Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[gc1765]

Canada produces an insignificant fraction of the world's CO2. The only way we can justify CO2 reductions in Canada is if they are followed by similar efforts in the developing countries which are the biggest source of emissions growth. If developing countries are going to emit with impunity then I don't see the point of reducing emissions in Canada and any money spent would be better directed towards adaptation and other environmental issues.

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

If there is not a level playing field then industries will simply relocate instead of reducing emissions because that would be cheaper than paying to reduce emissions. This means that global emissions would not be reduced even if one does not care about the lost jobs.

2) Revenue from a carbon tax could be put towards adaptation, including helping those in third world countries who will be the hardest hit.

Eh? How is a revenue "neutral" tax going to generate revenue required to pay for these kinds of projects? Edited June 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

If there is not a level playing field then industries will simply relocate instead of reducing emissions because that would be cheaper than paying to reduce emissions. This means that global emissions would not be reduced even if one does not care about the lost jobs.

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.

Eh? How is a revenue "neutral" tax going to generate revenue required to pay for these kinds of projects?

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.

[myata]

I have seen no compelling evidence that the existing CO2 emitting energy sources can be replaced with non-CO2 emitting sources without significantly increasing the cost of energy. Paying a premium for non-CO2 emitting sources is something the poor cannot afford to do.

Just off the top of my head (internet search should yield loads of information on this):

- France generates something like 60% (probably more) of their energy from nuclear;

- Germany is becoming the leader in generatinging power from renewable sources;

Both are large developed countries with strong manufacturing economies; if it's possible for them, why not for anybody? (that is, everybody who's genuinly interested in developing the alternatives to carbon fuels, rather than looking for justifications why nothing should (and can) be done).

History of this world shows over and again that those quick to adapt, not afraid of change, and willing to try new things, have a better chance to survive and prosper; while those lagging behind looking for any possible reason to do nothing, will also be the last ones to the finish line. The line which may very well translate into prosperity of future generations in the world where energy reality has undergone quick and dramatic change.

Edited June 26, 2008 by myata

[madmax]

- France generates something like 60% (probably more) of their energy from nuclear;

the alternatives to carbon fuels, rather than looking for justifications why nothing should (and can) be done)

You want "nuclear" to be the alternative to Carbon fuels?

[myata]

I want to prove that alternatives do exist, where a claim has been made that there're none. Which alternatives, and in which mix are better suited to achieve the stated goals should be a subject to an informed rational discussion. Which is of course a tough undertaking with positions a la "je ne sais pas pourquoi, but over my dead body".

And obviously, those goals, they must exist. Exist as real practical objectives, rather than a banner to flow at election time, then ignore and forget.

[stevoh]

For all those whiners who say "nothing can be done", "it doesn't make a difference", and my personal favourite "you cannot lower emissions without lowering population":

Canada's emissions decreased from 2005 to 2006

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&am...F7-E03B28D1B12B

The decrease in emissions is due primarily to a reduction in emissions from electricity production (reduced coal and increased hydro and nuclear generation) and from fossil fuel production (as a result of fuel switching and less oil being refined), as well as reduced demand for heating fuels because of warmer winters in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

And yes, Canada's population grew from 2005 to 2006:

2005 - 32,623,490

2006 - 32,987,532

Of course, the only part the skeptics will read is the "reduced demand" part, but, fact is, the switch in electricity production sources was also a major factor.

Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it

Edited June 26, 2008 by stevoh

[Riverwind]

For all those whiners who say "nothing can be done", "it doesn't make a difference", and my personal favourite "you cannot lower emissions without lowering population":

You can also acheive significant reductions by outsourcing CO2 producing industries. Take a look at the trend in imports from China:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/65-5...igs/fig1-en.htm

The output of the Canada manufacturing sector has also declined steadily over the last decade. There are also some funny business when it comes to accounting for GHGs under the Kyoto protocol because some emissions are excluded. For example, I read that the emissions according the kyoto rules for the UK are not increasing but the emissions according to the stricter EU rules UK emssions are increasing.

