Carbon Tax Propossal

[Wild Bill]

Yes, it appears the Tory strategy is to basically defer doing anything.

I wish they would basically be straight forward and say they don't believe in the science of global warming and that they are going to drop it.

That would be a total waste of time! GW has become a religion. You can't attack a religion debating facts. You're up against faith. You can cite study after study that refutes the IPCC and it won't matter a whit.

As a mass, people just aren't scientifically educated enough to understand these matters. Look at the divide between Greenpeace today and Patrick Moore. People base their opinions on what makes them feel good!

Politicians must at least appear to give lip service to the religion of the day or they will face a backlash. It makes no difference if the religion has facts behind it.

The only thing that will dilute the popularity of the GW religion is time. We've had 10 years of no temperature increases. As people see more rain and cooler springtimes GW will gradually fade away but it will never disappear. Religions just don't do that!

Younger folks today will likely live till the next "mini Ice Age" in 2050. The GW fanatics looking for money and power will not have to face the embarrassment of being wrong. They will be in expensive coffins.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Wilber]

I think the 6 to 8% income tax cut would be good all by itself.

Cut off of which rate, the highest or lowest? A cut off the highest rate won't reduce a persons ability to polute according to their income, it will enhance it. A cut off the lowest rate will not be revenue neutral but a windfall for the government. Either way it will be inflationary because it will increase the cost of just about everything for just about everyone.

Campbell's so called revenue neutral tax isn't revenue neutral for tax payers from the get go, because he has allotted 180 million of their money right off the top to administer and try to sell the thing. Smells of gun registry already.

[jdobbin]

Cut off of which rate, the highest or lowest? A cut off the highest rate won't reduce a persons ability to polute according to their income, it will enhance it. A cut off the lowest rate will not be revenue neutral but a windfall for the government. Either way it will be inflationary because it will increase the cost of just about everything for just about everyone.

The income tax cuts have been advocated long before the carbon tax proposal. They were never intended to be about reducing pollution.

I think the tax cut has to be a combination of raising the personal exemption and slashing the top marginal rate where investment decisions are made. It will be meant to increase productivity which all experts say will happen with this reduction.

The right wing plan is to call income tax cuts inflationary?

Campbell's so called revenue neutral tax isn't revenue neutral for tax payers from the get go, because he has allotted 180 million of their money right off the top to administer and try to sell the thing. Smells of gun registry already.

If the belief is that global warming is happening, the best and cheapest way to reduce emissions is to put a price on them.

If the Harper government intends on doing anything about it, they will be doing a hard cap and trade or a carbon tax. It will be far more expensive doing other things.

[Wilber]

The income tax cuts have been advocated long before the carbon tax proposal. They were never intended to be about reducing pollution.

I think the tax cut has to be a combination of raising the personal exemption and slashing the top marginal rate where investment decisions are made. It will be meant to increase productivity which all experts say will happen with this reduction.

The right wing plan is to call income tax cuts inflationary?

Nice try. All taxes raise the cost of living and are therefore inflationary, including carbon taxes. The idea that any new tax can be revenue neutral is a myth because it will take another level of bureaucracy to administer it and a massive advertising budget to try and sell it.

If the belief is that global warming is happening, the best and cheapest way to reduce emissions is to put a price on them.

Only if you believe it will actually reduce global warming. If not, it is just another tax.

[jdobbin]

Nice try. All taxes raise the cost of living and are therefore inflationary, including carbon taxes. The idea that any new tax can be revenue neutral is a myth because it will take another level of bureaucracy to administer it and a massive advertising budget to try and sell it.

So some of the right wing says.

The C.D. Howe Institute, hardly a left wing group, disagrees.

Only if you believe it will actually reduce global warming. If not, it is just another tax.

I believe emissions increase global warming so a tax on emissions is to reduce usage.

[Wilber]

So some of the right wing says.

The C.D. Howe Institute, hardly a left wing group, disagrees.

A tax is like any other expense, if it doesn't give value for money, it only increases the cost of living.

I believe emissions increase global warming so a tax on emissions is to reduce usage.

Do you believe this tax will reduce global warming?

[jdobbin]

A tax is like any other expense, if it doesn't give value for money, it only increases the cost of living.

That is why I want large income tax reductions.

Do you believe this tax will reduce global warming?

Yes.

[Riverwind]

Do you believe this tax will reduce global warming? Yes.

You got to be kidding. CO2 emssions are going up as long as the population or the economy are growing because we need energy are there are no technically feasible alternatives. If you really care about GHGs you have to:

1) Kill the economy

2) Kill off people.

