Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[myata]

I guess if we were in an election campaign your comparison would be dismissed as a joke. But we're not. If Harper believes he can win the debate, he is better to leave it for the campaign. Canadians have short memories.

Not the "debate" of calling people names (from behind the corner) and the "arguments" of the attack ads? I hope Canadians will have memories for that. If not, we'll just get our own moneys worth. One can vote to ignore the change, but it won't make the change go away.

[myata]

This question is an irrelvant strawman since no one has claimed that there is a causal link between CO2 concentrations and the price of oil.

OK, take it on record.

The CO2 problem will take care of itself because the cost of fossil fuels is increasing and this will naturally make renewables a more attractive option. The cost of fossil fuels will continue to rise because we have run out cheap oil.

Price of oil have spiked before, and many economists are pridicting that it'll come down. Again, using your own crystal ball?

So what if oil comes down again? What will make those renewable more attractive then?

You're advocating just the same as what was said before: burning out all extractable oil, then see what happens. Maybe renewables will naturally become more attractive. If there will be many to enjoy them. As in the experiment with gas tank in the house, when gas all burned out, the fire will sure stop, naturally. Should we be getting much consolation from that?

[jbg]

So what if oil comes down again? What will make those renewable more attractive then?

Maybe renewables won't be attractive but other forms of conservation will be. Personally, I never left the economical cars are the late 1970's-early 1980''s. My view then, and during the "cheap oil" 1990's was that "waste is waste". There will be ongong reductions.

[Riverwind]

Price of oil have spiked before, and many economists are pridicting that it'll come down.

Down to what? $100? $75? That is still more than double what it was 3 years ago. I am expecting a pull back myself but it is not going to affect the long term trend towards higher oil prices as india and china industrialize (it will only get worse if Africans discover the virtues of peace, order and good government).

You're advocating just the same as what was said before: burning out all extractable oil, then see what happens. Maybe renewables will naturally become more attractive.

We don't really have a choice. We need the energy and there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels today. Governments cannot wave a magic wand and make technology appear. They can encourage its development but they cannot make it appear on the schedule they choose. Carbon taxes are a dumb idea because they a blunt instrument that might encourage technology to appear but they are more likely to severely damage the economy. High oil could do the same but there is nothing we can do about that.

[myata]

We don't really have a choice. We need the energy and there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels today.

We certainly have a choice to ignore reality. Examples of countries successfully developing alternative sources of energy were cited. A virtually untouched field yet is to use appropriate tools (tax shift being very effiecient one) to influence consumption behaviour away from unnecessary energy use. All this of course falls on deaf ears of somebody who isn't convinced the problem even exists.

...there is nothing we can do about that.

That summarizes your (and, I think, Harper's government, if they we ever to disclose their deeply held beliefs) position on the issue very well. I don't think anything can be added to that. Except that these "ideas", if unchecked, tend to become self fulfilling prophecies. It's up to us to make change happen, or to persist in "proving" that it's impossible. On every turn on evolution, biological as well as social, those who embrace and adapt to change go to the next round, the others stay behind.

[madmax]

Examples of countries successfully developing alternative sources of energy were cited. A virtually untouched field yet is to use appropriate tools (tax shift being very effiecient one)

ummm,

.....for you to say that tax shifting is "effiecient" is nothing more then a LIE. It is a tool, and it is a tool that may not be appropriate for the task it is supposed to accomplish.

That is all that is known about it.

IF you mention the Socialist country of Sweden, you better adopt all of their income and tax policies, because the effects of the "carbon" tax does not work the same way there, that it would here under the LPC scheme.

[Riverwind]

Examples of countries successfully developing alternative sources of energy were cited.