Obviously, this chart surprised me: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo...ages/f1_eng.gif

A 3% decrease in emissions over 3 years! At that rate we will meet our Kyoto goals in 25 years if we do nothing more than we are doing now. Of course, that assumes that the modest reductions since 2003 are actually sustainable over the long term. For example, the amount of hydro-electricity available depends on the weather and geography and we will eventually have no manufacturing industry left to outsource. As with any diet or budget cut it is always possible to achieve some initial success but it gets tougher as the easy stuff is done.

That said, if the AGW alarmists were actually calling for a modest 1% reduction in CO2 emissions per year then I would likely agree that the costs would be manageable and low enough to justify action just in case CO2 is actually a problem. Unfortunately, AGW alarmists are not asking for 1%/year - they are demanding that we have 0 emissions by 2020 or 2050. Such goals are simply not achievable and developing policies that are designed achieve such objectives is at best a waste of time but have the potential to severely damage the economy.

Frankly, it is the fanatism from AGW alarmists that concerns me the most and I would love to have a wholistic discussion of what we can do as a society to reduce our impact in the environment without obsessing about CO2. Unfortunately, that kind of discussion is not possible as long as the lunatics like James Hansen hold the stage.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Unfortunately, AGW alarmists are not asking for 1%/year - they are demanding that we have 0 emissions by 2020 or 2050.

I'd like to see more specifics on this. Who exactly are the "alarmists" who have made this particular claim? Has Hanses been on records saying anything of the kind?

Unless these are your very own usual (and usually, incorrect) interpretations of other's positions?

[madmax]

I want to prove that alternatives do exist, where a claim has been made that there're none. Which alternatives, and in which mix are better suited to achieve the stated goals should be a subject to an informed rational discussion.

Are you advocating Nuclear Power?

Yes or No?

[myata]

Certainly as one of the options to ensure stable long term energy supply, and mitigate the raise of greenhouse emissions, where and if it's feasible and practical. I'm not into purist environmentalist religions of any kinds; we have a problem on our hands and it needs practical solutions; dressing in green and preaching total absistence wont' be one of them.

[madmax]

Certainly as one of the options to ensure stable long term energy supply, and mitigate the raise of greenhouse emissions, where and if it's feasible and practical.

What if Nuclear is not a practical, stable or long term solution? What if it is not feasible or sustainable? What if it has no significant impact on climate change?

What is practical about killing people with Nuclear Power?

I have some Nuclear Storage in our city, I would like to send it to YOU!

[jdobbin]

What if Nuclear is not a practical, stable or long term solution? What if it is not feasible or sustainable? What if it has no significant impact on climate change?

What alternative energies do you think will succeed?

I still think thermal along with conservation will go a long way but the NDP in Manitoba are backing away from supporting thermal.

[Riverwind]

I'd like to see more specifics on this. Who exactly are the "alarmists" who have made this particular claim? Has Hanses been on records saying anything of the kind?

Many activists have picked up on this and are alling for a 100% by 2050:

In January 2007, the European Commission issued a communication stating that "the European Union's objective is to limit global average temperature increase to less than 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels".

Andrew Weaver and colleagues at the University of Victoria in Canada say this means going well beyond the reduction of industrial emissions discussed in international negotiations.

Weaver's team used a computer model to determine how much emissions must be limited in order to avoid exceeding a 2°C increase. The model is an established tool for analysing future climate change and was used in studies cited in the IPCC's reports on climate change.

They modelled the reduction of industrial emissions below 2006 levels by between 20% and 100% by 2050. Only when emissions were entirely eliminated did the temperature increase remain below 2°C.

A 100% reduction of emissions saw temperature change stabilise at 1.5°C above the pre-industrial figure. With a 90% reduction by 2050, Weaver's model predicted that temperature change will eventually exceed 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures but then plateau.

