Expert report questions

[peter_puck]

For every negative health effect of a warmer climate there is also a positive effect. For example, fewer people die from cold if the climate warms.

um how many people actually die of cold ? Especially compared to heatstroke ?

Also, as it gets warmer, more people will move north, thus most likely increasing the number of people who die from cold in formerly small towns in the north (it may even double from 1 to 2 a YEAR!)

BTW - if there was actually scientific merit to the claim that warmer climates lead to worse health outcomes then there should be a lot of evidence that the southern US states have more health problems that the northern US states. I have never heard of any such study.

Neither have I, but I can give you a huge list causes of death that don't exist in northern climates. Malaria kills about 1 million people a year. Sleeping sickness infects 10's of thousands. Leprosy and Schistosomiasis are bitches. There are doctors who restrict there practice to "tropical diseases" - diseases that only exist in warm clients. There is even a hospital in London dedicated to "tropical diseases" for them.

A key reason many of the insect born diseases that are all over the tropics don't effect us is the cold. It is hard to keep an insect disease running when all the carriers die off for the winter. This also keeps many agricultural pests at bay.

As for the animal/insect world, we don't have:

A) Black widow spiders (and other poison spiders)

Poison ticks

C) Almost all of the poisons snakes (the few we have are rare)

D) Killer Bees

E) The tsetse fly

F) Poison frogs/toads

All in all, I think its much safer up here.

Edited August 4, 2008 by peter_puck

[Wilber]

Did you know that Chinese cars have to have higher mileage standards than North American cars?

I know that they legislated standards lower than the US in 2004 but what are people actually buying today, in China and North America. As I said, Chinese Buick sales passed US sales in 2006 and those are full sized Buicks you see driving around Shanghai, not kiddy versions.

Emissions just haven't dropped enough in recent years with the voluntary practices used thus far. The Stern report among other studies has shown that costs will rise a lot higher if nothing is done.

Why are you talking about recent years? The cost of energy has doubled in the past year, the fallout from that is just beginning to take effect and we don't really know what the final result will be. According to the Federal Highway Administration, between November and May Americans drove 40 billion fewer highway miles than the previous year, 9.6 billion fewer in May, the largest drop in 66 years. You really don't have a clue what the added implications of a tax will be on the economy, personal lives or the environment.

I know many on the right wing don't believe a word of it and keep saying that no change is possible, no alternative is possible, that people will freeze in the dark and that nothing needs to be done.

Anyone who is interested in cars and the auto industry can see the change is already happening and can't happen fast enough.

The argument that oil prices are to zoom past $150 this year and higher is looking a lot less likely.

They don't have to, look at what present prices have already done.

Voluntary change has been insufficient.

That statements says it all. I hope we have heard the last about "choices".

Edited August 4, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Wouldn't a smoker simply choose to buy contraband? The going rate for a bag of 200 cigarettes on the Six Nations Reserve is $6. Compare this with $80 or so for a legal carton.

Again, I'm picking apart your model and not your point. Still, there was a time not that long ago when virtually no non-native bought contraband cigarettes. Now the official number is 1 out of every 3 and climbing. Why?

It really depended on the area of the country one lived in about how much contraband was available. In Quebec and Ontario it got to be quite bad in no small part because of the border and complicity from cigarette companies. Those companies just got whacked this month with criminal fines and charges.

Now, the police are regularly stopping shipments of cigarettes coming off of reserves.

It is still a problem but many people who have not sought out contraband or don't have as easy access as say Montreal does have quit in part because of the price.

As I've said, it is has been one step of many in the process of reducing smoking.

Some feel that energy sources are different, in that you can't as easily sell contraband gas. Maybe not, but in the past few weeks here in my town the new crime is big-time theft of gasoline and diesel oil. Big tankers pull up to a gas station in the dead of the night, break some locks and siphon the underground tanks dry. Considering we're talking upwards of $50,000...

It would be interesting to see they sell to. I certainly don't think you can sell to Joe Citizen very easily. It is likely other gas stations.

[jdobbin]

I know that they legislated standards lower than the US in 2004 but what are people actually buying today, in China and North America. As I said, Chinese Buick sales passed US sales in 2006 and those are full sized Buicks you see driving around Shanghai, not kiddy versions.

There has been great wealth generated in China. China also subsidizes gas. Even they have had to raise prices this year because of inflation and because the cost of energy has risen dramatically.

The Chinese will not be so different as Americans who bought big vehicles when it costs more to fill up.

Why are you talking about recent years? The cost of energy has doubled in the past year, the fallout from that is just beginning to take effect and we don't really know what the final result will be. According to the Federal Highway Administration, between November and May Americans drove 40 billion fewer highway miles than the previous year, 9.6 billion fewer in May, the largest drop in 66 years. You really don't have a clue what the added implications of a tax will be on the economy, personal lives or the environment.

You really can't stop personalizing when you reply to someone.

Emissions still have only dropped marginally in the U.S. and North America.

As prices are now dropping, expect people to start driving more. The evidence that permanent changes in behaviour are happening is not there.

Anyone who is interested in cars and the auto industry can see the change is already happening and can't happen fast enough.

And we have seen that process done before and reversed before.

They don't have to, look at what present prices have already done.

And look at what price drops have done in the past. People resumed past behaviours.

That statements says it all. I hope we have heard the last about "choices".

You have plenty of choice. Vote against it. If it does happen, find more ways to limit your exposure to the tax.

[Wild Bill]

It really depended on the area of the country one lived in about how much contraband was available. In Quebec and Ontario it got to be quite bad in no small part because of the border and complicity from cigarette companies. Those companies just got whacked this month with criminal fines and charges.

