Question about the Green Shift

[ABAAZABBA]

Hello, just signed up and this is my first post.

The reason I wanted to sign up was I was hoping that someone could clarify the Green Shift for me.

I spent a bit of time studying it over and am confused as to a couple of aspects.

According to the greenshift.ca, it states:

"We will cut taxes on those things we all want more of such as income, investment and innovation, and we will shift those taxes to what we all want less of: pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste."

After looking it over, I have deduced that the Green Shift would cut income taxes while increasing the tax burden on industry. Therefore, while we would receive a small bit extra on our paycheck, the price of everything that is produced by industrial means would increase because the increased cost would have to be passed onto consumers. Or, because of the increased costs, more and more businesses will simply move away to Asia or somewhere else where they can pollute to their heart's content and in the process, leave thousands without a job. Can someone clarify this for me? Is this correct or am I completely off track?

[jdobbin]

After looking it over, I have deduced that the Green Shift would cut income taxes while increasing the tax burden on industry. Therefore, while we would receive a small bit extra on our paycheck, the price of everything that is produced by industrial means would increase because the increased cost would have to be passed onto consumers. Or, because of the increased costs, more and more businesses will simply move away to Asia or somewhere else where they can pollute to their heart's content and in the process, leave thousands without a job. Can someone clarify this for me? Is this correct or am I completely off track?

The rising costs of energy are already having an impact of the costs of manufacturing overseas. The transportation costs associated with sending product back to North America is rising fast. Analysts are already predicting that such things as the steel industry will have a recovery because it will be cheaper to manufacture in North America.

Industry in North America will move quickly as they did on CFCs to seek alternatives. The predictions of catastrophe over CFCs was totally bogus as they will be with the tax on carbon.

[Riverwind]

a small bit extra on our paycheck, the price of everything that is produced by industrial means would increase because the increased cost would have to be passed onto consumers. Or, because of the increased costs, more and more businesses will simply move away to Asia or somewhere else where they can pollute to their heart's content and in the process, leave thousands without a job. Can someone clarify this for me? Is this correct or am I completely off track?

The price of energy is fundemental to our economy and any policy that attempts to increase the price of energy will end up causing prices to increase and encourage the outsourcing of industry to countries with a more pragmatic view.

It is also important to remember that there are no alternatives to fossil fuels that can provide the amount of reliable energy that our modern society requires and they will not magically appear simply because some politician in Canada puts a tax on energy. Comparisons to CFCs are irrelevant because there were alternatives available when the ban was put in place.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Comparisons to CFCs are irrelevant because there were alternatives available when the ban was put in place.

Dupont stopped all research into alternatives for CFCs because they didn't want to find alternatives. It eventually took political will to make the change. It is therefore not irrelevant.

Of course, some right wingers continue to believe that CFCs posed no danger. They seem to be the same people who have moved on to emissions.

[Riverwind]

Dupont stopped all research into alternatives for CFCs because they didn't want to find alternatives. It eventually took political will to make the change. It is therefore not irrelevant.

Get your facts right. The ban was not put in place until after it was established that economical alternatives existed. Dupont may have complained about the cost but the alternatives existed. There are no economic alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.

[jdobbin]

Get your facts right. The ban was not put in place until after it was established that economical alternatives existed. Dupont may have complained about the cost but the alternatives existed. There are no economic alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.

I think you have your facts wrong. The push for alternatives to CFCs came way before the Montreal Protocol and comanies like Dupont stopped their research into alternatives because they didn't believe they would be economical. Eventually, the threat of a ban led to more independent research on threat of CFCs and alternatives.

The right wing argues there are no alternatives to producing carbon emissions even though there are several now that could reduce emissions in both the U.S. and Canada dramatically.

[Riverwind]

Eventually, the threat of a ban led to more independent research on threat of CFCs and alternatives.

Alternatives such as HFC-134a existed in the 1970s the only issue was cost. The cost was not an issue for Dupont when CFCs were banned because their customers were legally required to pay whatever price they asked. That said, the US would have never agreed to ban if they did not have some reason to believe that the cost would be manageble.