The IPCC is calling for an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050 which would require that every person in the globe reduce their emissions to the level of a person living in Haiti or Somalia today. Hansen rejects the 450ppm target and is calling for 350ppm which requires even greater reductions.

The IPCC said that in order to limit the average increase in global temperatures to 2.4 C (4.3 F) — the most optimistic of any scenario — the concentration of greenhouse gases would have to stabilise at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

To achieve this goal, CO2 emissions would have to peak by 2015 at the latest, then fall by between 50 and 85 percent by 2050, the panel.

But the IEA’s World Energy Outlook report saw no peak in emissions before 2020.

To achieve the 450ppm target would mean that CO2 from energy sources would have to peak by 2012, which in turn would require a massive drive in energy efficiency and a switch to non-fossil fuels, the report said.

Keep in mind that these are global targets which means the third world must be included. Zero emissions in wealthy countries means nothing if they were accomplished by outsourcing. To give you an idea what an 80% reduction in emissions means globally:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...ssions_suc.html

What countries have a per capita emissions level consistent with an 80 percent reduction from the world's current total emissions?

...

The answer, as can be seen above in an image that I use in lectures (data from US EIA), is Haiti and Somalia. If everyone in the world lived as they do in these two countries, we'd have the emissions challenge licked.

[myata]

What if Nuclear is not a practical, stable or long term solution? What if it is not feasible or sustainable? What if it has no significant impact on climate change?

When you'll only have to prove it. Anybody can show a knee-jerk reaction to pretty much anything, it's not a rational way to address problems.

[myata]

Many activists have picked up on this and are alling for a 100% by 2050:

Possibly, but it's just can't be seen from anywhere in the information you posted. Or, shall I explain the difference between 50-85% reduction from the peak of 2015 (now's 2008, and we're 35% above 1990 level, remember), and

... 0 emissions by 2020 or 2050

???. OK, (though it falls into 3 grade math), here it goes: a half of a very big number - can't be 0. Period. Mathematical impossibility. I've no idea who Weaver is and there the quote came from, so ignored.

The answer, as can be seen above in an image that I use in lectures (data from US EIA), is Haiti and Somalia. If everyone in the world lived as they do in these two countries, we'd have the emissions challenge licked.

Obviously, we're comparing technologies of two generations forward in the future with those of today. That wasn't made clear enough? How would carbon emissions of a nuclear plant compare to that of coal, of the same power generation capacity? Hydrogen engine (running on hydrogen distilled with wind generated power) against gasoline based one? What's wrong with non-carbon based economy of the future showing better carbon efficiency than a lousy carbon based economy of today? Wouldn't it be like comparing apples and oranges?

[Riverwind]

I've no idea who Weaver is and there the quote came from, so ignored.

Typical of you. Look for any excuse to ignore information that does not conform to your prejudices. You could have easily found the link in the newscientist by searching for the quoted text. In any case, I have supported my claim that some people are claiming that we need to have 0 emissions by 2050. I don't know how must faster we would have to reduce emissions to meet Hansen's target of 350ppm but I doubt that 0 by 2050 would do it. Hansen is on the record of saying we only have one more year to introduce comprehensive policies or we are screwed. I doubt that he would think that a 1% reduction per year in indsutrialized countries would be enough.

BTW: here is an example of someone demanding 0 by 2020: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/02...ssions-by-2020/

Obviously, we're comparing technologies of two generations forward in the future with those of today. That wasn't made clear enough? How would carbon emissions of a nuclear plant compare to that of coal, of the same power generation capacity? Hydrogen engine (running on hydrogen distilled with wind generated power) against gasoline based one? What's wrong with non-carbon based economy of the future showing better carbon efficiency than a lousy carbon based economy of today? Wouldn't it be like comparing apples and oranges?