Now, the police are regularly stopping shipments of cigarettes coming off of reserves.

It is still a problem but many people who have not sought out contraband or don't have as easy access as say Montreal does have quit in part because of the price.

As I've said, it is has been one step of many in the process of reducing smoking.

It would be interesting to see they sell to. I certainly don't think you can sell to Joe Citizen very easily. It is likely other gas stations.

Well, if we take the big cities like those you mentioned and a few others out of the equation, isn't that the lion's share and then some? Doesn't that make those that are left a rather trivial number?

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the police are NOT regularly stopping shipments coming of Six Nations in Brantford! I fail to see why it would be that much different at any other reserve.

For that matter, I'd be very surprised if there's not a reserve close to Winnipeg, your town, that has exactly the same situation.

As a non-smoker, perhaps you just don't move in the right circles to be aware of what's going on? I mean, if you didn't smoke and/or buy contraband yourself, unless you were in law enforcement how or why would you even know?

[Wilber]

There has been great wealth generated in China. China also subsidizes gas. Even they have had to raise prices this year because of inflation and because the cost of energy has risen dramatically.

The Chinese will not be so different as Americans who bought big vehicles when it costs more to fill up.

Gee, subsidized fuel allows them to drive bigger cars but paying market price will force them into smaller ones. Where is their carbon tax in all this?

You really can't stop personalizing when you reply to someone.

Emissions still have only dropped marginally in the U.S. and North America.

As prices are now dropping, expect people to start driving more. The evidence that permanent changes in behavior are happening is not there.

I'm not personalizing anything, you really don't have a clue what will happen with taxes added on to prices that have already doubled in the past year. No one does.

Over what period have they only dropped marginally? As I stated in my last post, miles driven by Americans have dropped drastically since last November, the biggest drop in 66 years during May.

Where can you get evidence of permanent changes or lack of them over the period of one year? What is permanent to you? Neither is there evidence that they are not. Right now North America has started down the same road as Europe did decades ago.

You have plenty of choice. Vote against it. If it does happen, find more ways to limit your exposure to the tax.

Thank you boss, I will most certainly vote against it. What way's would you suggest? Move and thank Mr. Dion for forcing me out of my home because he is so wise and all knowing? Why are you surprised when I object?

[bush_cheney2004]

....That statements says it all. I hope we have heard the last about "choices".

Interesting observation.....reminds me of the Industrial Society and Its Future

.....by Theodore Kaczynski

[jdobbin]

Well, if we take the big cities like those you mentioned and a few others out of the equation, isn't that the lion's share and then some? Doesn't that make those that are left a rather trivial number?

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the police are NOT regularly stopping shipments coming of Six Nations in Brantford! I fail to see why it would be that much different at any other reserve.

I don't know what the situation is on your region but there are only so many ways into Winnipeg and they are routinely intercepting shipments and confiscating vehicles.

I'm sure some people avoid the higher prices and buy smuggled goods when they can to avoid the price difference. It doesn't mean that other people aren't quitting because of the price though. As I said, it is one component of smoking cessation programs. Limiting where people can smoke has a huge influence and educating people about the health effects are extremely important.

Still, if a person wants to smoke, they will do whatever and bugger the rules including buying smuggled goods, smoking in airplane washrooms and dismissing health claims about the product.

The stats seem to confirm that financial considerations are important though. For some people, it pushes them to quitting. For others, it pushes them into breaking the law.

[jdobbin]

Gee, subsidized fuel allows them to drive bigger cars but paying market price will force them into smaller ones. Where is their carbon tax in all this?

China has tried to do everything it can do to stimulate their economy and one of those ways is subsidizing fuel costs. The problem is that it causes inflation which hurts more people than it helps. They raised fuel prices recently. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to keep the subsidy up if it continues to increase inflation. It obviously costs a lot for the Chinese government to shield the full cost from the consumer. We have seen that it is already costing their environment as they choke on the smoke.

I'm not personalizing anything, you really don't have a clue what will happen with taxes added on to prices that have already doubled in the past year. No one does.

I certainly don't think the price is going to stay where it is now as what we saw was speculation run amok.

I think this right wing thinking about catastrophe on all fronts is a little over the top.

Over what period have they only dropped marginally? As I stated in my last post, miles driven by Americans have dropped drastically since last November, the biggest drop in 66 years during May.

And fuel prices are already heading down again. We'll see if people start resuming past practices.

Where can you get evidence of permanent changes or lack of them over the period of one year? What is permanent to you? Neither is there evidence that they are not. Right now North America has started down the same road as Europe did decades ago.

Permanent to me certainly doesn't include large drops like we have seen in the last weeks.

Europe increased their gas taxes for a variety of reasons to fund their programs. This was done even before there was a thought about environmental considerations.

Thank you boss, I will most certainly vote against it. What way's would you suggest? Move and thank Mr. Dion for forcing me out of my home because he is so wise and all knowing? Why are you surprised when I object?

At the moment, I have only heard about changes amounting to a few hundred dollars a year and that wouldn't even happen until the fourth year of the program. Are you suggesting that you will be for thousands and be forced out of your home?

[Wilber]

China has tried to do everything it can do to stimulate their economy and one of those ways is subsidizing fuel costs. The problem is that it causes inflation which hurts more people than it helps. They raised fuel prices recently. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to keep the subsidy up if it continues to increase inflation. It obviously costs a lot for the Chinese government to shield the full cost from the consumer. We have seen that it is already costing their environment as they choke on the smoke.

Blowing smoke again, where is their proposed carbon tax which will force them into more environmentally friendly practices?

I certainly don't think the price is going to stay where it is now as what we saw was speculation run amok.