Denmark, the poster boy of alternate energy, only gets 6% of its electricity from wind despite having carpeted the country with wind turbines (most of the power produced by the turbines has to be exported at a discount because it comes in bursts). The rest comes from coal and nuke plants in other countries. Denmark would be screwed if Germany shut down its coal plants. Finland does OK with hydroelectric but hydro power is a very limited resource and cannot possibly supply the power needed to most of the world. Alternative energy sources will be a small part of the energy picture for the foreseeable future there is *nothing* that governments can do to change that reality. Governments that pretend they can change that are deluding the public.

A virtually untouched field yet is to use appropriate tools (tax shift being very effiecient one) to influence consumption behaviour away from unnecessary energy use.

Regulations like fuel efficiency standards are a much more effective way to improve conservation because they can be targeted to areas where the technology is close to existing. Carbon taxes are a blunt instrument that will most likely force companies to relocate to cheaper juristictions.

All this of course falls on deaf ears of somebody who isn't convinced the problem even exists.

I would be convinced if the climate models used to make the predictions of disaster were actually able to make skillful predictions. However, they have not done that and the *real* data suggests that the have greatly overestimated the extent of the problem.

That summarizes your (and, I think, Harper's government, if they we ever to disclose their deeply held beliefs) position on the issue very well.

Fine. Then spend your own money on finding a "solution" that probably does not exist. The rest of us would like to move on with our lives and invest our money in things that actually make economic sense. Given the current state of technology and our energy needs adaptation is the best way to deal with any problem that may occur. Edited July 8, 2008 by Riverwind

[madmax]

To MM: CHCs are regulated. It's another way to put a price on an unwanted commodity. I.e. via fines and possibly even criminal prosecution.

You made it appear like "the Markets" are the only way to put a "price" on an unwanted commoditiy.

More disagreement from the backer of Dion.

Désirée McGraw advised the Liberal Party against a carbon tax as chair of the Environment and Sustainable Development Taskforce commissioned by the party’s renewal process in 2006.

An environmentalist and lecturer on sustainable development, McGraw concludes on page 69 of her report that a carbon tax wouldn’t be necessary to meet Canada’s global GHG targets, preferring a cap and trade system instead.

[myata]

The rest of us would like to move on with our lives and invest our money in things that actually make economic sense. Given the current state of technology and our energy needs adaptation is the best way to deal with any problem that may occur.

That quite likely is also Harpers deep held conviction. Let everybody else start getting busy with cutting their emissions, realigning economies and reducing energy waste. We'll just keep on going as if nothing going on. Or, make it out contribution to humankind to do educational preaching.

We already adressed scientific sense, economic sense and beliefs vs reality. There doesn't seem to be anything more that can be added to this topic.

[myata]

You made it appear like "the Markets" are the only way to put a "price" on an unwanted commoditiy.

Yet I never said that. Carbon trading system on a federal scale, given this country's political reality, will take a decade to set up. The real visible action must be taken now. If only to confirm that the problem is being addresses. Talk and more talk sprinkled with megatalk won't take one megatonne out of our carbon balance.

[Riverwind]

Let everybody else start getting busy with cutting their emissions

Translation: shooting themselves in the foot. In any case, I suspect there will be nothing but talk and no action as long as the oil prices stay high and the global economy remains wobbly. You also have to remember that China and India are in the driver's seat. If they step up to the plate and volunteer to make their own meaningful cuts the rest world would have to respond. However, that is not going to happen because the Chinese and Indian governments are well aware of the shoddy state of climate science and will not be willing to impose suffering on their people in order deal with a problem that may not exist. Edited July 8, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

You also have to remember that China and India are in the driver's seat.

Right. China and India, they are in the driver seat, they have taken us to this point and they should show the lead on drastically reducing their emissions first. Following which poor Canada still struggling to feed its people would (maybe) follow.

It would be good for a comedy show, except this is the ideas which are shared by our government.

No, it's not funny, it's sad. It shows that nothing will happen. Folks will keep pushing the button that'll promise them paradise forever, and when the reality strikes, it'll be left to the others to sort out the mess. At least we won't be first, and probably not last. We, as a species, are still generations away from the point when our brain would countrol our kick and not the other way around.