If we do nothing the CO2 problem will fix itself in 100 years or so because the economy is naturally becoming more efficient all of the time. The problem only exists because many activists feel that the natural rate of CO2 reduction is too slow and the process needs to accelerated. There are lots people making different claims but the climate modellers have made it clear that zero emissions by 2050 is the only way to avoid climate disasater. If you think the modellers are grossly exagerrating the risk then a slower rate of emissions reduction may be sufficient. However, you are the one that insists that we must blindly trust the modellers so I must conclude that if the modellers say 0 by 2050 then you must also support that objective. Edited June 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

How exactly will third world countries develop unless they have access to electricity at an affordable price?

My point is that the influence of "cheap energy" is felt far later than the influence of poor nutrition.

[stevoh]

Obviously, this chart surprised me: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo...ages/f1_eng.gif

A 3% decrease in emissions over 3 years! At that rate we will meet our Kyoto goals in 25 years if we do nothing more than we are doing now. Of course, that assumes that the modest reductions since 2003 are actually sustainable over the long term. For example, the amount of hydro-electricity available depends on the weather and geography and we will eventually have no manufacturing industry left to outsource. As with any diet or budget cut it is always possible to achieve some initial success but it gets tougher as the easy stuff is done.

That said, if the AGW alarmists were actually calling for a modest 1% reduction in CO2 emissions per year then I would likely agree that the costs would be manageable and low enough to justify action just in case CO2 is actually a problem.

Well, let's not listen to either the alarmists or the "do nothing, more CO2 is good for you!" crowd, and actually make some slow, measured, and realistic progress.

[Riverwind]

My point is that the influence of "cheap energy" is felt far later than the influence of poor nutrition.

That argument is not shared by the UN: http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/june17/2008/menu.php

A study on climate change reports that by the 2080s the capacity of global agricultural production could be reduced by about 16 per cent if carbon fertilization is omitted and by about 3 per cent if it is included.

IOW - the people and the UN who are looking into the effect of GW on food supplies don't seem to be concerned about the nutritional aspects of the problem. Probably because the nutrition issue is only an issue if one assumes that agricultural practices do not/cannot adapt to the higher CO2 levels. Edited June 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Well, let's not listen to either the alarmists or the "do nothing, more CO2 is good for you!" crowd, and actually make some slow, measured, and realistic progress.

We will make progress if government does nothing. High oil prices will accomplish more than any carbon tax or cap and trade regime. That said, if you are willing to agree that we can safely ignore the scientists with thier climate models predicting disaster then I think we can agree that modest CO2 reductions can be part of wholistic plan to reduce out impact on the environment. However, I don't think you will be able to agree to that if you insist that the climate models are accurate representations of reality.

Personally, I would rather take about water supplies and sustainable agricultural practices. I see that as the real environmental problem which is getting lost because of the CO2 obsession.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

We will make progress if government does nothing. High oil prices will accomplish more than any carbon tax or cap and trade regime. That said, if you are willing to agree that we can safely ignore the scientists with thier climate models predicting disaster then I think we can agree that modest CO2 reductions can be part of wholistic plan to reduce out impact on the environment. However, I don't think you will be able to agree to that if you insist that the climate models are accurate representations of reality.

The fact that market forces are causing positive consumer action right now is just good timing. If the market wasn't going crazy, then a carbon tax would be necessary to change buying habits. It doesn't matter to me how the change is caused, as long as it happens. And it is.

I think ignoring climate models is as foolish as accepting them whole-heartedly without critisism. Once we come up with a climate model that can accurately predict, on a repeatable basis, the present based on the past, then I will have more faith in its ability to predict the future.

Our positions have been defined with great clarity in this thread and others. Its too bad that our politicians can't do the same and then come up with a compromise such as ours, realistic and measurable progress. They spend far to much time defining their differences instead of finding mutual ground and making real progress on what they agree on.

Personally, I would rather take about water supplies and sustainable agricultural practices. I see that as the real environmental problem which is getting lost because of the CO2 obsession.

I think we sometimes blame scientists a bit too much for what the media chooses to overblow. Let's face it, giant disasterous weather changes on a global scale sell considerably more papers than sustainable agriculture discussions. There is all kinds of great science out there right now (as in our plant CO2 discussion), but it's not what sells papers.

