gc1765

I am talking about revenue neutral overall. Some people will benefit, and others will pay more, but on average people will not be paying more. The people who will pay more are the people who pollute, if they want to save money, they can reduce the amount that they pollute.

Why would the owners want to take the burden? Let's put it this way...why are oil companies not charging 1 cent less than the currently are? If gas costs $1.20 per litre right now, why aren't oil companies charging $1.19 per litre instead?

This kind of imbalance virtually guarantees that any environmental levy targeted at consumption will hurt a group of people who won't benefit from a tax cut. You think a carbon tax will unfarily hurt the poor? It's hard to benefit the people who don't pay very much tax as it is...unless of course you take that extra tax money and give it to the poor...but I doubt that idea would get much support.

Absolutely. This is probably why no federal politician (except maybe Ignatieff) would dare to suggest the idea of a carbon tax. The funny thing is, most people don't realize it won't cost them a cent. Like August1991 said, it's government spending that matters. If the government collects extra taxes from a carbon tax, they will either have to reduce other taxes or else pay down the debt. A carbon tax will not cost people money unless they pollute more than average. I wonder if most Canadians even realize that?

I see no difference between the two. I would argue that any cost will ALWAYS be passed onto the consumer...otherwise, why wouldn't the companies be charging consumers less without the tax?

Carbon tax is the way to go. Revenue neutral (actually, it can SAVE you money if you don't pollute) rather than trying to regulate emissions. If you want to pollute you can, but you've gotta pay for it. Makes a lot of sense...it's too bad most Canadians don't see it that way. All they see is that they have to pay an extra cent for their gas.

It's especially irritating when doing searches. I can understand not wanting people to post every 2 seconds, but what is the purpose of making people wait when doing a search?

They are wasting their money. I guess having more money than the Liberals is actually a bad thing.

Does this mean that the ads are doing more harm than good?

When in doubt, if you see an emoticon that you want to use in someone else's post, click on reply and the code will show up where the emoticon was. or type colons on either side of the word like :this: blink = rolleyes = lol = there's a few others, but those are the ones I usually use

His first mistake was trusting that liar MacKay It's not as if this is the first time he has lied.

This isn't a very good strategic move for the Conservatives, IMO. Standing up to the government is sure to increase anyone's popularity among their constituents. The Conservatives won this seat pretty easily last time, but with someone else running and the fallout from this broken promise...who knows, they might not win it. Then again, I wonder how much longer he was planning on staying in politics anyways.

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Casey has been booted from caucus: Link "OTTAWA — A Nova Scotia MP has been booted from the Conservative caucus after voting against budget legislation that he says will cost his province as much as a billion dollars."

Apparently it's now called Foxy news

Is this why people watch Fox news? There's gotta be some reason...

Link

Does this mean that Danny Williams was right all along, if one of the Conservatives' own MPs is against this deal?

"...only 12 per cent of Quebecers said Dion, whereas 16 per cent said NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was way ahead with 36 per cent." Someone double check my math: 12 + 16 + 16 + 36 = 80 What about the other 20%? Elizabeth May isn't at 20% is she? ...or for that matter: "Dion's in second place tied with Layton at 13 per cent support. Harper's still well in the lead nationally at 34 per cent." 13 + 13 = 34 = 60. Maybe Duceppe has 40% support nationally?

...and yet the polls show that the Liberals have about the same amount of support as the Conservatives. I guess Canadians like Harper, but don't like the Conservative party in general.

You never did answer where the funding comes from. I'll give you a clue, next time you are reading scientific articles on global warming (which I assume you do all the time), take a look at the acknowledgements...then google "NSERC".

Absolutely What if they consent to suicide and come back a month later. If they still consent to it, it's done. If they change their mind, that's their choice. Would you be opposed to that? Or you could even have them come back every month for a year if that's a better assurance.

Again, want to back up that claim? Or are you just trolling?

Oh, well, if you say so, I guess everyone here will just have to take your word for it. Seriously though, why don't you try to provide at least some sort of argument to back up your claim?

The government funds most science research, and the level of funding does NOT change as a result of global warming. Nice try though.

There are various theories as to why gravity exists, which are supported by varying amounts of evidence. We know with almost certainty that gravity exists, but we don't know what causes it. Likewise, we know that the joy experience by a believer exists, but we don't know what causes it. And like gravity, there are various possible explanations as to why, but we don't know which one is true. So, believing that the deity is causing the effect is not equivalent to believing that gravity exists...a better comparison would be comparing it to the belief that gravity is caused by gravity waves (or any other theories of gravity)...and even that has at least some evidence to support it over other theories.