I think this right wing thinking about catastrophe on all fronts is a little over the top.

Well the right doesn't have a monopoly on speculation now, does it.

Permanent to me certainly doesn't include large drops like we have seen in the last weeks.

Perhaps you could fill us in on what it does mean to you.

Europe increased their gas taxes for a variety of reasons to fund their programs. This was done even before there was a thought about environmental considerations.

Mostly to finance public transportation, where are yours going?

At the moment, I have only heard about changes amounting to a few hundred dollars a year and that wouldn't even happen until the fourth year of the program. Are you suggesting that you will be for thousands and be forced out of your home?

Horse pucky, it will effect the production and transportation costs of everything we consume and use as well as those of the people who produce and provide those items and services. It's not just the increased personal cost of heat, light and motor fuel, it is that piled on top of the increases in everything else which will result from it.

This is one of those pass it on emails that is being circulated. I got it the other day. I don't know if someone has already posted it and I don't normaly pass these things along when I get them but thought it might be appropriate on this thread. I have deleted the authors address but I did check the White Pages and a Jon C. Coates is shown at the address on the letter.

When a politician's lips move, I know he's probably lying. Mr. Dion says his carbon tax will be revenue neutral. So, I went online and found a carbon calculator and keyed in the annual energy consumption for our household and learned we produce 17 tons of greenhouse gas. Fully 60% of this usage is for electricity which we use to heat our home.

I have already improved insulation in my walls and replaced my windows and doors; use the new 'twirley' lights and ensured that my appliances are all Energy Star products. In the past 20 years, these measures reduced my electricity usage from 24,000 Kw Hrs per year to 16,000 Kw Hrs per year last years. What is my reward for this improved efficiency? My power bill is unchanged from what it was 20 years ago. But, my power bill would attract a carbon tax of $104 in year one of Mr. Dion's plan and $ 416 in year four. My power bill would rise from $166 per month to $210 per month in year four.

Since I live on a fixed income consisting of CPP and Old Age Security, my income tax bill runs at less than $200 per year. So, for my household, Mr. Dion's 'revenue neutral' carbon tax will cost me $416 per year less income tax reductions of about $10 per year.

Revenue neutral? In a pig¢s eye! This is a tax on seniors living on fixed incomes. Well, Mr. Dion, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting my vote. I hope everyone else takes five minutes to run the same calculations I did and vote to send this joker to the political boneyard.

Jon C. Coates

Factual data substantiating this:

16.96 tons

60% of this is for electricity or 10.4 tons/year

@ $10/ton in year 1 = $104 or $9/mo

@ $20/ton in year 2 = $208 or $18/mo

@ $30/ton in year 3 = $312 or $27/mo

@ $40/ton in year 4 = $416 or $40/mo

= Income tax paid is $110/yr.

I daresay he is not the only one.

[jdobbin]

Blowing smoke again, where is their proposed carbon tax which will force them into more environmentally friendly practices?

Don't think I ever said they would have a carbon tax.

Well the right doesn't have a monopoly on speculation now, does it.

It seems to run to the end is nigh angle lately.

Perhaps you could fill us in on what it does mean to you.

It means prices down generally is a return to the status quo.

Mostly to finance public transportation, where are yours going?

Mostly? Where is your citation for that?

I daresay he is not the only one.

And what is the cost of rising emissions? For some people in Canada, it is already a lot as winter roads don't last long and supplies end up costing far more.

[Wilber]

Don't think I ever said they would have a carbon tax.

Yet you maintain that their habits will change as subsidies decrease and they pay world prices.

It seems to run to the end is nigh angle lately.

You missed me there but I take it your speculation is gospel but everyone else's is well, just speculation.

It means prices down generally is a return to the status quo.

What do you mean by down? Today's down prices are still double those of a year ago.

Mostly? Where is your citation for that?

Do you think their transit is 100% financed and user pay? Been policy for decades.

For some people in Canada, it is already a lot as winter roads don't last long and supplies end up costing far more.

That's a stretch, lets forget about pensioners, how about a young couple with a kid or two, one car, mortgaged to the gills, struggling with to cope with already high energy prices? What "choices" do you have for them?

[jdobbin]

Yet you maintain that their habits will change as subsidies decrease and they pay world prices.

You don't think they will?

I just don't think they will reduce the amount of smog and emissions even if they do go to smaller cars. There are still too many cars and other industries belching emissions and smog.

China has to manage its growth and if it lets inflation run rampant by subsidizing fuel costs, it ends up hurting them greatly. It also hurts them environmentally as can witness from seeing Beijing in stifling heat and smog.

You missed me there but I take it your speculation is gospel but everyone else's is well, just speculation.

When I hear speculation about people freezing in the dark, it is a little hard to take serious.

What do you mean by down? Today's down prices are still double those of a year ago.

Double would be $140 a barrel by my reckoning. The price has dropped to $123 today and analysts were forecasting further drops.

Do you think their transit is 100% financed and user pay? Been policy for decades.

All I'm asking for is a citation to state that a majority of their taxes go to public transit.

That's a stretch, lets forget about pensioners, how about a young couple with a kid or two, one car, mortgaged to the gills, struggling with to cope with already high energy prices? What "choices" do you have for them?

There is no carbon tax now and you say they are struggling. You also say that gas is going up even more.

What would they do even without the tax? Would you suggest a bail out? If their bill goes up $400 a year, you say they are done? Are you suggesting an energy bail-out?

Anecdotal stuff can be used any way you want.

How about this same family under the same conditions living in a northern Ontario town reachable only by winter roads? Global warming has prevented the lakes from totally freezing over three winters in a row. Their costs are rising. What choice do they have?

