Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[justme]

There is no other feasible solution to limiting Canada's CO2 emissions which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Hardly.... China, India and the US are the major sources. I mean, compare Canada's population of 32 million with a country that has more than a billion people that's going through the equivalent of our industrial revolution on a much larger scale. China puts a new coal plant online every week. The west already has infrastructure built while China and India are building from scratch basically. If they want to be world leaders, here is their chance by creating and using new clean technology, but instead, they follow past examples from the west. Which is worse, holding on to infrastructure based on petroleum that's already built, or following that example to build new infrastructure while knowing the consequences?

This is one of the reasons why I'm sick hearing about China and India being the new super powers. America is a super power not simply because of its wealth and military capability, but because of the ingenuity that created it. China and India rely on technology created elsewhere and cheap labor. They are pseudo powers not super powers.

[Riverwind]

The summary for policy makers is a political document by definition. That doesn`t mean it was driven by politics. What about my point about the number of papers, the small number of objections to the current consensus and the absence of outright rejection of the current consensus ?

You are making a different argument. You tried to claim that the 'solar effects were accounted for'. Now you are simply arguing that the 'don't overturn the consensus'. There is a huge difference because your former statement implied that there was no disagreement in the peer reviewed literature about the solar effects. This is not true. The solar effects are simply ignored by the IPCC consensus - just like bacteria as cause of ulcers was ignored by the medical estiblished for many years. Edited December 12, 2009 by Riverwind

[bjre]

America is a super power not simply because of its wealth and military capability, but because of the ingenuity that created it.

The largest factor is its banks that can take values created by people all over the world to their own pockets.

[waldo]

The competing theories in the peer reviewed literature were simply dismissed by the scientists writing the IPCC reports because they they found them inconvenient - they were not accounted for. There is a huge difference. By claiming they were 'accounted for' implies that there is some absolute test that allows one to determine whether they have merit. There is no such test - there is only opinion.

That's not true. I don't have my link here, but the paper on cosmic rays and global warming was discussed in the journals and accounted for.

"Dismissed" means that someone just rejected the hypothesis without rationale. How could that be done in a scientific journal ? Why would they publish a straight-up dismissal when it would be so obvious that that was an abrogation of their responsibilities? Do you have an example?

Scientific journals publish many things but it is up to the IPCC authors to decide what is important and what is not. The authors of the IPCC reports dismissed the solar papers because, in their opinion, they were not worth considering. Obviously the people who wrote those papers disagree and they would not have written those papers if they did not believe they had a strong scientific basis. So the question becomes why is the opinion of the IPCC report authors more important than the opinion of the scientists publishing papers that show a solar effect? Before answering remember that the emails now tell us that the IPCC authors made these kinds of decisions for political rather than scientific reasons so cannot blindly assume that there was a good scientific reason.

The bottom line is it is false to say the solar effect is 'accounted for'. It is simply ignored.

So… no example then, hey?

Yours is a patently false claim… continuing in the tradition of your derisive canard against the IPCC… the “Riverwind conspiracy”, scene_ _, take_ _, roll film!

WG1 of AR4 devotes a lengthy part of the radiative forcing chapter to natural solar variability, inclusive of many, many paper citations…

- it speaks to empirical results since the TAR report.

- it speaks to “Direct Observations of Solar Irradiance”, inclusive of

o “Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance” (paper citations referenced),

o “Observed decadal trends and variability” (numerous paper citations referenced),

o Graphing the observational record - a historical accounting of the percentage change of irradiance

o “Measurements of solar spectral irradiance” (paper citations referenced).

- it speaks to “Estimating Past Solar Radiative Forcing”, inclusive of

o “Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance” (numerous paper citations referenced),

o Graphing the reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance

o Tabling a comprehensive list of estimates of the increase in total solar irradiance (all paper cited)

o “Implications for solar radiative forcing” (paper citations referenced)

- it speaks to “Indirect Effects of Solar Variability” (numerous paper citations referenced)

- it speaks to the certainties and uncertainties for all radiative forcings, inclusive of solar variance

- it speaks to the premise of Global Mean Radiative Forcing with associated uncertainties and efficacies, inclusive of solar variance

- it speaks to a relative comparison of Global Mean Radiative Forcing through the progression of IPCC reports (FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4), inclusive of solar variance

this… the above… is Riverwind’s IPCC dismissal accounting.

why, of course, apparently, the IPCC was so dismissive as to include solar forcings within half (11 of 22) of the AR4 models. How “Riverwind dismissal” of them!

but hey now... does the "Riverwind dismissal" actually account for competing views of the "dismissed" competing solar variance alternate: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

... ultraviolet light? Magnetized plasmas? Anyone... anyone?

