Riverwind Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 Most Canadians do not benefit from the tar sands and the high price of oil yet the CO2 emissions from the tar sands require those Canadians to sacrifice because they belong to a collective that includes the tar sands. There are many other examples that show the same thing. As long as national boundaries are considered a relevant factor when creating emissions targets then CO2 emissions will be a collective and not an individual matter. Oil is not an inherent right, but rather something that we have to work for.In our society access to oil/energy is a fundemental as access to food. If you are ok with the market set prices for food and oil you should be willing to have the market set prices for CO2.However, the right to emit CO2 is not something that any individual has some inherent right to do more than anyone else.Sorry - don't agree. There is no fundemental right to burn fossil fuels. You could make the case for the CO2 that people generate in their own lungs but if they want a lifestyle that requires fossil fuel energy then they should pay for it like they have to pay for oil today. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
gc1765 Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 Most Canadians do not benefit from the tar sands and the high price of oil yet the CO2 emissions from the tar sands require those Canadians to sacrifice because they belong to a collective that includes the tar sands. There are many other examples that show the same thing. As long as national boundaries are considered a relevant factor when creating emissions targets then CO2 emissions will be a collective and not an individual matter. That wouldn't be the case if we had a global carbon tax. If we did, Canada would be paying tax on all that CO2 it emits. Being one of the majority of Canadians who do not benefit from the tar sands, I would be demanding that Canada implement it's own carbon tax so that the people who do benefit from emitting that CO2 are the ones paying for it. It is up to each government to reduce the issue to the level of the individual, and it is in their best interest to do so. In our society access to oil/energy is a fundemental as access to food. If you are ok with the market set prices for food and oil you should be willing to have the market set prices for CO2. Food also takes resources to produce. Food is not an inherent right either, unfortunately. There is no fundemental right to burn fossil fuels. You could make the case for the CO2 that people generate in their own lungs but if they want a lifestyle that requires fossil fuel energy then they should pay for it like they have to pay for oil today. Well, at least we agree that people should be paying for their emissions. Does that mean you would agree to the idea of a flat global carbon tax if it did not include an exemption? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 (edited) Well, at least we agree that people should be paying for their emissions. Does that mean you would agree to the idea of a flat global carbon tax if it did not include an exemption?Any CO2 tax must be paid by the consumer. If manufacturing a car releases CO2 emissions then the tax applied to the car should be the same no matter where it is produced. Taxes on production are a waste of time and difficult to enforce. Import duties and sales taxes are much easier to asses and have a direct impact on the *consumption* which is the real source of the problem. Individual exemptions make no sense if the cost of CO2 is paid by the consumer.That answer presumes that CO2 is actually a problem. I recommend that you read this article on why the effect of CO2 may be greatly exaggerated (it is layman summary of a peer reviewed paper by climate scientists). Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Argus Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 Harper's "Made in Canada" solution = let the US decide.Now that what I call defending Canadian sovereignty... Not. We took our beats at this conference and deserved every bruise we got. When traveling in Europe, I suggest you don’t wear a Canada flag on your pack back. It is no longer a welcoming symbol. Meh. Virtually ALL the criticism of Canada at the Bali conference was from Canadians who flew there in order to criticize Canada. Most of them were on the government payroll during the Liberals' time and never uttered a peep of protest about Kyoto not being observed. The foreign press paid little attention to Canada and its position. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 That wouldn't be the case if we had a global carbon tax. If we did, Canada would be paying tax on all that CO2 it emits. Being one of the majority of Canadians who do not benefit from the tar sands, I would be demanding The majority of Canadians DO benefit from the tar sands. The taxes paid by Alberta go to propping up all the other provinces except Ontario, and allowing them to offer up the services you enjoy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 Most Canadians do not benefit from the tar sands and the high price of oil yet You clearly have no clue how much that oil means to Canada's economy. Why do you think the Canadian buck kept going up as the price of oil rose? All Canadians benefit from the oil and tar sands money which flows into Ottawa. Some of it flows right back out to the other provinces while the rest is used by the feds to pay for services and pay off its debt. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Riverwind Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 (edited) You clearly have no clue how much that oil means to Canada's economy. Why do you think the Canadian buck kept going up as the price of oil rose?It really depends on the individual. People working in export oriented businesses have been screwed by the higher dollar and energy costs. The lost income and higher expenses far exceed any benefit in terms of lower taxes and a better local economy. Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
gc1765 Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 The majority of Canadians DO benefit from the tar sands. The taxes paid by Alberta go to propping up all the other provinces except Ontario, and allowing them to offer up the services you enjoy. I realize that, however I was responding to Riverwind's argument that Canadians in general do not benefit from the tar sands. Anyways, it's obvious that some Canadians benefit a lot more than others. P.S. Alberta is not propping up B.C. either. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
gc1765 Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 That answer presumes that CO2 is actually a problem. I recommend that you read this article on why the effect of CO2 may be greatly exaggerated (it is layman summary of a peer reviewed paper by climate scientists). Yes, as I mentioned earlier this is based on the presumption that the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, which realistically is going to be the focus of any of these climate change talks. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.