[Wilber]

You don't think they will?

Yes I do, just like we will, without a tax.

When I hear speculation about people freezing in the dark, it is a little hard to take serious.

Who said anything about people freezing in the dark but it could be the case for some. But why should I take your speculation any more seriously than anyone else's.

Double would be $140 a barrel by my reckoning. The price has dropped to $123 today and analysts were forecasting further drops.

Believe it wasn't much more than 60 bucks a barrel a year ago and what if it does drop more. If consumption goes up, so will the price, we have already seen that every time there is an announcement that gasoline reserves are down. Demand is dictating the price now, not supply and will do so for the foreseeable future. There is no one who is disputing that.

All I'm asking for is a citation to state that a majority of their taxes go to public transit.

Where is a citation that the majority of yours is going to public transit. Of course if it did, it couldn't be revenue neutral, could it. Your tax has no solutions, it just puts the burden on others.

There is no carbon tax now and you say they are struggling. You also say that gas is going up even more.

What would they do even without the tax? Would you suggest a bail out? If their bill goes up $400 a year, you say they are done? Are you suggesting an energy bail-out?

Anecdotal stuff can be used any way you want.

How about this same family under the same conditions living in a northern Ontario town reachable only by winter roads? Global warming has prevented the lakes from totally freezing over three winters in a row. Their costs are rising. What choice do they have?

Anecdotal my ass. I know lots of them. My son and his wife included. They don't have kids and won't be for some time. They scraped enough together with their parents help for a down payment on a town home which they managed to sell and make enough for a down payment on a modest 13 year old house in a nice neighbourhood. He rides his bike to work and she takes their six year old Mazda to her job. They both have degrees and have good jobs. Most of their friends are in a similar situation. I'm swiftly coming to understand what an elitist bunch you are.

I am suggesting you bugger off and leave them alone.

As for those people in northern Ontario, what are you going to do for them, promise to reverse global warming? I'm sure that will be a big comfort to them.

[jdobbin]

Yes I do, just like we will, without a tax.

But just like us only making small changes in overall emissions.

Who said anything about people freezing in the dark but it could be the case for some. But why should I take your speculation any more seriously than anyone else's.

That has been written right here in these very forums.

What have I speculated on? I've said that some will pay more, some less and some will pay the same with the shift in tax.

Believe it wasn't much more than 60 bucks a barrel a year ago and what if it does drop more. If consumption goes up, so will the price, we have already seen that every time there is an announcement that gasoline reserves are down. Demand is dictating the price now, not supply and will do so for the foreseeable future. There is no one who is disputing that.

The figure I keep seeing cited is $70 and that is what it was on August 9 of last year. Speculation was dictating the price according to many of the analysts. Some are predicting it will fall back to $70 a barrel.

http://news.goldseek.com/RickAckerman/1217916180.php

This scenario meshes with our forecast of a collapse in the price of crude to below $70 a barrel.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-07...ent_6880213.htm

Oil should be trading at between about 70 US dollars to 80 dollars per barrel if the dollar strengthens and the Iranian nuclear crisis is defused, Chakib Khelil, rotating president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), said Saturday.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/oil.r...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Economist Jim Griffin notes at the ING Investment Weekly that crude's rally earlier this year became "nearly parabolic" - a sign that the decline could be steep.

Certainly makes you think about the speculative nature of oil and how this latest steep rise had little to do with actual demand and supply.

Where is a citation that the majority of yours is going to public transit. Of course if it did, it couldn't be revenue neutral, could it. Your tax has no solutions, it just puts the burden on others.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked for your citation that European taxes on gas all go to transit.

Anecdotal my ass. I know lots of them. My son and his wife included. They don't have kids and won't be for some time. They scraped enough together with their parents help for a down payment on a town home which they managed to sell and make enough for a down payment on a modest 13 year old house in a nice neighbourhood. He rides his bike to work and she takes their six year old Mazda to her job. They both have degrees and have good jobs. Most of their friends are in a similar situation. I'm swiftly coming to understand what an elitist bunch you are.

I am suggesting you bugger off and leave them alone.

You are once again personalizing again. What next? Threats of violence?

Do you call the oil company speculators and tell them to bugger off as well since they are the ones most responsible for the energy increases this past year?

And if oil does slide to $70 or $80 again as more and more analysts are saying, emissions are likely to bounce back to the same level we have seen previously.

And as the Harper government's own studies from its expert panel on climate and health have indicated, it will be costly if nothing is done in regard to emissions.

As for those people in northern Ontario, what are you going to do for them, promise to reverse global warming? I'm sure that will be a big comfort to them.

At the moment, governments are flying their supplies in. Probably adds a lot to people's tax bills.

Edited August 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

But just like us only making small changes in overall emissions.

More smoke. Twisting and turning.

You are once again personalizing again. What next? Threats of violence?

Not me buddy, you are the one who takes offense to everything. You are also one who labels anything or anyone who doesn't agree with you as either right wing, extremist or both, so if you don't like being called an elitist, Pity. As for any thoughts of violence, they are yours alone.

Do you call the oil company speculators and tell them to bugger off as well since they are the ones most responsible for the energy increases this past year?

You don't really seem to understand the laws of supply and demand but what does it matter as you are falling all over yourself to replace them as the one most responsible for high prices.

The figure I keep seeing cited is $70 and that is what it was on August 9 of last year. Speculation was dictating the price according to many of the analysts. Some are predicting it will fall back to $70 a barrel.

Maybe so but that still makes it over 70% more expensive today than then.