[Michael Hardner]

You are making a different argument. You tried to claim that the 'solar effects were accounted for'. Now you are simply arguing that the 'don't overturn the consensus'. There is a huge difference because your former statement implied that there was no disagreement in the peer reviewed literature about the solar effects. This is not true. The solar effects are simply ignored by the IPCC consensus - just like bacteria as cause of ulcers was ignored by the medical estiblished for many years.

The solar effects were published, were considered, debated and the debate continues. From what I have seen, they`re still waiting for the original authors to publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.

I`m not saying there`s no disagreement, I`m saying there`s consensus. An overwhelming majority represents a consensus IMO. What percentage of papers published would have to outright reject the AGW theory in order for there to not be a consensus, in your opinion ? 30 per cent ? In that case, we have consensus.

There are a handful of scientists who appear to disagree with the consensus, and not that reject it outright from what I have read.

That should be enough to move forward with a policy recommendation, don`t you agree ?

[Riverwind]

That should be enough to move forward with a policy recommendation, don`t you agree ?

Nope. Because policy is determined by a cost benefit analysis that takes into account the unknowns. The IPCC consensus has consistently exagerrated its certainty because of its political objectives so we cannot rely on its opinion on the state of the unknown.

[whowhere]

There is no other feasible solution to limiting Canada's CO2 emissions which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

A regulated solution will just lead to another bureaucratic dance orchestrated from Ottawa. Nor can the federal government pass this ball off to provincial governments. Only a federal tax will work.

Ideally, the feds must impose a tax on anyone who emits CO2 into the atmosphere. The tax should apply at the moment of emission (or as close to that as possible) so that we create the correct incentives to limit them. This would also create an incentive to develop mechanisms for sequestration.

I would suggest two approaches to a carbon tax:

First, start small with the potential to ratchet up the tax according to its effects.

Second, return all carbon tax revenues to the province where the tax was collected. The revenues of the carbon tax could be refunded to the provincial governments or ideally to individuals.

This is the simplest, most cost effective way to deal with this problem.

Offsets are not a solution and risk to become another placebo. (Offsets are the latest stylish buzz word. People as varied as David Suzuki, the Bare Naked Ladies and Lancome's supermodels all employ offsets. This means they give money abroad and then claim that this reduces the CO2 emissions equal to the emissions of their own travel and lifestyle. Offsets are a private version of Kyoto.)

It's people like you that is wrong with Canada. Canada is only 34 million people and the world population is approaching 7 Billion. Beating up on Canadians is futile. Whatever Carbon Canada emits is marginal in the grand scheme and Canadians are entitled to pollute more not less because Canada is the 2nd largest Geographical Landmass in the world and has a relatively small population compared to other countries. Canada doesn't need your BS.

[Pliny]

There are a handful of scientists who appear to disagree with the consensus, and not that reject it outright from what I have read.

That should be enough to move forward with a policy recommendation, don`t you agree ?

To err on the side of caution, yes. A rational policy regarding technological change would be warranted. A wholesale redistributive tax is not rational.

Five years ago there was a consensus that cervical cancer could not be caused by the human papilloma virus. The data was ignored and pooh-poohed. There was no debate. Today they urge all women to be vaccinated for HPV. Thankfully, someone prevailed over the consensus.

Will waldo and wyly, find themselves the deniers in the end. As long as the debate is not over, I am betting they will. As long as someone prevails over the consensus.

It is really disingenuous to want to close debate in light of the recent revelations. Is this the reason they want to close the debate, so that no one will question the basis of the "scientific" consensus?

[whowhere]

Hardly.... China, India and the US are the major sources. I mean, compare Canada's population of 32 million with a country that has more than a billion people that's going through the equivalent of our industrial revolution on a much larger scale. China puts a new coal plant online every week. The west already has infrastructure built while China and India are building from scratch basically. If they want to be world leaders, here is their chance by creating and using new clean technology, but instead, they follow past examples from the west. Which is worse, holding on to infrastructure based on petroleum that's already built, or following that example to build new infrastructure while knowing the consequences?

