Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Riverwind]

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

During the age of cheap oil we were able to live large because it took only 1 unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy. Those supplies of oil are gone and with replacements like the tar sands we are lucky if it only takes 1 unit of energy to produce 1 unit of oil energy. The need for these large energy inputs will make it possible for other types of energy to compete with oil on a cost basis. For example, the natural gas used to produce tar sands oil could also be used to produce hydrogen if there was an economical fleet of cars that could burn hydrogen. We don't have the economical hydrogen cars today but it is a good illustration of why our oil based society is coming to an end even if the oil supplies never really run out.

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?

Cigarrattes are a discretionary spending item and are very price sensitive even though getting over the addiction is a challenge. Producing carbon is as essential as breathing given our current technology and no matter what price you put on it people will be forced to emit it. This means the economic impact of carbon taxes will be quite difference from the economic impact of cigarrette taxes.

You also need to distingush between emissions which are the result of an imperfect chemical reaction and those which are the fundamental component of the chemical reaction. It is usually possible to do something about the former with better processes but there is nothing you can do about the latter. This means that legaslative curbs on byproducts such as sulfer dioxide can be quite effective but the same curbs applied to CO2 will be complete failures.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

Roy Spenser does not dispute the right of his employer to control what he said and did not say in public when he was acting in is role as a scientist for that employer. He simply found an employer that would let him speak his mind so it is unlikely that he would have kept documentation to prove what happened years later. IMO, NASA did nothing wrong when it tried to stop Hansen from abusing his credentials as a NASA scientist.

Yes it did. BTW, it was not "NASA", it was political appointees within NASA. "NASA" itself was shocked and made it very clear that scientists views were not to be censored (like had happened all over the public service under Bush). The fact that it is "unlikely htat he would have kept documentation" is laughable. Right up there with the people who believe there really was a 200 mpg carburator that was stolen by oil industry spies.

Gore collects 100K for each speech he gives on GW. He has an interest in numerous businesses that stand to make a lot of money governments start regulating CO2. There is no lack of evidence of financial conflicts of interest when it comes to Gore. Hansen is a little harder but I suspect his primary motivation is ego - he loves the spot light and wants a place in history.

You missed the point. I said if someone knew they were lying and knew that their lying would cause harm then they should be punished. Now it is very clear to many scientists that elements of the anti-AGW movement are lying for money. Sure Gore does make lots of money for speaking (as does Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and any other number of ex politicians). However you do not have one iota of evidence that Gore knows he is lying. Imagine the trial: " I just relied on the opinion of every major scientific organization and thousands of peer-reviewed papers". THere is a small chance he could be wrong...but there is no way anyone outside of the kooky world of climate denial could state he knew he lied)

With this, I think I am going to have to leave this line of debate. I really lack the time to chase your tinfoil hat army accross the internet anymore.

[peter_puck]

Let's assume this is a real concern. Which strategy would give those people in the third world the best chance:

1) Aggressive CO2 emission reductions schemes that increase third world poverty by denying them access to low cost energy sources like coal.

2) Focus on economic development which will give third world people access to the agricultural technologies that they will need to adapt.

For me 2) is clearly the better bet since 1) would not only increase suffering due to greater poverty it will likely not be enough to stop CO2 levels from increasing.

How about 3) Adopt sane energy policies in Western countries. Why are oil prices so high for third world countries ? What have global warming advocates done to increase the cost of oil to the third world ?

Our energy pig economies have used up all the cheap oil so that they have to buy the expensive oil. There is a guy down my street driving a hummer on a half hour commute. He is in a bidding war with someone in Africa trying to find fuel to pump clean water to a village. If we had been proactive and started to conserve years ago, there would have been enough for both.

[Riverwind]

---

Edited June 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Yes it did. BTW, it was not "NASA", it was political appointees within NASA. "NASA" itself was shocked and made it very clear that scientists views were not to be censored (like had happened all over the public service under Bush).