Perhaps it will fall back to $70 a barrel but many of these "experts" were calling for $200 a barrel in the new year, only a couple of months ago. No doubt some of the price has been due to speculation but exactly how much is speculation in itself, however it is understood that any speculation that supports you is to be treated as gospel and anything else is just speculation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked for your citation that European taxes on gas all go to transit.

Don't believe I said it all goes to transit but a lot surely does. Your tax does nothing to provide solutions, it only increases the burden on others to do so while taking their money and giving it to people who are in no position to provide those solutions.

At the moment, governments are flying their supplies in. Probably adds a lot to people's tax bills.

No doubt it does but lets just assume for a minute that everything you say is true, it will still take 50 years to get this Titanic turned around and headed in the other direction. That isn't going to help those people very much and alternatives will have to be found regardless or "choices" will have to be made.

As for my so called anecdotal stuff, I see you chose to ignore it. So much for real people.

[jdobbin]

More smoke. Twisting and turning.

More carbon you mean.

Not me buddy, you are the one who takes offense to everything. You are also one who labels anything or anyone who doesn't agree with you as either right wing, extremist or both, so if you don't like being called an elitist, Pity. As for any thoughts of violence, they are yours alone.

I have no problem observing if a viewpoint comes from the right or left. What I don't understand is your fury.

You don't really seem to understand the laws of supply and demand but what does it matter as you are falling all over yourself to replace them as the one most responsible for high prices.

It seems you don't understand how speculation created a parabolic bubble not supported by actual supply and demand.

Maybe so but that still makes it over 70% more expensive today than then.

And falling fast.

Perhaps it will fall back to $70 a barrel but many of these "experts" were calling for $200 a barrel in the new year, only a couple of months ago. No doubt some of the price has been due to speculation but exactly how much is speculation in itself, however it is understood that any speculation that supports you is to be treated as gospel and anything else is just speculation.

I think you forget why there was talk about $200 a barrel oil. A lot of it was based on growing speculation about an attack on Iran either carried out or supported by the U.S. That cooled off quite a bit when the Pentagon chief said the U.S. would be hard pressed to fight three wars. Much of the rhetoric cooled off.

The three things analysts said influenced the fast rise were world instability in places like Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela. Weather had an impact in terms of fears of storms in the Gulf and a cold winter. Lastly, the world-wide economy had an impact as growth in places around the world was breakneck paced.

There are less fears on all of those accounts and oil has dropped dramatically in the last days.

Don't believe I said it all goes to transit but a lot surely does. Your tax does nothing to provide solutions, it only increases the burden on others to do so while taking their money and giving it to people who are in no position to provide those solutions.

This is where many experts disagree with you. A price on carbon is considered a solution in reducing emissions.

No doubt it does but lets just assume for a minute that everything you say is true, it will still take 50 years to get this Titanic turned around and headed in the other direction. That isn't going to help those people very much and alternatives will have to be found regardless or "choices" will have to be made.

Alternatives are being are being paid for including expensive permanent roads. We are told to expect more of this type of dramatic effects in Canada and it plainly is going to cost the taxpayer more and more the longer something isn't done.

As for my so called anecdotal stuff, I see you chose to ignore it. So much for real people.

And I asked you what price they might have to pay for nothing being done which you didn't answer.

[Wilber]

I have no problem observing if a viewpoint comes from the right or left. What I don't understand is your fury.

Then why do you only label those you don't agree with as right wing? No fury, just calling it the way I see it. I guess subtlety is not my forte. Perhaps that is why you don't understand.

It seems you don't understand how speculation created a parabolic bubble not supported by actual supply and demand.

Oh, I've seen a few bubbles in my time but no one has ever known how big they were until after they burst. Apparently you do.

And falling fast.

And so is the Canadian dollar and the economy in general according to statistics coming out today. $116 a bbl US comes to $125 CAD by the way.

I think you forget why there was talk about $200 a barrel oil. A lot of it was based on growing speculation about an attack on Iran either carried out or supported by the U.S. That cooled off quite a bit when the Pentagon chief said the U.S. would be hard pressed to fight three wars. Much of the rhetoric cooled off.

The three things analysts said influenced the fast rise were world instability in places like Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela. Weather had an impact in terms of fears of storms in the Gulf and a cold winter. Lastly, the world-wide economy had an impact as growth in places around the world was breakneck paced.

There are less fears on all of those accounts and oil has dropped dramatically in the last days.

So what, there are always scares about something.

This is where many experts disagree with you. A price on carbon is considered a solution in reducing emissions.

No question higher prices can reduce consumption. That is why consumption has been going down. The market has put a hefty price on carbon in the past couple of years.

Alternatives are being are being paid for including expensive permanent roads. We are told to expect more of this type of dramatic effects in Canada and it plainly is going to cost the taxpayer more and more the longer something isn't done.

??????. So taxing them more is going to cost them less. Got ya, there's that elitist creeping in again. Actually it is not so plain, it is a claim made by some. The costs could very well be the same if nothing is done. Everything you propose is based on an assumption you can do something about it.

And I asked you what price they might have to pay for nothing being done which you didn't answer.

So you want to tax the crap out of them because of something you have determined they "might" have to pay. Good one. I'm not really interested in hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. Taxes aren't hypothetical, nor is the increased cost of living they generate. Something people have to struggle with every day. I take it you're not interested.

I shake my head when I'm told that we who contribute a small amount of the total global CO2 emissions are expected to tax carbon in order to set an example to some of the largest emitters who actually subsidize the stuff. Are we just stupid? Do we have an inflated view of our importance in the world, or both? Regarding the first, I have serious questions. As for the second, I have little doubt of it.

