difficult terrain (I will reserve my counsel on what I think of policing,
but in this case I think they truly intend to do more good than harm),
etc. If I could board a bus or the train to the next town, I'd do it, but
as it is, I am (barely) able to maintain a car and I have to take the
stress of driving. You have no idea how difficult it is to stay awake and
3x oriented when you're moving at 80km/h (you aren't going the full 100 if
you value your safety, especially on some of the more ... typical rural
Canadian highways) down a winding highway. If one person is trained and
paid to take that strain for 45 people (which is what the bus and the
train does), that means those 45 people don't have to worry about that.
And that driver doesn't experience 46x the strain. It's more like 1.5 to
2x, because the bus is bigger, with a higher centre of gravity, but is
still bound by the same laws of physics as your small car.

[David Dalton]

Also, I am a non-driver, and don’t like my taxes going towards
roads for cars which should have been phased out decades ago.

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:02:34 -0400

Post by Dave Smith
Sure... tax the hell out of everyone so that they can't afford to do
things themselves.

Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more
because:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/opinion/canada-wants-to-put-you-in-prison-before-you-commit-a-thoughtcrime/

No, Canada!

The country that brought you debanking protesters and government-assisted suicide for the poor now wants to criminalize speech to lock up people for life and to put wrongthinkers under house arrest if the state sees a chance they will commit a crime.

Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

The chillingly titled Online Harms Act was introduced in February by
Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Pissed at your girlfriend? Tell the government she’s likely to commit a hate crime and have her house-arrested.

Worse, one provision in the bill would “increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment.”

We’re sure a law that criminalizes “advocating for genocide” could never be twisted to criminalize support for Israel.

The pro-Hamas left will have a field day.

The law would saddle social media companies that refuse to bend the knee with insane fines reaching up to 6% of global revenue.

In short, it would be the end of free expression in Canada.

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:22:03 -0230

Post by David Dalton
I am advocating for it to be subsidized by revenue from the
Carbon Tax/

YOU are a fucking MORON!

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:04:20 -0400

Post by Dave Smith
Let's see if the NDP will have the balls to make it a real carbon tax
by cutting the rebates.

Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more
because:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/opinion/canada-wants-to-put-you-in-prison-before-you-commit-a-thoughtcrime/

No, Canada!

The country that brought you debanking protesters and government-assisted suicide for the poor now wants to criminalize speech to lock up people for life and to put wrongthinkers under house arrest if the state sees a chance they will commit a crime.

Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

The chillingly titled Online Harms Act was introduced in February by
Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Pissed at your girlfriend? Tell the government she’s likely to commit a hate crime and have her house-arrested.

Worse, one provision in the bill would “increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment.”

We’re sure a law that criminalizes “advocating for genocide” could never be twisted to criminalize support for Israel.

The pro-Hamas left will have a field day.

The law would saddle social media companies that refuse to bend the knee with insane fines reaching up to 6% of global revenue.

In short, it would be the end of free expression in Canada.

[Phil Hendry's Chop shop]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:03:54 -0230

Post by David Dalton
And I think the NDP would support the LIberals

Meanwhile most Canucks are terrified to speak in public any more
because:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/opinion/canada-wants-to-put-you-in-prison-before-you-commit-a-thoughtcrime/

No, Canada!

The country that brought you debanking protesters and government-assisted suicide for the poor now wants to criminalize speech to lock up people for life and to put wrongthinkers under house arrest if the state sees a chance they will commit a crime.

Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

The chillingly titled Online Harms Act was introduced in February by
Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Pissed at your girlfriend? Tell the government she’s likely to commit a hate crime and have her house-arrested.

Worse, one provision in the bill would “increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment.”

We’re sure a law that criminalizes “advocating for genocide” could never be twisted to criminalize support for Israel.

The pro-Hamas left will have a field day.

The law would saddle social media companies that refuse to bend the knee with insane fines reaching up to 6% of global revenue.

In short, it would be the end of free expression in Canada.