I don't find either options attractive.

[jdobbin]

You got to be kidding. CO2 emssions are going up as long as the population or the economy are growing because we need energy are there are no technically feasible alternatives. If you really care about GHGs you have to:

1) Kill the economy

2) Kill off people.

I don't find either options attractive.

Or kill off the planet which you don't believe in anyway.

Let's just have the Tories really say where they stand on the issue.

[noahbody]

Or kill off the planet which you don't believe in anyway.

Kill off the planet? That's silly. Earth has been much warmer and much colder and it seems to be still around. Or is this hell?

[Riverwind]

Or kill off the planet which you don't believe in anyway.

That is a laugh. GHGs are a natural part of the earth's eco system and no amount of human emissions could possible 'kill off the planet'.

The fact that you even use that rhetoric demonstrates how poorly you understand the issues (which is probably the reason why you advocate policies that make no economic or environmental sense).

GHG scare-mongering is justified by some people becasue they think changes to the climate will make life more difficult for humans. The fate of the planet has nothing to do with it.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

That is a laugh. GHGs are a natural part of the earth's eco system and no amount of human emissions could possible 'kill off the planet'.

Our part in raising emissions isn't exactly natural and the eco-system eventually adjusts to it but not before large displacements of lifeforms. Even those who disagree we are warming now know that this is true.

The fact that you even use that rhetoric demonstrates how poorly you understand the issues (which is probably the reason why you advocate policies that make no economic or environmental sense).

Your issues should be taken up with the Tories who so far disagree with you as well. Criticize the Liberals all you want but the Tories are also putting through laws on emissions even if they are filled with loopholes. And if you throw in ethanol and the like, I'm sure you have a long list of criticism for the present government which the right wing is fairly mute on.

In any event, those on the right are not going to vote Liberal anyway. You should take your fight to the Tories.

Edited May 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Our part in raising emissions isn't exactly natural and the eco-system eventually adjusts to it but not before large displacements of lifeforms. Even those who disagree we are warming now know that this is true.

I have good news for you - the eco-system ALWAYS changes and life forms ALWAYS adapt. The eco-system has survived 4.5 billion years and it is not going be killed off by a trace gas. Humans will adapt too. In fact, many economists who have looked at the problem feel that adaptation is they most cost effective way to deal with GW - even if it is a real concern.

Unfortunately, adaptation is rejected by the eco-fundementalists because it violates the tenets of their gaia religion. We see this same sort of religion inspired perverse logic elsewhere. For example, the catholic church opposes education on birth control and condom use as a way to stop the spread of AIDS because extra-marital sex violates its religious beliefs.

[jdobbin]

I have good news for you - the eco-system ALWAYS changes and life forms ALWAYS adapt. The eco-system has survived 4.5 billion years and it is not going be killed off by a trace gas. Humans will adapt too. In fact, many economists who have looked at the problem feel that adaptation is they most cost effective way to deal with GW - even if it is a real concern.

Unfortunately, adaptation is rejected by the eco-fundementalists because it violates the tenets of their gaia religion. We see this same sort of religion inspired perverse logic elsewhere. For example, the catholic church opposes education on birth control and condom use as a way to stop the spread of AIDS because extra-marital sex violates its religious beliefs.

Global warming deniers in Canada will say anything except criticize the Tories. Step up and embrace another party or start a party that actually represents your main issue. If the Liberals are going to destroy the economy then surely the Tories are doing the same thing.

Edited May 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[gc1765]

In fact, many economists who have looked at the problem feel that adaptation is they most cost effective way to deal with GW - even if it is a real concern.

What should we do to adapt to global warming? How much will it cost, and who should pay for it?

[jdobbin]

What should we do to adapt to global warming? How much will it cost, and who should pay for it?

I'm sure the answer will be nothing because global warming is not happening. We are actually headed for an ice age.

[Riverwind]

What should we do to adapt to global warming? How much will it cost, and who should pay for it?

At this point in time adaption is a moot point because there is zero evidence of any serious bad effects caused by global warming. More importantly, money spent on adaptation is not likely to be wasted because we only adapt when we have to. Spending money on mitigation is a waste of time because:

1) We don't really know if there is a problem.

2) It is unlikely to work.

Here is a concrete example: some people benefit from glaciers that store water that falls in the wet season and releases it slowly during the dry season. If these glaciers disappeared people in these areas would face water shortages during the dry season. However, this problem could be easily remedied with a few dams in the mountains for much less than the cost of trying to stop the warming in the first place. More importantly, money spent on the dams would actually solve the problem where as money spent on mitigation would do nothing.