[jdobbin]

Then why do you only label those you don't agree with as right wing? No fury, just calling it the way I see it. I guess subtlety is not my forte. Perhaps that is why you don't understand.

Fine, you're views are not political then.

Oh, I've seen a few bubbles in my time but no one has ever known how big they were until after they burst. Apparently you do.

I never said I did. My contention was that a tax doesn't simply drop because of speculative ups and downs. It is why the U.S. has been having their big debate on a tax holiday in the U.S. on gas.

And so is the Canadian dollar and the economy in general according to statistics coming out today. $116 a bbl US comes to $125 CAD by the way.

True. The Canadian dollar was also in a speculative phase fueled by commodities. It is probably a little more competitive for the nation for trade a little lower than it is. Since the dollar rose to parity in such a quick jump, it seemed likely that there was going to be a bit of a shakeup since the fundamentals indicated the real value was a bit lower according to analysts.

So what, there are always scares about something.

True, but usually the spikes have been shortlived such as during the Iraq wars. This latest rise seemed meteoric and at some point, it had to face economic reality.

No question higher prices can reduce consumption. That is why consumption has been going down. The market has put a hefty price on carbon in the past couple of years.

But that price was not high enough to encourage smaller vehicles and homes. The size jump in the last ten years has raised a lot of eyebrows and the word "bubble" was used a lot for a few years to no avail.

??????. So taxing them more is going to cost them less. Got ya, there's that elitist creeping in again. Actually it is not so plain, it is a claim made by some. The costs could very well be the same if nothing is done. Everything you propose is based on an assumption you can do something about it.

And every assumption on the other side is that nothing can be done about it.

So you want to tax the crap out of them because of something you have determined they "might" have to pay. Good one. I'm not really interested in hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. Taxes aren't hypothetical, nor is the increased cost of living they generate. Something people have to struggle with every day. I take it you're not interested.

I shake my head when I'm told that we who contribute a small amount of the total global CO2 emissions are expected to tax carbon in order to set an example to some of the largest emitters who actually subsidize the stuff. Are we just stupid? Do we have an inflated view of our importance in the world, or both? Regarding the first, I have serious questions. As for the second, I have little doubt of it.

I know some people think that Canada doesn't contribute much to the problem, can't contribute much to the solution and therefore doesn't need to do anything about the problem. We are already told it is going to have a cost and the government reports are showing that.

Governments act on strong evidence and the science gives strong evidence that something can be done.

Those in opposition say nothing needs to be done, nothing can be done, it is too expensive and who cares anyway?

Harper has tried that stance already. His politics as war stance has not been able to sway scientists and experts that there is a pending problem no matter how many times he releases reports late on Fridays.

[Wilber]

Fine, you're views are not political then.

Correct, they are my views.

I never said I did. My contention was that a tax doesn't simply drop because of speculative ups and downs. It is why the U.S. has been having their big debate on a tax holiday in the U.S. on gas.

To you, the tax is the thing and the cost and effect on the consumer be damned. I think the idea of a gas tax holiday in the US is stupid, especially for a government running a 400B deficit this year, however governments of all stripes have been known to decrease taxes in order to stimulate an economy.

True. The Canadian dollar was also in a speculative phase fueled by commodities. It is probably a little more competitive for the nation for trade a little lower than it is. Since the dollar rose to parity in such a quick jump, it seemed likely that there was going to be a bit of a shakeup since the fundamentals indicated the real value was a bit lower according to analysts.

Funny how everything is speculation except speculation that supports your point of view. Certainly the CAD rises on commodity prices to a level more than is justified but it also falls in the same manner. It is undervalued today according to an annalist I heard today and probably overvalued according to some I didn't. Fact remains the cost to a Canadian of a barrel of oil today was not $116, it was $125.

True, but usually the spikes have been shortlived such as during the Iraq wars. This latest rise seemed meteoric and at some point, it had to face economic reality.

Whatever that is.

But that price was not high enough to encourage smaller vehicles and homes. The size jump in the last ten years has raised a lot of eyebrows and the word "bubble" was used a lot for a few years to no avail.

Actually it has, people are just having difficulty doing it in six months as you think they should.

And every assumption on the other side is that nothing can be done about it.

Not so, I just don't assume that those who would tax me know what they are doing. I believe that most people who go into politics do so because they want to do good, or at least they believe they want to do good, however I view all politicians as potentially dangerous.

I know some people think that Canada doesn't contribute much to the problem, can't contribute much to the solution and therefore doesn't need to do anything about the problem. We are already told it is going to have a cost and the government reports are showing that.

As Canada produces less than 3 % of the worlds CO2, realistically what exactly is it that you think Canada can do on its own to solve the problem?

Edited August 9, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Correct, they are my views.

And everyone's views are political. Opinions by their nature are a point of view and those are always political. As the dictionary defines it, all human interactions have political undertones.

To you, the tax is the thing and the cost and effect on the consumer be damned. I think the idea of a gas tax holiday in the US is stupid, especially for a government running a 400B deficit this year, however governments of all stripes have been known to decrease taxes in order to stimulate an economy.

I don't think the consumer should be damned. I support major income tax deductions. However, it doesn't mean I support income tax increases on certain areas of the economy such as cigarettes and alcohol. In my view certain things that have other costs associated with them can and should be taxed.

We have been told there are costs involved with carbon production. Some people disagree but the majority of science has said it will be a problem and a costly one at that. I believe that carbon can be taxed in that context.

Funny how everything is speculation except speculation that supports your point of view. Certainly the CAD rises on commodity prices to a level more than is justified but it also falls in the same manner. It is undervalued today according to an annalist I heard today and probably overvalued according to some I didn't. Fact remains the cost to a Canadian of a barrel of oil today was not $116, it was $125.

