Canada's Gas Prices

[Mighty AC]

The main benefactors of course will be those who find a way siphon money off in the implantation of this tax through administration, auditing, policing etc.

That's the great part of a carbon tax; the opportunity for corruption is low. It's the most efficient way to price carbon.

If you go way back to the original post, he is right, all the pipelines and projects proposed for the tar sands is for export at discounted prices, while the oil travels right past points in Canada that are importing fuels at world prices. We should keep this raw product at home and export what's left over.

We, as in Canadians, don't own the bitumen. It has been bought and extracted by companies that have no interest in refining it here. Edited November 17, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

? We've only been tracking the weather for less than 100 years ? Can you prove that please ?

You could use it to clean up CO2 emissions, phase out coal etc.

How can I prove that... Good question, let's see, kinda hard to prove what wasn't taking place, first of all we didn't have the equipment that was capable of accurate tracking, only people, many with possibly unreliable instruments, and stories of course. There were many great storms in the past, if you believe the bible it rained forty days and forty nights at one time in the past and flooded the whole earth, that would be worse the Hurricane Katrina and Sandy combined...

Please explain what you would replace coal etc. with? At this time there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, think about it, if they were really serious about it they would be doing things like reducing global trade, the shipping of raw products to and finished products back contribute a very significant amount, here's a look at ships alone http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk Consider, this does not include trains, trucks and aircraft.

Did you know wind and solar power contribute very little to the reduction of greenhouse emissions? Problem is night time, clouds and calm moments. Areas with huge solar and wind farms are backed up with coal and natural gas fired plants, these plants cannot be throttled up and down like your car or lawn mower, they must be ready for any interruption from these alternative power producers http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html There are also other issues. Nuclear might be a solution but so far you still have to do something with the spent fuel and of course nobody wants it in their back yard.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

That's the great part of a carbon tax; the opportunity for corruption is low. It's the most efficient way to price carbon.

We, as in Canadians, don't own the bitumen. It has been bought and extracted by companies that have no interest in refining it here.

Actually, there will be a bunch of groups that will be exempt of course, farmers come to mind as #1 and several others, there are always loopholes, this will not be a one page law...

Why not? If wasn't because the pipeline and shipping companies are going to make a fortune shipping to places right next to oil producers in the middle east and Canada they wouldn't be doing it. I wonder how much multinational shipping companies are subsidized? Has anybody ever checked that, it employs allot of people...

[Michael Hardner]

How can I prove that... Good question, let's see, kinda hard to prove what wasn't taking place, first of all we didn't have the equipment that was capable of accurate tracking, only people, many with possibly unreliable instruments, and stories of course.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080424005306/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=212819

Mercury thermometer, invented by Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit in 1714.

There are also practices to use proxies like tree ring growth and ice core measurement that correlate with each other and are used to calibrate temperatures far back into prehistory.

Please explain what you would replace coal etc. with?

Ontario will be closing its plants this year:

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/01/10/ontario_coalburning_power_plants_to_close_this_year.html

So coal plant replacement isn't a lofty or futuristic coal. Replace it with nuclear, gas plants, and improving and emerging technologies.

At this time there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, think about it, if they were really serious about it they would be doing things like reducing global trade,

Global trade is an entire subject that would increase the complexity of the problem to an unmanageable point. Focusing on what we can do is a better approach.

I haven't discussed with you before, but I like how you back up your links. Before we continue, can you acknowledge that you were incorrect on this point before we continue, please: "we've only been tracking weather for less then a hundred years"

The reason I ask is that it was such an outrageous claim that I want to establish a basis to continue rather than bring up a bunch of new points such as "there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

http://web.archive.org/web/20080424005306/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=212819

Mercury thermometer, invented by Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit in 1714.

There you go, the thermometer has only been around three hundred years. you think the day after Danny invented it governments setup six thousand weather stations around world? Another thing, how accurate do you think these instruments were compared to today's and how accurate were the people monitoring these things? The thermometer also doesn't show rainfall, storm activity, wind, pressure and so on. ou are also overlooking the fact that the planet is four billion years old and it's estimated humans have only inhabited it for around two hundred thousand or so.

