gc1765

Stop masturbating then! You're killing unborn humans!

Does that mean that Natives will get full market value for all of the land that they lost, just like any caucasian would get for their land?

Happy Independence Day to all you Americans...

I didn't know that. Do you have a link?

Good point. I don't think what Stronach or Turner did was OK (Stronach because she crossed to a cabinet post instead of as a backbencher and Turner because he was so adamant that Emerson run in a by-election, but decided not to do so himself)...but I think what Emerson did was worse.

That's a good point, and I think we can apply it to other issues as well. Forget about the government getting tough on crime. Let's just all as individuals agree not to break any laws, OK? And with high energy prices, the cost of EVERYTHING is going to go up. The cost of guns & bullets are going up, so that should take care of gun crimes. In fact, the cost of knives, ski masks, and bags with $ signs are all going up too, so the free market seems to be taking care of crime. No need to get the government involved.

I hope so too. McCain has promised not to run a dirty campaign, but it's clear that some of his supporters will (and they already have). I wonder if McCain will go one step further and speak out against those who criticize his middle name?

I find it ironic that most of the people who mock Obama's name are the same people who support the "Dick and Bush" administration.

:lol: Excellent post!

You are assuming that it will not be a level playing field. If carbon taxes are offset by an equal amount of corporate tax cuts, then companies will not have any incentive to leave the country. If global warming turns out to be an important concern, then we are going to have to adapt anyways (that was your idea). This means we'd have to raise income/business taxes to pay for that adaptation. Shifting taxation from income/businesses to pollution is not a tax increase. It is paying for the adaptation that will cause an increase in taxes, but that is going to happen anyway - carbon tax or no carbon tax.

1) First world countries do emit a very significant fraction of the world's CO2. Canada can do its part, and if other first world countries did their part, CO2 emissions could decrease significantly. 2) Revenue from a carbon tax could be put towards adaptation, including helping those in third world countries who will be the hardest hit.

How does a carbon tax in first world countries increase the cost of energy in third world countries? If anything, it seems it would reduce prices by reducing demand.

I'm not sure where you live, but if you happen to live near a University what you can do is use a computer in the University library. They should have access to most journals. The libraries usually have guest computers if you're not a student. Of course, not everyone lives near a University.

People who drive more already spend more money on gas if they live two hours away. Should the government start subsidizing the cost of their gasoline or their cars? Should the government subsidize the cost of a house for someone who lives outside of the city? If you don't think the government should subsidize these things, then why should they subsidize the impact of the carbon dioxide & pollution that they emit? If you think that living outside of the city is something that should be subsidized then why not just subsidize their housing instead of their gasoline (not taxing gasoline but spending money on adapting to global warming is in effect a subsidy)? Ideally, it would be nice to have a public transportation system which allows people who live far away to use it and still get to work in a reasonable time. Depending on where a person lives, it is already possible to do so (which doesn't mean everyone actually does). But of course I realize that, depending on where you live, this is not currently realistic for some. There is also the option of buying a more fuel efficient car or carpooling for some people. Not everyone takes advantage of those either.

Sure, everyone contributes, but not everyone contributes equally. Some people drive 2 hours everyday in their SUVs, while others walk, ride their bike, take public transit or carpool. Why should someone who walks to work pay the same amount as someone who drive an SUV?

Excluding all other factors, a doubling of CO2 should result in a 5-6 degree warming (depending on latitude) link This is probably the hardest one to answer for certain, but I doubt the benefits would outweigh the negatives. I like your idea about adaptation, but I think the people who should pay for that adaptation are the ones who are actually causing the problem, which is why a support a tax on carbon.

Or you could ask yourself why companies don't keep raising prices as it is? Why charge $10,000 for a car when you can charge $50,000?

Are you saying there is no competition in Canada?

That doesn't mean that it isn't still revenue neutral. In the first year the government could take in $1.1 billion, and give out $1.1 billion in other tax cuts. In year two the government might take in $1 billion, and take in $1 billion less through other taxes. Either way, you end up with the same amount of money in your pocket. Do you have a citation for the cost of implementing a carbon tax vs. implementing the GST? If the bureaucracy is going to be prohibitively expensive as to cause "serious negative consequences" (which I doubt), then we could always just raise the gas tax (and perhaps add it to other fuels as well). It's unfortunate that Dion decided not to tax gas more, but I guess that's politics.

What are the unintended consequences of a revenue neutral carbon tax? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you argue in another thread that consumption taxes (i.e. the GST) are better for the economy than income taxes? So how is a consumption tax on fossil fuels worse for the economy than income & business taxes?

I don't know, as far as I know the warming caused by CO2 can easily be calculated using basic physics. This was done by Arrhenius back in 1896. link I realize there is a possibility that there is some other factor which could lessen the influence of CO2, but so far I haven't heard anyone make such an argument. Is there some reason to believe that Arrhenius was wrong? If you have any references on that topic, I'd be interested in reading them. Now, just because those calculations don't fit the observed temperature does not mean that the contribution from CO2 is wrong. The best analogy that I can think of is try to throw a feather off of a tall building and try to predict where and when it will land. There are so many factors at play (air resistance, wind etc.), that it would be nearly impossible to predict, but what we do know for certain is the contribution due to gravity which can easily be calculated. Of course, in this case there is air resistance which would slow down the descent compared to what it would be if gravity was acting alone. So far though, I have not heard any reasons why CO2 will not cause as much warming as based on those calculations, but again I'd be interested in learning more if you have any references.

Thanks to the war in Iraq, and places like Gitmo, I'm sure al-qaeda has no problem finding new recruits...

...that is if you don't count Iraq and Afghanistan...

jbg, quit trolling, you're better than that