And for someone who would rather talk about water supplies and agriculture, you sure post a lot on GW

[stevoh]

That argument is not shared by the UN: http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/june17/2008/menu.php

IOW - the people and the UN who are looking into the effect of GW on food supplies don't seem to be concerned about the nutritional aspects of the problem. Probably because the nutrition issue is only an issue if one assumes that agricultural practices do not/cannot adapt to the higher CO2 levels.

Where is the UN arguing for cheap energy in this link? That is what we are comparing, the influence of cheap energy on poverty stricken populations, as opposed to decreasing nutrition.

[Riverwind]

The fact that market forces are causing positive consumer action right now is just good timing. If the market wasn't going crazy, then a carbon tax would be necessary to change buying habits. It doesn't matter to me how the change is caused, as long as it happens. And it is.

I would be ok if the government set a floor price for gasoline because we don't want people to get complacent if we experience another 80s style oil bust.

I think ignoring climate models is as foolish as accepting them whole-heartedly without critisism. Once we come up with a climate model that can accurately predict, on a repeatable basis, the present based on the past, then I will have more faith in its ability to predict the future.

I guess we don't have much left to argue about when it comes to the climate models. The trouble is too many lay people don't understand the limitations of the models and cannot distinguish between a reasonable scientific hypothesis (i.e. that CO2 causes the planet to warm) and a proven fact. When reading stuff produced by sceptics it is important to remember that almost every sceptic with the scientific background to understand the issues does not dispute the core GH hypothesis developed by Arrhienus 100+ years ago. The disputes centers entirely on how big the effect is and whether other factors are more significant. If you read the skeptic blogs you will find that some people will call themselves "lukewarmers" for that reason.

I think we sometimes blame scientists a bit too much for what the media chooses to overblow. Let's face it, giant disasterous weather changes on a global scale sell considerably more papers than sustainable agriculture discussions. There is all kinds of great science out there right now (as in our plant CO2 discussion), but it's not what sells papers.

Scientists are human like the rest of us not immune to the need to sell their ideas. That is why I believe that if the data is ambiguous scientists will always err on the side of the dramatic because that gets their papers published and gets them research funding.

And for someone who would rather talk about water supplies and agriculture, you sure post a lot on GW

I have to talk about what people are talking about. Given a choice between building a sewage treatment plant for Victoria or spending money making the city carbon neutral I would go for the sewage treatment plant. However, prospect of saving the planet is gets more votes than putting Mr. Floatie out of business. Edited June 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

We will make progress if government does nothing. High oil prices will accomplish more than any carbon tax or cap and trade regime.

OK, just because you keep bringing it up, let's now address that point as well. You're making this implicit assumption that there's some kind of relation between the price of oil, which is usually governed by the fluctuations of demand and supply, and the current events, and speculations, and the increasing content of CO in the atmosphere which is causing global warming. I.e that increasing CO content, by itself, would somehow cause the price of old to raise. All without any justification, or, god forbid, corraboration. Not a good prospect, for an aspiring scientist.

We may be burning oil for another 100 years, if new supplies are found, if deeper tar sands are unearthed, etc.

Moreover, given the progress in extraction technology, and no control in sight, we could probably end up burning more or less all of organic carbon that's been absorbed in millions and billions years that life had existed on this planet. Which would bring us where? Right, up to where it's all started before there was ever life here. Such a cool experiment it would be! Will it come up, again? Or not?

It's really, simple. To start reducing carbon emissions, we, society should send a signal that lots of emissions aren't desirable. Not desirable regardless of market situation; whether the price of oil is high; and especially if it's low. That's what them scientist people mean by "setting a price on emissions". Very much like the tax on cigarettes. Really, why should there be a tax on cigarettes? Ever thought of that? Let's see, there shoud be a way for it to take care of itself, right? Only how? Why would the price of cigarettes shoot up steeply to make everybody "naturally" abandon bad habits, if there were no government to ask, no insist on it?