There are also practices to use proxies like tree ring growth and ice core measurement that correlate with each other and are used to calibrate temperatures far back into prehistory.

At best it's an estimation of a very specific area in a specific time frame. Tree rings don't show storm activity or what happened at specific times throughout the year, they show the approximate results of that year.

Ontario will be closing its plants this year:

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/01/10/ontario_coalburning_power_plants_to_close_this_year.html

Interesting, they are also closing nuclear power stations... https://www.change.org/p/premier-kathleen-wynne-close-the-pickering-nuclear-station

So coal plant replacement isn't a lofty or futuristic coal. Replace it with nuclear, gas plants, and improving and emerging technologies.

Gas plants don't emit greenhouse gasses? Very interesting... Emerging technologies aren't producing electricity yet for reasons that are beyond me. Employment might be a huge factor.

Global trade is an entire subject that would increase the complexity of the problem to an unmanageable point. Focusing on what we can do is a better approach.

Explain why we can't work on global trade. We don't have the brains or ambition to make our own spaghetti, Subway meat, smart phones, automobiles at home?

I haven't discussed with you before, but I like how you back up your links. Before we continue, can you acknowledge that you were incorrect on this point before we continue, please: "we've only been tracking weather for less then a hundred years"

Well, here's an example besides the thermometer you provided http://www.space.com/8186-weather-satellites-changed-world.html Yes there was very basic weather tracking before but I'm sure there were several F5 tornadoes missed, the size and strength of hurricanes was far less accurate etc.

The reason I ask is that it was such an outrageous claim that I want to establish a basis to continue rather than bring up a bunch of new points such as "there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

I don't think it's outrageous at all, we both know it's fact.

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, on the contrary, it's been happening since the beginning of weather. Also global warming seems to be happening at least at the poles because satellite imaging is showing it.

Is carbon dioxide causing climate change? No it isn't any more then a million other factors, I'd say it's definitely contributing to it because of course it slowly changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Human activity has definite effect on climate, there are seven billion of us converting multiple forms of energy to heat, we are some huge butterflys (you know the butterfly effect?).

If you don't think all the energy we consume as humans is going to effect climate you are dreaming. Solar power required produce electricity comes from energy that is normally reflected back to space, wind energy is converting energy that normally moves weather around the world. It's not that simple...

[Boges]

I would love JT to make a Carbon Tax part of his platform. He'd be toast if he does.

[Michael Hardner]

TOTB - it's hard to read your post with the quoting messed up - can you edit it ?

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Sorry Michael, new here, still trying to figure this out. Anyplace on here that shows how to breakup quotes?

[PIK]

I loved it when JT said Obama did not pass the pipeline because harper did not have a carbon tax like America, but America does not have one. Time for JT to resign, just in case he did win.

[Boges]

I loved it when JT said Obama did not pass the pipeline because harper did not have a carbon tax like America, but America does not have one. Time for JT to resign, just in case he did win.

It's Cap and Trade. Last week's election result would mean that the US will not have any carbon pricing for at least another 2 years.

[Big Guy]

pass

Edited November 17, 2014 by Big Guy

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry Michael, new here, still trying to figure this out. Anyplace on here that shows how to breakup quotes?

I usually go to the open text box and frame the copy with

[ quote ]

and

[ /quote ]

(take the spaces between the square brackets and the characters out)

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Thank you, I'll try this again

http://web.archive.o...rticleId=212819

Mercury thermometer, invented by Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit in 1714.

There you go, the thermometer has only been around three hundred years. you think the day after Danny invented it governments setup six thousand weather stations around world? Another thing, how accurate do you think these instruments were compared to today's and how accurate were the people monitoring these things? The thermometer also doesn't show rainfall, storm activity, wind, pressure and so on. ou are also overlooking the fact that the planet is four billion years old and it's estimated humans have only inhabited it for around two hundred thousand or so.

