Gov't says NO to Carbon Trading

[Shakeyhands]

Why would the government dismiss an idea like this so readily? It seems to me that if you have a panel that is made up of business and enviromentalists, and they come to table with a compromise that they can all live with they should at least listen and discuss it?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=221515

[Argus]

Why would the government dismiss an idea like this so readily? It seems to me that if you have a panel that is made up of business and enviromentalists, and they come to table with a compromise that they can all live with they should at least listen and discuss it?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=221515

David Suzuki said that the government should ignore economics. The government clearly thinks otherwise. Even Dion is strongly opposed to a carbon tax - or at least he says he's against a carbon tax. It's hard to know if that actually means anything given he's a Liberal.

[Shakeyhands]

from what I understand, this plan was not necessarily at the expense of economics.

[Borg]

David Suzuki said that the government should ignore economics. The government clearly thinks otherwise. Even Dion is strongly opposed to a carbon tax - or at least he says he's against a carbon tax. It's hard to know if that actually means anything given he's a Liberal.

Ignore economics?

Suzie simply does not worry about money he has enough and for damned sure does not care about you or me.

Ignore economics at huge peril - unless of course you are plannig to make money obsolete. Not a bad idea, but highly unlikely.

As for dion - keep that guy in place - please!!!

Borg

[noahbody]

Oil companies, other emitters and their shareholders are not going to take a hit. They'll just pass on the cost to the consumer. So it's your pockets the government is protecting.

Edited January 9, 2008 by noahbody

[Michael Hardner]

The headline says they said no to the tax, not to trading ?

[Shakeyhands]

The headline says they said no to the tax, not to trading ?

again, from what I understand, its not a tax per se but rather trading credits between those that do conform and those working towards it.

[Oleg Bach]

again, from what I understand, its not a tax per se but rather trading credits between those that do conform and those working towards it.

This "carbon tax" or trading or selling is bizarre - it is over buying - over selling - over crediting and over greeding that got us into this polluted mess to begin with - YOU can not buy or sell your way out of a situation that came about though to much buying and selling - maybe some one should get the solvent out and remove the proverbial mark of the beast from the foreheads of our buisness leaders - it's mythically rumored that without the mark of the beast you can not buy or sell.

Hope that was not to fanatically cryptic - but climate destruction did result from to much economic activity that surpass the limits of nature - in other words ....the habitual over exchanging of money and the over accumulation of it brought the problem about - and as they say - satan can not cast out satan - involving the use of money to alieviate the problem makes no sense - less money involved makes sense - tell the useless executive in the Lear Jet to stay home - and give the makers of grid lock a year off - put half the population on pension - and within a year we would have clean air and no need to decieve each there with a false trail of CARBON FOOT PRINTS - it's silly - with the current plan - it just means that rich people can create more damage - isn't that what cause it in the first place - wanting more wealth than natually needed - greed!