Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.
Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it's gone.
joshhsoj1902
joined 2 years ago
Dental care, housing deals with cities and the fall back carbon pricing were all done dispite provincial pushback (as far as I'm aware).
The only one where they worked with the provinces was the daycare, and that took like 18 months for provinces to actually agree on and even today provinces like Ontario continue to drag their feet on.
From what I've seen over the last 3-5 years, the provinces have very little interest in actively working constructively with the feds.
I don't know what the current status of the healthcare chats are, but a few years ago the feds were willing to help push additional funding into the provincial healthcare systems, but the provinces needed to agree to terms (I believe the terms were around the money needing to be spent on the public healthcare system and not working towards privatization). as far as I know the talks never went anywhere, and healthcare systems are still underfunded.
What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn't stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces
Sure it shouldn't be used like this. But incrementing a number isn't enough to steal someone's identity.
Isn't it the address being leaked with it that makes this notable?
You can't add a number to a SSN and also add a number to the street address to then narrow down which full names are associated with that SSN to then possibly be able to use it.
I didn't think the number had any use on its own
Were billions given upfront for this project? Most of the battery/EV projects I saw were mainly tax breaks.
To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it's the lower tax rate.
In places like Ontario we "double dip" on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.
When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it's a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.
None of this refutes what was said above.
Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.
I've also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.
Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I've done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.
This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.
Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.
When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don't have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it's own it can't correct for the extra spent per person.
I would almost want a "government revenue" per "wholesale/retail value" or maybe multiple numbers where it's "government revenue" per "liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc" and then compare those in both markets.
Because that's truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.
It's so frustrating. There isn't a single situation where Ontario needs this change. If people are unhappy with alcohol access and want less alcohol revenue, we could easily open more stores and allow them to be less profitable per store.
There is absolutely no reason to route money away from the LCBO as it is (at least I've you've actually looked at the financials, I can understand how people who haven't might be convinced otherwise)
Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you're such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I'm not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.