There are also practices to use proxies like tree ring growth and ice core measurement that correlate with each other and are used to calibrate temperatures far back into prehistory.

At best it's an estimation of a very specific area in a general time frame. Tree rings don't show storm activity or what happened at specific times throughout the year, they show the approximate results of that year.

Ontario will be closing its plants this year:
http://www.thestar.c..._this_year.html

Interesting, they are also closing nuclear power stations... https://www.change.o...nuclear-station

So coal plant replacement isn't a lofty or futuristic coal. Replace it with nuclear, gas plants, and improving and emerging technologies.

Gas plants don't emit greenhouse gasses? Very interesting... Emerging technologies aren't producing electricity yet for reasons that are beyond me. Employment might be a huge factor.

Global trade is an entire subject that would increase the complexity of the problem to an unmanageable point. Focusing on what we can do is a better approach.

Explain why we can't work on global trade. We don't have the brains or ambition to make our own spaghetti, Subway meat, smart phones, automobiles at home?

I haven't discussed with you before, but I like how you back up your links. Before we continue, can you acknowledge that you were incorrect on this point before we continue, please: "we've only been tracking weather for less then a hundred years"

Well, here's an example besides the thermometer you provided http://www.space.com...nged-world.html Yes there was very basic weather tracking before but I'm sure there were several F5 tornadoes missed, the size and strength of hurricanes was far less accurate etc.

The reason I ask is that it was such an outrageous claim that I want to establish a basis to continue rather than bring up a bunch of new points such as "there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

I don't think it's outrageous at all, we both know it's fact.

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, on the contrary, it's been happening since the beginning of weather. Also global warming seems to be happening at least at the poles because satellite imaging is showing it.

Is carbon dioxide causing climate change? No it isn't any more then a million other factors, I'd say it's definitely contributing to it because of course it slowly changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Human activity has definite effect on climate, there are seven billion of us converting multiple forms of energy to heat, we are some huge butterflys (you know the butterfly effect?).

If anybody thinks all the energy we consume as humans isn't going to effect climate they are dreaming. Solar power required produce electricity comes from energy that is normally reflected back to space, wind energy is converting energy from air that normally moves weather around the world. It's not that simple...

[On Guard for Thee]

I would love JT to make a Carbon Tax part of his platform. He'd be toast if he does.

Carbon taxes already exist. Harper has been thinking of one of his own although he doesn't want to call it that. And now he's looking a bit like toast in the wake of the China US deal. So I guess the best he could come up with is to try and bully Putin. Ho hum.

[overthere]

I don't think he was trying to bully Putin. How would wee Canada do that anyway? He was just telling him he was an a**hole, to his face, at his earliest opportunity.

It's just a factual statement. Would you prefer that he lie?

[jbg]

Sorry Michael, new here, still trying to figure this out. Anyplace on here that shows how to breakup quotes?

Click the box on the upper left of the post to which you're responding. Copy the

[***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***] (I placed "***" where there should be no spacing, to show you what it would look like) before each section you are quoting. The place [***/quote***] (deleting same three asterisks) at end of each quoted section. Then when you are quoting the next section (after your "breaking up" resume process. Make sure there is an equal number of [***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***] and [***/quote***].

For example:

[***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***]Sorry Michael, new here, still trying to{***/quote***] and then your text "I'm not sorry." Then

[***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***]figure this out. Anyplace on here that shows how to breakup quotes?{***/quote***]This is how you break up quotes.

Does this help?

Edited November 18, 2014 by jbg

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think he was trying to bully Putin. How would wee Canada do that anyway? He was just telling him he was an asshole, to his face, at his earliest opportunity.

It's just a factual statement. Would you prefer that he lie?

That's right, how could we? So why bother with the bluster when you know you're not going to do anything to back it up. Trying to steal a photo op is about all Harper can seem to come up with. And no I seriously wish he would stop lying and actually be "very clear" about something!