[madmax]

What should we do to adapt to global warming? How much will it cost, and who should pay for it?

What mode of transportation do you use?

[noahbody]

What should we do to adapt to global warming? How much will it cost, and who should pay for it?

Global warming (with or without man-made CO2) could possibly lead to people living in certain regions to be displaced. Earth has been warmer in the past without man, so it likely will be again. If this happens, there will be a cost to relocate people. But it might not happen for 1,000 years or it might not happen until the Leafs win the Cup, which would be never. We don't know.

Til then, it's best not to give away money due to carbon credit schemes or waste food for fuel. So far, the latter is the only real consequence of global warming. If only there had been time to debate that one.

[gc1765]

At this point in time adaption is a moot point because there is zero evidence of any serious bad effects caused by global warming.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the earth is warming.

Here is a concrete example: some people benefit from glaciers that store water that falls in the wet season and releases it slowly during the dry season. If these glaciers disappeared people in these areas would face water shortages during the dry season. However, this problem could be easily remedied with a few dams in the mountains for much less than the cost of trying to stop the warming in the first place. More importantly, money spent on the dams would actually solve the problem where as money spent on mitigation would do nothing.

Good example. Who should pay to build this dam? Should it be the people who depend on those glaciers for water? Or should it be the people who caused those glaciers to melt in the first place (assuming for the sake of argument that carbon dioxide played a significant role)?

[gc1765]

What mode of transportation do you use?

Bicycle. Why?

[gc1765]

Til then, it's best not to give away money due to carbon credit schemes or waste food for fuel.

A carbon tax does neither of those things.

[jdobbin]

Bicycle. Why?

Do you realize that you are using food for fuel? lol

[gc1765]

Do you realize that you are using food for fuel? lol

[stevoh]

At this point in time adaption is a moot point because there is zero evidence of any serious bad effects caused by global warming. More importantly, money spent on adaptation is not likely to be wasted because we only adapt when we have to. Spending money on mitigation is a waste of time because:

1) We don't really know if there is a problem.

2) It is unlikely to work.

Here is a concrete example: some people benefit from glaciers that store water that falls in the wet season and releases it slowly during the dry season. If these glaciers disappeared people in these areas would face water shortages during the dry season. However, this problem could be easily remedied with a few dams in the mountains for much less than the cost of trying to stop the warming in the first place. More importantly, money spent on the dams would actually solve the problem where as money spent on mitigation would do nothing.

Believing that we can adapt to any unknown changes in the environment is just niiave, as we don't even know what we will have to adapt to. Right now, the focus is on CO2 and its effect on global temperatures. Increasing CO2 concentrations is also having other effects, some known (ocean absorbtion) and some not. So we may not just be adapting to hotter weather, we may be adapting to warmer oceans, or more acidic oceans, or a whole host of yet to be discovered effects. We have also historically released other elements into the atmosphere without understanding all of the effects, many with poor results.

We do know that the current concentrations of various elements in the atmosphere allow life, as we know it now, to occur. We are "not sure" about the effect of increasing CO2, but other lessons from history, such as lead in gasoline, CFCs, and mercury vapours, have taught us that increasing various elemental concentrations without first understanding their effect is just a bad idea. Certainly, we could "adapt" to these changes as well, but a better solution was to remove the source of the contamination, as it meant we didn't have to adapt at all. Increasing CO2 concentrations may not lead to significant global warming, but it is niiave to assume it will have no detrimental effect whatsoever.

Adaptation to an unknown result is far more hazardous route than maintaining current elemental concentrations with known life sustaining effect.

The other issue with adaptation is that, while we as humans can seal ourselves off, or do whatever else we have to do to survive the current conditions, the rest of life on earth has no such luxury. While we can adapt through innovation and technology, they have to adapt using good ol' evolution, a haphazard and time consuming process. Unless we want to take responsibility for ensuring that all of the life on earth (including the food we eat) can also adapt to any changes, an impossible task, adaptation is a poor option to control.

Yes, we could probably survive many changes brought on by human impacts on the environment, we have so far. But adapting to the unknown, and potentially wiping out entire species that don't have that luxury, make the risk too high.

Having this point of view has nothing to do with worshipping earth as some kind of entity, and has everthing to do with common sense and learning from the past. If we know that the current atmospheric concentration of various elements in allow life to exist, and we do, then changing those concentrations without truly understanding all of the effects is just a bad idea.