This is one of the reasons why I'm sick hearing about China and India being the new super powers. America is a super power not simply because of its wealth and military capability, but because of the ingenuity that created it. China and India rely on technology created elsewhere and cheap labor. They are pseudo powers not super powers.

A super power is having a military with 90% of the Worlds weapons (the US). A super power is printing money to repay China owned US treasury bills and the US dollar holding its value in spite of this. A super power is buying oil from Alberta with printed US dollars and having texas based oil companies do all the sub work and extraction for the benefit of the US. I am surprised Alberta is able to sit down with all the AZZ raping the US has done to it. A Super Power is importing goods from cheap labor markets and then borrowing money from those countries (ehhem china) and then when the economy tanks the US gives them printed money to square off everything. When the economy was good the US was able to cycle china's money through the US economy with loose credit and people were buying products from China with China's money. Yes, the party in the US has dried up somewhat, but the US is just looking for its next victim. That could be any number of countries from Africa, South America. As they say suckers are born every minute. Canada fails to get it that is why Canada will always be a second rate Country.

As f

[Michael Hardner]

Nope. Because policy is determined by a cost benefit analysis that takes into account the unknowns. The IPCC consensus has consistently exagerrated its certainty because of its political objectives so we cannot rely on its opinion on the state of the unknown.

It`s true that execution of policy will have a cost-benefit analysis associated with it, however the call for action, nor scientific summaries of the problem do not need to have cost benefit analysis provided by the IPCC.

I do agree that the IPCC may have overreached its mandate when it submitted some suggested (specific) mitigation strategies with the 4th report, however general suggestions of ways to reduce CO2 emissions are in bounds, and it`s up to the governments to investigate the costs and benefits of the report.

In any case, action is always within the domain of governments.

[Michael Hardner]

To err on the side of caution, yes. A rational policy regarding technological change would be warranted. A wholesale redistributive tax is not rational.

Five years ago there was a consensus that cervical cancer could not be caused by the human papilloma virus. The data was ignored and pooh-poohed. There was no debate. Today they urge all women to be vaccinated for HPV. Thankfully, someone prevailed over the consensus.

Will waldo and wyly, find themselves the deniers in the end. As long as the debate is not over, I am betting they will. As long as someone prevails over the consensus.

It is really disingenuous to want to close debate in light of the recent revelations. Is this the reason they want to close the debate, so that no one will question the basis of the "scientific" consensus?

I don`t know specifically about the HPV example, but granted there are always situations where prevailing thought turns out to be wrong. Where does that debate happen ? In the journals of science. As such, the debate does continue however we will need a revolutionary discovery to turn the prevailing thought around.

[justme]

And the long list of American inventions, some of which make it possible for people to make their arguments here, have nothing to do with America's success....

Reminds me of a scene in the movie Black Rain where a Japanese guy says, "we build the machines; we build the future..." to which Michael Douglas' character replies, "and if there was one of you guys that had an original idea, you'd be so tight you couldn't even pull it out of your ass."

Edited December 12, 2009 by justme

[Smallc]

That's not so true anymore. There are many areas in which NA is behind the times in terms of technology.

[Riverwind]

It`s true that execution of policy will have a cost-benefit analysis associated with it, however the call for action, nor scientific summaries of the problem do not need to have cost benefit analysis provided by the IPCC.

The trouble is too many activists use the 'science is settled' mantra to silence people who have different opinions on the best policies. Such an attitude leads to a situation where discrediting the scientists is the only way to counter policy proposals that one thinks are wrong headed even if one agrees with the science. Edited December 12, 2009 by Riverwind

[bjre]

And the long list of American inventions, some of which make it possible for people to make their arguments here, have nothing to do with America's success....

Reminds me of a scene in the movie Black Rain where a Japanese guy says, "we build the machines; we build the future..." to which Michael Douglas' character replies, "and if there was one of you guys that had an original idea, you'd be so tight you couldn't even pull it out of your ass."

Do you agree if not Chinese invented the technology of making paper, knowledge would be very difficult to spread. There would be no modern science?

I even doubt about this. Because I believe invention is driven by demand and the knowledge we have and money we have. When all these are available, a new invention will be there no matter who invent it. Many inventions of America is invented by immigrants.

[justme]

Many inventions of America is invented by immigrants.

And why do you suppose those immigrants chose to live in America instead of China? Why is it that millions of people are willing to risk everything, including their lives, for a chance to live in America instead of China?