Griffen defended the attempted to restrain Hansen and claimed that Hansen was required to adher to long standing policies that apply to all employees. The NASA policies were changed as a result of the kerfuffle but that does not change the fact that Hansen violated the policies that were in place at the time and that does not change the fact that when Hansen starting pushing his favoured policy positions (i.e. a ban on coal) or uses rhetoric like his call for people to be put on trial he is clearly violating the Hatch act.

The fact that it is "unlikely htat he would have kept documentation" is laughable.

What is laughable is your desperation. Roy Spencer claims that he was told by his bosses to censor his views when testifying to congress and the best you can do is accuse him of lying and demand proof?

Here is what he said:

Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose.

Should be easy to disprove - go back to the public record and look at the question he claim to have dodged.

In any case there are other examples of skeptics being censored by the government:

Oregon state climatologist George Taylor does not believe that global warming is due to human activity. Now, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski wants him to stop using the state climatologist title. NewsHour correspondent Lee Hochberg reports from Oregon and Washington on the controversy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment...west_06-21.html

Where is your outrage over the treatment of George Taylor?

You missed the point. I said if someone knew they were lying and knew that their lying would cause harm then they should be punished.

Really? The errors in Inconvient Truth are too blatent to be called anything but deliberate lies. He claims that it was justified because of the planetary emergency but given how profitable the climate alarmism gig is for him it is hard to take that claim seriously.

Now it is very clear to many scientists that elements of the anti-AGW movement are lying for money.

You don't have one single shred of evidence to back up that claim. Being a climate sceptic is a thankless job right now and the people who do it are motivated primarily because they honestly believe the consensus is wrong.

[Riverwind]

Our energy pig economies have used up all the cheap oil so that they have to buy the expensive oil.

Our energy pig economies have also generated the wealth and the technology that allows us to exploit sources of oil that would have been considered impossible to use 40 years ago. Our energy pig economy gives the 3rd world person a lucrative market to sell stuff which allows him to buy the oil. What good is cheap oil if you have no income to buy it? Edited June 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

<snip>

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?

Not meaning to pick apart your model instead of your point but cigarettes might have been a poor comparison. There is simply so much smuggling! First Nations here in Ontario are becoming millionaires from the illegal sales. Variety store owners are being forced to sell contraband because the problem is so blatant that with legal product they just can't possibly be competitive.

So increased taxes can also result in people pursuing illegal channels, a la Prohibition. Likely we would see rampant fraud and similar problems with a carbon market. I'm not sure how you could police such a thing but I'm positive that given human nature it would be necessary.

[jdobbin]

Not meaning to pick apart your model instead of your point but cigarettes might have been a poor comparison. There is simply so much smuggling! First Nations here in Ontario are becoming millionaires from the illegal sales. Variety store owners are being forced to sell contraband because the problem is so blatant that with legal product they just can't possibly be competitive.

Nevertheless, smoking is going down not up in Canada. When asked why they quit, smokers cited cost as one of the main factors along with their health. This was followed by increasing regulation of their smoking habit.

I'm sure that smuggling of oil will happen but it isn't as easy to smuggle and get to consumers as cigarettes or alcohol.

[Wild Bill]

Nevertheless, smoking is going down not up in Canada. When asked why they quit, smokers cited cost as one of the main factors along with their health. This was followed by increasing regulation of their smoking habit.

I'm sure that smuggling of oil will happen but it isn't as easy to smuggle and get to consumers as cigarettes or alcohol.

I wonder how one picks stats to show if nicotine consumption is going down. Sales of legal cigarettes would show hard numbers but how can they track all the illegal cartons? Do First Nations manufacturers and smugglers fill out data forms for StatsCan? With so many cigarettes being illegal the numbers involved are huge and would make a big impact on any stats if not included. In some areas of the country I'm sure illegal smokes outnumber legal ones.

As for oil smuggling, I was actually thinking of lies about the use of carbon emission credits, where a Mugabe type ruler could lie about using the money to reduce emissions in his developing country and buy bullets instead or simply put it into a Swiss bank account for himself.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

I wonder how one picks stats to show if nicotine consumption is going down. Sales of legal cigarettes would show hard numbers but how can they track all the illegal cartons? Do First Nations manufacturers and smugglers fill out data forms for StatsCan? With so many cigarettes being illegal the numbers involved are huge and would make a big impact on any stats if not included. In some areas of the country I'm sure illegal smokes outnumber legal ones.