[Riverwind]

Right. China and India, they are in the driver seat, they have taken us to this point and they should show the lead on drastically reducing their emissions first. Following which poor Canada still struggling to feed its people would (maybe) follow.

Your hypocracy is breathtaking. China and India are the biggest source of emissions growth which means that any action on CO2 _requires_ their participation. If they think the economic well being of their people is a higher priority then I don't see why Canada should take any different position.

[Argus]

What I find odd is how rarely the global warming fanatics will acknowledge that man made emissions constitute only 2% of annual world carbon emissions.

2%

Canada's share of that is appriximately 2%.

That's four one hundredths of one percent of total world carbon emissions.

If we spend tens of billions on cutting our emissions by 50% that will lower world carbon emissions by 2 one hundredths of a percent. That's as close to being utterly meaningless as I think you can get.

Except, of course, that with the massive growth rate in carbon emissions from China, India, Mexico, Russia, etc., that 2/100 of a percent reduction will, at huge cost, wind up as even less important.

[noahbody]

If we spend tens of billions on cutting our emissions by 50% that will lower world carbon emissions by 2 one hundredths of a percent. That's as close to being utterly meaningless as I think you can get.

But we will feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[capricorn]

Except, of course, that with the massive growth rate in carbon emissions from China, India, Mexico, Russia, etc., that 2/100 of a percent reduction will, at huge cost, wind up as even less important.

Another factor is that if these countries are left uncheked and are allowed to increase emissions, what's to say that won't increase the GHG in our own atmosphere? Our efforts would be negated. It would be as effective as trying to empty an ocean with a pail.

[myata]

Your hypocracy is breathtaking. China and India are the biggest source of emissions growth

No, this is what's really breathtaking! Who is the largest emitter on this planet? For the last couple of hundred years? And per capita? Who has actually created the problem. Really, there's no limit to how far the reality can be twisted.

Go ahead. What's your point, though? What everybody should just sit back and relax? We already know that. Can anything more be added? Oh yeah! Preaching around the world, to China, India, Mexico, Russia and Zimbabwe why they should step up to the plate , cut their emissions, embrace democracy, and buy a lot of MacDonalds, so that one day they could feel themselves as (almost) equial in the great democratic family.

[Riverwind]

Who is the largest emitter on this planet?

China. The bigger issue is emissions growth - Canada could reduce its emssions to zero and those emissions would be replaced in a few months by China and India. If you care about CO2 then you have to care about what China and India are doing. If you make make excuses for them then you obviously don't care that much about CO2 (despite your rhetoric).

For the last couple of hundred years? And per capita? Who has actually created the problem.

So what? The China and India would still be impoverished agricultural backwaters if they did not have access to the technology, markets and capital produced by the developed world. This means they have benefited from the CO2 emissions in the developed world just like everyone else so the developed world owes them nothing.

Incidently, claiming that everyone should have equal per capita emissions is no different than claiming that everyone have equal incomes. It is an ideological position that is straight out of communist doctrine.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Hypocracy is asking china and india to reduce emmissions while we have not done so ourselves.

[Riverwind]

Hypocracy is asking china and india to reduce emmissions while we have not done so ourselves.

Well, according to your graphs Canada's emissions are coming down.

[myata]

China.

This is the first yeat China's estimated emissions surpassed those of the USA. With approximately 4 times greater population. Are you keeping straight face while writing this?

The bigger issue is emissions growth - Canada could reduce its emssions to zero and those emissions would be replaced in a few months by China and India. If you care about CO2 then you have to care about what China and India are doing.

Why is emissions growth more important than the actual emissions size, Mr Scientist?

And sure I care about CO2 and I'm not going to try to teach them to start cutting their emissions while we, with orders of magnitude higher income, should be allowed to burn to our hearts desire. Simply because I wouldn't be able to keep straight face.