I don't dispute what a barrel is. As oil goes down, so will the Canadian dollar until settles into an area that reflects the fundamentals of the economy.

Whatever that is.

Who can say? The war between Georgia and Russia may cause jitters on Monday. However, the economy and no threat from weather may mitigate any jump.

Generally, the thought is that barring any major problem, oil looks to go down further.

Actually it has, people are just having difficulty doing it in six months as you think they should.

Since the tax hasn't been put in place yet and probably won't be any time soon and since it will take four years to come into effect fully after that, I think the six months timetable holds no water.

Not so, I just don't assume that those who would tax me know what they are doing. I believe that most people who go into politics do so because they want to do good, or at least they believe they want to do good, however I view all politicians as potentially dangerous.

Which comes from a conservative viewpoint that authority should rest mostly with the individual to do the things they want, when they want, how they want.

I don't disagree unless it is shown to have harmful aspects beyond the individual.

So it is with cigarettes, alcohol and I believe with carbon emissions.

The government does have the authority and should act upon it when necessary.

The aim of the tax is not to hammer the consumer but to put a price, a consistent price on the use of carbon.

I believe other taxes need to be cut. I believe more spending should be cut. I have stated several times where I think those cuts should be made and why. However, I have no problems with taxes on areas that have other costs borne by the nation at some point.

As Canada produces less than 3 % of the worlds CO2, realistically what exactly is it that you think Canada can do on its own to solve the problem?

I expect we can lower our per capita contribution for a start. I expect we can utilize some of the cleaner energy alternatives that we have within our own country. I expect we can export that technology and know how to other countries who will probably be looking to reduce their own emissions as the industrial countries come up with unique solutions to the problem.

We have to look at what costs Canada faces if it does nothing. We have had a few government reports saying it will start to cost in a variety of ways. Will that not also hit the Canadian citizen? And while some say it is all hypothetical, there is enough of a consensus of scientists and experts calculating those costs to act. The market can be very quick to act but it is often the government that makes the rules and sets the price for safety.

[Wilber]

And everyone's views are political. Opinions by their nature are a point of view and those are always political. As the dictionary defines it, all human interactions have political undertones.

Political implies an agenda and even if there is a personal agenda to expressing an opinion there is a big difference between personal and party politics. Personal politics are beliefs, party politics try to impose those beliefs on others through legislation.

We have been told there are costs involved with carbon production. Some people disagree but the majority of science has said it will be a problem and a costly one at that. I believe that carbon can be taxed in that context.

There are costs involved with the production of anything. You want to increase them at a time when prices are already high and the economy is heading down. I don't.

Who can say? The war between Georgia and Russia may cause jitters on Monday. However, the economy and no threat from weather may mitigate any jump.

Generally, the thought is that barring any major problem, oil looks to go down further.

Again, you want to tax on speculation.

Since the tax hasn't been put in place yet and probably won't be any time soon and since it will take four years to come into effect fully after that, I think the six months timetable holds no water.

Yet you want to justify that tax on the premise that the rapid rise in energy costs hasn't brought about the changes you want. In that respect you feel six months is long enough.

The government does have the authority and should act upon it when necessary.

Precisely why I consider all politicians to be potentially dangerous

The aim of the tax is not to hammer the consumer but to put a price, a consistent price on the use of carbon.

Rot, it is to force the consumer to do what you want them to do regardless of the effect on their lives and finances.

I don't think the consumer should be damned. I support major income tax deductions. However, it doesn't mean I support income tax increases on certain areas of the economy such as cigarettes and alcohol. In my view certain things that have other costs associated with them can and should be taxed.

More rot, you support major redistribution of wealth. This is a tax and spend program after all. You want to tax some and spend it on others. There is no way that most people can recoup the full amount of the tax that they pay. I also don't believe for a second that those entitlements given will be removed if the revenue generated by that tax falls below that required to maintain those entitlements.

I expect we can lower our per capita contribution for a start. I expect we can utilize some of the cleaner energy alternatives that we have within our own country. I expect we can export that technology and know how to other countries who will probably be looking to reduce their own emissions as the industrial countries come up with unique solutions to the problem.

Entrepreneurs will do that anyway if there is a buck to be made somewhere. They already are. Government has a miserable record when it comes to picking winners and losers. The limit of its imagination extends to the idea that taxing Canadians will somehow make them smarter and more innovative than everyone else. Dream on.

I have no problems with taxes on areas that have other costs borne by the nation at some point.

I'm sure you don't because you still won't address the people who are living within narrow margins and will be effected most by such taxes, other than trying to justify it with speculation that it might cost them more at some time in the future when you have no way of knowing if that is true.

Your whole premise is based on a never ending list of "mights", "beliefs", "thoughts" and other "opinions" on what may or may not happen if a tax is or isn't imposed. The only thing tangible about it is the tax.

[jdobbin]

Political implies an agenda and even if there is a personal agenda to expressing an opinion there is a big difference between personal and party politics. Personal politics are beliefs, party politics try to impose those beliefs on others through legislation.

Politics is politics is far as most are concerned and usually deal with my views are better than yours.

There is no separation of party politics from personal ones in this forum since they are expressed as ones that poster wants for everyone. By its nature, an imposition. That can be accepted by people or not and that is what the debate is about.

One can't distance themselves and say, oh it is is just politicians who impose their beliefs. It is a disingenuous argument.

There are costs involved with the production of anything. You want to increase them at a time when prices are already high and the economy is heading down. I don't.

There is never a good time for a tax. In this case, the costs of waiting are detailed in some of the reports the government has commissioned.

Again, you want to tax on speculation.