Also, is it not insulting to an immigrant if you refer to them as such instead of a citizen of the country they made their home in an attempt to discredit the success of that country?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Do you agree if not Chinese invented the technology of making paper, knowledge would be very difficult to spread. There would be no modern science?

Nope because before that they had parchment, which was invented before 500 BC and before that they had papyrus in Egypt in the third millenium BC. Paper may make writing easier but it was by no means a neccesity.

[bjre]

And why do you suppose those immigrants chose to live in America instead of China? Why is it that millions of people are willing to risk everything, including their lives, for a chance to live in America instead of China?

Also, is it not insulting to an immigrant if you refer to them as such instead of a citizen of the country they made their home in an attempt to discredit the success of that country?

That is because American banks and armies take most of their wealth they created away and transport to America.

[bjre]

Nope because before that they had parchment, which was invented before 500 BC and before that they had papyrus in Egypt in the third millenium BC. Paper may make writing easier but it was by no means a neccesity.

Is it America? or France or England?

[bush_cheney2004]

And why do you suppose those immigrants chose to live in America instead of China? Why is it that millions of people are willing to risk everything, including their lives, for a chance to live in America instead of China?

Indeed...such a very good question.

Why have millions and millions voted with their feet for America...and continue to do so?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Is it America? or France or England?

I was pointing out that there was a writing medium before paper was ever invented. Making you claim that without paper knowledge would be hard to spread foolish. Had paper never been invented America, France, England, and everywere else for that matter would have gotten along fine. Papyrus was invented by the Egyptians. Parchment was used in many places and its exact orgin is hard to find. Though it was in common use in Europe in the middle ages.

[justme]

That is because American banks and armies take most of their wealth they created away and transport to America.

That's one big load of BS.

If anything, wealth is being transferred to developing countries through outsourcing of jobs and bringing in cheap labor -- which then transfers money back to the country of origin -- for jobs that can't be outsourced via immigration.

If America really wanted to take wealth from another country, Canada would have either ceased to exist or would have been reduced to a third world country long ago. Not a slight to people in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it's nowhere near the size that would be necessary to hold back an American attack. As for the American banks that you keep going on about, Canadian banks are actually doing better, and while some leftists like to argue that America is screwing Canada over economically, by almost every measure Canada is doing better right now despite the fact that it does more than 80% of its trade with the US.

The truth is that the countries with poor circumstances for which you blame America often have nobody to blame but themselves. Maybe if they pulled their heads out of their asses and stopped engaging in things like tribal warfare and genocide, and instead built a place worth living in they wouldn't have to sit around blaming a successful country for all their problems.

[bjre]

I was pointing out that there was a writing medium before paper was ever invented. Making you claim that without paper knowledge would be hard to spread foolish. Had paper never been invented America, France, England, and everywere else for that matter would have gotten along fine. Papyrus was invented by the Egyptians. Parchment was used in many places and its exact orgin is hard to find. Though it was in common use in Europe in the middle ages.

If you like to say so then invention in America can also be invented in other place according to your logic.

Edited December 12, 2009 by bjre

[bjre]

Indeed...such a very good question.

Why have millions and millions voted with their feet for America...and continue to do so?

Because America takes away their money.

Here is an example how America did that:

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn.

The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold: Or How the IMF and US Treasury Fix Elections, Stir Up Riots, Kill, and Scoop Assets With Interchangeable Masks …

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold-or-how-the-imf-and-us-treasury-fix-elections-stir-up-riots-kill-and-scoop-assets-with-interchangeable-masks/

IMF's four steps to damnation

How crises, failures, and suffering finally drove a Presidential adviser to the wrong side of the barricades

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/apr/29/business.mbas

[Argus]

I have made this point in every one of these climate change threads and none of the fanatics who want us to go back to horse and buggy days seems to have addressed it.

Even if we all reduce carbon emissions there is nobody - NOBODY - who can say what affect, IF ANY, that will have on warming, or when it will have an affect (many decades down the line supposedly).

So they THINK that our carbon emissions are CONTRIBUTING to warming, but they don't know by how much, and if we spend trillions and trillions of dollars and destroy whole industries, we can reduce those emissions and that MIGHT have some positive effect - some day, perhaps, but we don't know how much.

Idiocy.

A far better use for the money would be adaptive technologies and research into new and more efficient and less polluting energy.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Argus