[Boges]

Carbon taxes already exist. Harper has been thinking of one of his own although he doesn't want to call it that. And now he's looking a bit like toast in the wake of the China US deal. So I guess the best he could come up with is to try and bully Putin. Ho hum.

What's Harper's Carbon Tax? The deal between The USA and China also isn't Carbon Pricing. It's just a pledge.

I'll repeat, after the elections in the US, Carbon pricing is a dead issue until 2016.

Also the USA has far fewer taxes on Fossil Fuels than we do in Canada.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

There you go, the thermometer has only been around three hundred years. you think the day after Danny invented it governments setup six thousand weather stations around world? Another thing, how accurate do you think these instruments were compared to today's and how accurate were the people monitoring these things?

No, but the fact remains that we have temperature records, albeit with some error. Error tends to happen randomly (ie. not 'too warm' or 'too cold' only) and if you have a number of measures from various places as well as other measures you can get a fairly accurate measure.

The thermometer also doesn't show rainfall, storm activity, wind, pressure and so on. ou are also overlooking the fact that the planet is four billion years old and it's estimated humans have only inhabited it for around two hundred thousand or so.

We're talking about warming so we only care about temperatures in that range of discussion. Yes, your point about the age of the planet and of humans is correct but what of it ?

At best it's an estimation of a very specific area in a general time frame. Tree rings don't show storm activity or what happened at specific times throughout the year, they show the approximate results of that year.

Again, you have to understand statistics - sampling takes care of this.

Interesting, they are also closing nuclear power stations... https://www.change.o...nuclear-station

Ok.

Gas plants don't emit greenhouse gasses? Very interesting... Emerging technologies aren't producing electricity yet for reasons that are beyond me. Employment might be a huge factor.

Gas plants are better than coal plants.

Explain why we can't work on global trade. We don't have the brains or ambition to make our own spaghetti, Subway meat, smart phones, automobiles at home?

We can do so but tacking on to environmental is just exceedingly complex. That said, there are many environmental groups who cite global trade as a direct threat to the environment.

I'm sure there were several F5 tornadoes missed, the size and strength of hurricanes was far less accurate etc.

Undoubtedly.

I don't think it's outrageous at all, we both know it's fact.

"there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

Support goes up and down. It was near 60% in Canada 3 years ago, and now is lower. But not "no political desire".

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, on the contrary, it's been happening since the beginning of weather. Also global warming seems to be happening at least at the poles because satellite imaging is showing it.

Is carbon dioxide causing climate change? No it isn't any more then a million other factors, I'd say it's definitely contributing to it because of course it slowly changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Human activity has definite effect on climate, there are seven billion of us converting multiple forms of energy to heat, we are some huge butterflys (you know the butterfly effect?).

Well, all of climate science is against you. You haven't provided any cite for your opinion, you have just stated it.

The greenhouse effect is real, more CO2 is being produced, and the increase in CO2 levels correlates with temperature increases so it's pretty much a slam dunk and there isn't any serious scientist or study who has an alternative theory that I know of.

There are lots of fringe scientists, bloggers, angry weatherman and oddballs but they don't publish anything, and prefer to show up on conspiracy chat shows.

If you have a cite from a real scientist, go ahead and post it.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Click the box on the upper left of the post to which you're responding. Copy the

[***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***] (I placed "***" where there should be no spacing, to show you what it would look like) before each section you are quoting. The place [***/quote***] (deleting same three asterisks) at end of each quoted section. Then when you are quoting the next section (after your "breaking up" resume process. Make sure there is an equal number of [***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***] and [***/quote***].

Think I got it

For example:

[***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***]Sorry Michael, new here, still trying to{***/quote***] and then your text "I'm not sorry." Then

[***quote name="Thinkinoutsidethebox" post="1011354" timestamp="1416251916"***]figure this out. Anyplace on here that shows how to breakup quotes?{***/quote***]This is how you break up quotes.

Does this help?