The tax is based on the best science we have at the moment and has been claimed by many economists and some heavy hitters in industry to be one of the best ways to price carbon usage.

Yet you want to justify that tax on the premise that the rapid rise in energy costs hasn't brought about the changes you want. In that respect you feel six months is long enough.

Actually, what I said is prices go up and down. The tax would put a consistent price on carbon.

Precisely why I consider all politicians to be potentially dangerous

I can't help some people's hostile feelings to government. I know some people want to do what they want, when they want and how they want but it can be deleterious to others.

Rot, it is to force the consumer to do what you want them to do regardless of the effect on their lives and finances.

Fine, it is to force the consumer. However, the policy is formulated to limit that harm in the form of shifting the tax from one thing and removing it from another.

More rot, you support major redistribution of wealth. This is a tax and spend program after all. You want to tax some and spend it on others. There is no way that most people can recoup the full amount of the tax that they pay. I also don't believe for a second that those entitlements given will be removed if the revenue generated by that tax falls below that required to maintain those entitlements.

A lot of speculation and personal opinion there on your part but no matter.

Entrepreneurs will do that anyway if there is a buck to be made somewhere. They already are. Government has a miserable record when it comes to picking winners and losers. The limit of its imagination extends to the idea that taxing Canadians will somehow make them smarter and more innovative than everyone else. Dream on.

And the market has a poor reputation on the environment because it often doesn't figure in their calculations.

I'm sure you don't because you still won't address the people who are living within narrow margins and will be effected most by such taxes, other than trying to justify it with speculation that it might cost them more at some time in the future when you have no way of knowing if that is true.

And some seem to care less if it does.

As for the tax, it was aimed at causing the least harm to those who do live on the margin and can't adapt as fast.

Your whole premise is based on a never ending list of "mights", "beliefs", "thoughts" and other "opinions" on what may or may not happen if a tax is or isn't imposed. The only thing tangible about it is the tax.

And your whole premise seems to be to do nothing even in the face of the majority of scientists and other experts predicting it will cost a lot to do nothing.

Edited August 9, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

There is never a good time for a tax. In this case, the costs of waiting are detailed in some of the reports the government has commissioned.

Lots of bad ones however. I also think that anyone who says they actually know the cost of waiting or not imposing a tax is a snake oil salesman.

Actually, what I said is prices go up and down. The tax would put a consistent price on carbon.

Not as long as others are subsidizing it.

I can't help some people's hostile feelings to government. I know some people want to do what they want, when they want and how they want but it can be deleterious to others.

Since when is being critical of a a governments policies or intentions being hostile? Governments have as much potential to do damage as they do good. Nothing to do with me doing what I want. You paint me as someone who is doing what I want and deleterious to others because I don't agree with you, when I actually think that what you are proposing will be deleterious to others.

A lot of speculation and personal opinion there on your part but no matter.

Possibly but certainly easier to predict than the effect of a carbon tax on the environment.

Fine, it is to force the consumer. However, the policy is formulated to limit that harm in the form of shifting the tax from one thing and removing it from another.

People aren't things.

And the market has a poor reputation on the environment because it often doesn't figure in their calculations.

The market responds to demand.

And some seem to care less if it does.

Here we go with the "ifs" again. The tax and its implications for people's finances are real. The "ifs" are exactly that.

You still won't address them.

And your whole premise seems to be to do nothing even in the face of the majority of scientists and other experts predicting it will cost a lot to do nothing.

People aren't doing nothing and neither is industry or the economy. Doing something just for the sake of doing it is often worse than doing nothing.

[jdobbin]

Lots of bad ones however. I also think that anyone who says they actually know the cost of waiting or not imposing a tax is a snake oil salesman.

Too often damage has been greater because of a lack of government acting. It has been demonstrated in terms of safety and health many times. It has been shown in regard to world events many times.

Not as long as others are subsidizing it.

We can only make a policy for Canada and encourage others to act in the interests of the rest of the world. Some will try to take advantage of it but may end up worse off for it. We have seen that happen many times in industrialization.

Since when is being critical of a a governments policies or intentions being hostile? Governments have as much potential to do damage as they do good. Nothing to do with me doing what I want. You paint me as someone who is doing what I want and deleterious to others because I don't agree with you, when I actually think that what you are proposing will be deleterious to others.

People have as much potential to damage as they do good as well. It is why they elect governments and why governments are held accountable.

Possibly but certainly easier to predict than the effect of a carbon tax on the environment.

We can only go on the science that is presented to us. Some have been trying to discredit it but there are still too many scientists and experts who have indicated the problems of letting carbon continue in the trend it is.

The market responds to demand.

So do governments.

Here we go with the "ifs" again. The tax and its implications for people's finances are real. The "ifs" are exactly that.

You still won't address them.

I saw a lot of catastrophe-like scenarios on CFCs as well. Critics won't address how wrong they were then with their dire predictions.

We heard a lot of prediction of California going down the pike when it introduced some of the strongest smog related legislation.

What were the results? Huge decreases in CFCs, a reported improvement in the ozone and no major economic downturn. Nor did people lose refrigeration like some predicted.

Similarly, California remains fairly prosperous and now has more smog-free days.

People aren't doing nothing and neither is industry or the economy. Doing something just for the sake of doing it is often worse than doing nothing.

We are still left with the past numbers on carbon emission growth since 1990. It has only fallen marginally and the market still seems slow to react to, as you say, danger which does not figure into their books or consciousness.

Sometimes it takes the government and the market to respond. I wonder how many people living in New Orleans wished the government acted on improving safety over the objections of the people complaining about the cost and those that said the chance of being hit by something with that force was small.