I was thinking of Statscan numbers that have reported smoking down from 10 years ago. Those are filled out by actual people rather than organizations.

I guess you are free to question those number but the agency is fairly well respected for taking down statistics like that.

As for oil smuggling, I was actually thinking of lies about the use of carbon emission credits, where a Mugabe type ruler could lie about using the money to reduce emissions in his developing country and buy bullets instead or simply put it into a Swiss bank account for himself.

That is fraud rather than smuggling.

[Wild Bill]

That is fraud rather than smuggling.

Oh! Well, that makes it perfectly ok, I guess!

[myata]

During the age of cheap oil we were able to live large because it took only 1 unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy.

I.e. making 9 units of energy out of nothing? Congrats on breaking the fundamental law of conservation of energy. This pearl proves beyond all real reasonable doubt that these deepthought discussions of physical models and statistical consequences are in fact nothing but yada and dada talk.

Those supplies of oil are gone and with replacements like the tar sands we are lucky if it only takes 1 unit of energy to produce 1 unit of oil energy.

Again all that is just your saying. There're still huge supplies of oil which aren't going anywhere. Spikes of oil prices happened before, and, btw you haven't answered the question. One more time, what is the relation between the level of CO in the atmospehere, and the price of oil? Existence of that link is fundamental to your idea that things will naturally settle themselves and nothing needs to be done. Otherwise, the situation is more like that of a dude buring gasoline in the house, while pondering, whether some natural mechanism would kick in to stop the house from blowing up?

Producing carbon is as essential as breathing given our current technology and no matter what price you put on it people will be forced to emit it. This means the economic impact of carbon taxes will be quite difference from the economic impact of cigarrette taxes.

In other words, there will be no change (in carbon emissions) because change is impossible (in technology). We've already visited this logical pearl. See multiple examples to the contrary in this very thread.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Politics will not solve the questions about climate change. Politics will not solve the question of energy prices. In fact politics will not solve anything at all. What will solve the problems we have are actions undertaken by individuals at their own discretion.

[Shady]

I propose a novel idea. How about, as Canadians (including the Federal Government), we come up with solutions to problems that doesn't involve some kind of new tax. Why does it seem that every remedy in our Country, revolves around a new tax on someone or something? Talk about beating a dead horse. In Canada, problem/issue = tax, everytime, all the time.

[Wilber]

I propose a novel idea. How about, as Canadians (including the Federal Government), we come up with solutions to problems that doesn't involve some kind of new tax. Why does it seem that every remedy in our Country, revolves around a new tax on someone or something? Talk about beating a dead horse. In Canada, problem/issue = tax, everytime, all the time.

Because it is the lazy way to go, all the actual solutions take a lot thought and work by someone else.

[peter_puck]

I propose a novel idea. How about, as Canadians (including the Federal Government), we come up with solutions to problems that doesn't involve some kind of new tax. Why does it seem that every remedy in our Country, revolves around a new tax on someone or something? Talk about beating a dead horse. In Canada, problem/issue = tax, everytime, all the time.

What is more effective, David Szuki telling people they should go green, or the government telling you "go green or pay more tax" ?

How fast would people drive if the police officer beged you to go slow ?

[Wilber]

What is more effective, David Szuki telling people they should go green, or the government telling you "go green or pay more tax" ?

How fast would people drive if the police officer beged you to go slow ?

And of course only a government can accomplish that, a doubling in the market price of energy doesn't count.

[gc1765]

Politics will not solve the questions about climate change. Politics will not solve the question of energy prices. In fact politics will not solve anything at all. What will solve the problems we have are actions undertaken by individuals at their own discretion.