Thanks jbg, now I have two methods.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

No, but the fact remains that we have temperature records, albeit with some error. Error tends to happen randomly (ie. not 'too warm' or 'too cold' only) and if you have a number of measures from various places as well as other measures you can get a fairly accurate measure.

One of the big problems with weather observations is there are so many variables, you can't measure temperature in a location, move it over ten meters , a kilometer or 20 and expect to get anywhere near an accurate trend established. Back in the early nineteen hundreds some guy with a thermometer hanging outside of his ill insulated window is not going to compare with at least ten sophisticated weather stations out in various locations today. That's a little like measuring your speed with your finger stuck out the window and comparing it with a radar gun.

We're talking about warming so we only care about temperatures in that range of discussion. Yes, your point about the age of the planet and of humans is correct but what of it ?

My argument is we don't know the weather and temperature trends of the last five hundred years, everybody is talking storm of the century, storm of the millennium etc., we don't know what weather was like here before we showed up and even after before the continent was so populated.

Again, you have to understand statistics - sampling takes care of this.

It's still an estimation with many variables to consider. There are millions of factors that could have played into how those all the way from sunspots to volcanic activity half way around the planet, it's not cut in stone.

Gas plants are better than coal plants.

True but energy consumption is still rising at an alarming rate, of course another issue is natural gas supply.

"there is no political desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

Support goes up and down. It was near 60% in Canada 3 years ago, and now is lower. But not "no political desire".

I believe people enter politics with the desire to fix the world, as time goes on with the strain of lobbyists, corporate interests, wealthy people, the next election and such their views and desires become skewed. Harper is stuck between huge corporate interests and the environmental movement, he cannot win there and I believe that's why he is trying to drag our interest away from there (and his party scandals) by posturing on his world travels, scaring us with terrorism, the surplus, free trade and such. He wants to get reelected, if he can make a million jobs appear in Ontario at the expense of the environment, he will.

Well, all of climate science is against you. You haven't provided any cite for your opinion, you have just stated it.

Correction All "SPONSORED" climate science is against me... It's the fad of the day. Yesterday it was "GLOBAL WARMING", today it's "CLIMATE CHANGE", tomorrow?

The greenhouse effect is real, more CO2 is being produced, and the increase in CO2 levels correlates with temperature increases so it's pretty much a slam dunk and there isn't any serious scientist or study who has an alternative theory that I know of.

It also correlates with the increase in human population, solar power, heat units we produce, increase in radio waves the list goes on... It's also the science that Al Gore latched onto, notice he doesn't practice what he preaches?

There are lots of fringe scientists, bloggers, angry weatherman and oddballs but they don't publish anything, and prefer to show up on conspiracy chat shows.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy chat shows so I don't know, I do however think for myself and I wonder why some of this stuff gains such traction.

If you have a cite from a real scientist, go ahead and post it.

I'll see what I can find, this maybe some of the reasons Harper has such a desire to control scientists findings.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

I don't think he was trying to bully Putin. How would wee Canada do that anyway? He was just telling him he was an a**hole, to his face, at his earliest opportunity.

I imagine a playground with big America standing behind Harper and Putin thinking "If it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Russian in two months..."

[PIK]

This deal mean nothing. It is all talk. China can keep pumping it out till 2030. So why is everyone picking on Canada ,Canadians included, that we wreck our economy for nothing. Why doesn't Suzuki and the gang go to china and protest there?

[Boges]

How can Obama make a pledge for 2030 when he's only Prez for 2 years?

[hitops]

This deal mean nothing. It is all talk. China can keep pumping it out till 2030. So why is everyone picking on Canada ,Canadians included, that we wreck our economy for nothing. Why doesn't Suzuki and the gang go to china and protest there?

This is true, it's utterly meaningless. Chinese leaders will not honor this in 2030, and Xi doesn't care because he won't be in charge then. Same with Obama.

Fortunately it probably doesn't matter. However for the average Chinese, the air pollution will still be a major problem.