If you make make excuses for them then you obviously don't care that much about CO2 (despite your rhetoric).

Only in your twisted logic world. Normally, those who created the problem, and are better equipped to address it, would invest their time and resources into finding working solutions. Then share the solutions with those less likely to afford that on their own. But not in your world; there, we burn, you - clean.

This means they have benefited from the CO2 emissions in the developed world just like everyone else so the developed world owes them nothing.

They benefitted in the equal degree? Just like everyone else, in the developed world? Even when developed world sent oil guzzling warboats to shove opium down their throats?

But anyways its a theoretical discussion, which could itself be disputed forever. Enough is to say that without showing some lead West has next to zero chances to bring developing partners to the table of real emissions reductions. To expect it would be, as you say, hypoctritical, not to mention, quite unlikely. So, who doesn't (care is such a stretchy word - I can care 25 hours a day and night to make Earth a green paradize - like some politician I know - but those China and India, they just won't let him move a finger - and I'm so deeply empathetic with him - but how about, e.g. "serious" for a change??) about the problem?

[Argus]

But we will feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Well, we will need to, because if the Liberals have their way we won't be able to feel warm on the outside because of the steep increases in the prices of home heating oil, natural gas and electricity!

[madmax]

This is the first yeat China's estimated emissions surpassed those of the USA. With approximately 4 times greater population. Are you keeping straight face while writing this?

Are you? This is like accepting intensity targets? One thing is certain, they are going up, and going up rapidly. They will continue to go up, and accellarate at an alarming speed.

Yet you should care not.

We have tax shifting.

Edited July 9, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

Hypocracy is asking china and india to reduce emmissions while we have not done so ourselves.

That is correct.

Hypocracy is to suggest that we are doing something when we are not. That is tax shifting. That is signing Kyoto and ignoring it.

On the same hand, if someone is telling you the planet is in dire straits, and we have to cut back out .004 contribution to GHG to .0032 while Chinas begins to exceed the US, would indicate that nobody seems to damned concern about GHG in China.

We could go as dark as North Korea. Yet if China continues to grow and increase its emmissions, exceeding the #1 industrialized superpower, then this planet is going to get hotter and you can expect to see those polar icecaps continue to melt, and watch them white bears drown.

It is this total lack of concern about the growth of emmissions in other countries, where the economy of their nations come first, that has me wondering about the truth behind the Liberal Tax and shift plan.

It is clear to me that they do not care about GHG other then as a political tool, to get into power.

[stevoh]

That is correct.

Hypocracy is to suggest that we are doing something when we are not. That is tax shifting. That is signing Kyoto and ignoring it.

On the same hand, if someone is telling you the planet is in dire straits, and we have to cut back out .004 contribution to GHG to .0032 while Chinas begins to exceed the US, would indicate that nobody seems to damned concern about GHG in China.

We could go as dark as North Korea. Yet if China continues to grow and increase its emmissions, exceeding the #1 industrialized superpower, then this planet is going to get hotter and you can expect to see those polar icecaps continue to melt, and watch them white bears drown.

It is this total lack of concern about the growth of emmissions in other countries, where the economy of their nations come first, that has me wondering about the truth behind the Liberal Tax and shift plan.

It is clear to me that they do not care about GHG other then as a political tool, to get into power.

I think that describes Harpers 2050 50% reduction very well. But, as much as I think Dion has not been an effective leader of the liberals (duh) I do think that he actually believes in his green shift plan, and that it will make a difference. You are free to disagree that his plan will make a difference, but he has always been about the environment, and this is consistent with that. I think part of Dion's public perception problem IS that he is all about the environment, a one trick pony, as it were.

I also believe in getting your own house in order before asking others to do the same. Canada's emissions have been reducing for the last while, if we can keep that up, we can not only feel strong in our position when we ask other countries to also reduce their emissions, we can tell them HOW to do it.