That's a good point, and I think we can apply it to other issues as well. Forget about the government getting tough on crime. Let's just all as individuals agree not to break any laws, OK? And with high energy prices, the cost of EVERYTHING is going to go up. The cost of guns & bullets are going up, so that should take care of gun crimes. In fact, the cost of knives, ski masks, and bags with $ signs are all going up too, so the free market seems to be taking care of crime. No need to get the government involved.

[myata]

I propose a novel idea. How about, as Canadians (including the Federal Government), we come up with solutions to problems that doesn't involve some kind of new tax. Why does it seem that every remedy in our Country, revolves around a new tax on someone or something? Talk about beating a dead horse. In Canada, problem/issue = tax, everytime, all the time.

Market, prices are the main mechanism that communicates consumption priorities in a market economy. What there's at this time neither cost, no regulation of GHG emissions, tells market players (businesses and consumers) plain and simple that from the market perspective, the problem does not exist.

[madmax]

Market, prices are the main mechanism that communicates consumption priorities in a market economy. What there's at this time neither cost, no regulation of GHG emissions, tells market players (businesses and consumers) plain and simple that from the market perspective, the problem does not exist.

CFCs ?

[Bryan]

I.e. making 9 units of energy out of nothing? Congrats on breaking the fundamental law of conservation of energy. This pearl proves beyond all real reasonable doubt that these deepthought discussions of physical models and statistical consequences are in fact nothing but yada and dada talk.

Your arguments are beginning to have more in common with a standup comedy routine than a rational discussion.

It's not out of nothing. The resource already contains the energy or potential energy. It's rarely a one to one relationship. In most cases, the energy required to harness and put to use that energy that is naturally already there is fraction of the energy that one can actually extract from the resource.

[myata]

It's not out of nothing. The resource already contains the energy or potential energy. It's rarely a one to one relationship. In most cases, the energy required to harness and put to use that energy that is naturally already there is fraction of the energy that one can actually extract from the resource.

OK, you're right. So? The Sun rises in the east and sets in the West. How does that address the question that was asked and to which neither learned opponent, nor yourself cared to provide an answer? Here's one more time, for the record: what is the link between increasing content of GHG in the atmosphere, and the price of oil in the market? What is the mechanism that would "naturally" drive the price of oil up as the concentration of CO in the atmosphere raises and the planet warms up? That is the key argument (other than of course, "I refuse to believe it", which was already addressed) for the "we don't need to do nothing, it'll all take care of itself, naturally" position.

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.

[myata]

And now Harper refused to debate Liberal Green shift plan in a public debate: National Post story.

In the words of government spokesman, "... the debate started weeks ago..". OK, now everybody knows (who hasn't already) that in Harper's mind, a public debate is nothing but calling the opponing names (from where he can't get at you) and demented attack ads.

And, to say, who really needs that public debate? In China, or e.g Russia, they don't (e.g. there's been no public debate in the last presidential elections - the opposition candidates were simply dismissed as a joke - does something ring a bell here?), and both are doing just fine.

But maybe, this time around Harper's pushed it a bit too far. Perhaps imagining himself already in the boots of De Champlain on his true battlehorse. Environment is on the minds of Canadians and hopefully they'll choose the real stuff against Harper's juvenile atticks and attitudes.

[noahbody]

And, to say, who really needs that public debate? In China, or e.g Russia, they don't (e.g. there's been no public debate in the last presidential elections - the opposition candidates were simply dismissed as a joke - does something ring a bell here?)

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.

[Riverwind]

What is the mechanism that would "naturally" drive the price of oil up as the concentration of CO in the atmosphere raises and the planet warms up?

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.

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. Cheap oil is oil where the energy required to extract and transport the oil is a small fraction of the energy locked in the oil. Alternatives like the tar sands will provide oil that will keep our current oil based infrastructure running but only at a high cost because the energy required to extract the oil is higher than the energy contained in the oil.

The difference is significant because there are always other uses for the energy used to extract the oil. For example, Alberta is talking about building a nuclear power plant to provide the energy to the tar sands, however, it would likely be more efficient to use this energy directly in electric vehicles instead of using it to create oil from tar sands. In the long term, this will make electric vehicles a more economical choice even we continue to produce oil.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Riverwind