There are no alternatives to fossil fuels that can be deployed at the scale required that will not significantly increase the cost of energy and therefore make everyone a lot poorer than they are today. I realize that many environmental activists think that increasing the standard of living for the average person is a sin against mother gaia but most people recognize that making people poorer is a bad thing.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Alternatives such as HFC-134a existed in the 1970s the only issue was cost. The cost was not an issue for Dupont when CFCs were banned because their customers were legally required to pay whatever price they asked.

Yet Dupont and others claimed it would be a catastrophe and that it wasn't a real alternative.

Alternatives to fossil fuels do not exist at any cost at this time.

A totally bogus claim.

[Riverwind]

Yet Dupont and others claimed it would be a catastrophe and that it wasn't a real alternative.

I can't find any evidence of that. Everything that I find tells me that Dupnt jumped on the bandwagon as soon as politicians passed the laws that forced their customers to buy more Dupont products.

[jdobbin]

I can't find any evidence of that. Everything that I find tells me that Dupnt jumped on the bandwagon as soon as politicians passed the laws that forced their customers to buy more Dupont products.

They were at the Montreal Protocol meetings doing everything they could to stop the agreement saying it would be an economic disaster. We have gone over this before including Dupont family members being quoted on this very subject.

[Riverwind]

We have gone over this before including Dupont family members being quoted on this very subject.

Quotes from the 90s. Not the 80s.

http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/knowles/eco31...of%20DuPont.pdf

This states clearly that by 1986 Dupont actively supported the protocol and told congress that subsitutes were available. It changed its tune later but that does not undermine my argument that the CFC ban was only brought in after legislatures were certain that alternatives existed. Your claims are, as usual, without any merit.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Quotes from the 90s. Not the 80s.

http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/knowles/eco31...of%20DuPont.pdf

This states clearly that by 1986 Dupont actively supported the protocol and told congress that subsitutes were available. It changed its tune later but that does not undermine my argument that the CFC ban was only brought in after legislatures were certain that alternatives existed. Your claims are, as usual, without any merit.

Dupont according to your own source said different things to different people but the facts remain that ii actively campaigned against change from 1975 to 1986. Only when the U.S. looked like it was about to sign did Dupont acquiesce but even in 1988, they were arguing in Congress that there was no scientific evidence to reduce CFC emissions. 1988. It is right there in your own report. In the 1990s, Dupont was still manufacturing CFCs but by then many industries were now converting to non-CFC sources through the 500 companies that signed on to make changes.

One again bogus claims by the right wing.

[Riverwind]

It is right there in your own report. In the 1990s, Dupont was still manufacturing CFCs but by then many industries were now converting to non-CFC sources through the 500 companies that signed on to make changes.

So? What does that have to do with my claim that there is no comparison between CFCs and CO2 because economical alternatives to CFCs were known to exist before the ban? The fact that Dupont dragged its feet does not change the fact that other companies had alternatives that they were selling into the marketplace.

Denmark has carpeted the country with windmills yet they only get 6% of their power from them (they would be in trouble if they weren't able to import coal power from Germany). Solar power has not been proven beyond niche applications. Geothermal is only available in some locations. Nuclear takes forever to develop because of the technical risks and environmental issues. There are no pratical alternatives to gasoline for most kinds of motorized transportation.

All of this means that attempts to significantly reduce CO2 emissions will result in higher prices and lower standards of living for everyone. Now you could be honest and simply tell people that being poorer is the price they have to pay for "saving the the planet". I would disagree with that but I would not call it hypocritical. Trying to tell people that it is possible to significantly reduce CO2 emissions without lowering their standard of living is simply dishonest.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

So? What does that have to do with my claim that there is no comparison between CFCs and CO2 because cost effective alternatives to CFCs were known to exist before the ban? The fact that Dupont dragged its feet does not change the fact that other companies had alternatives that they were selling into the marketplace.

So it just shows another bogus claim.

Denmak has carpeted the country with windmills yet they only get 6% of their power from them. Solar power has not been proven beyond niche applications. Geothermal is only available in some locations. Nuclear takes forever to develop because of the technical risks and environmental issues. There are no pratical alternatives to gasoline for any kind of transportation.

That is a pretty quick dismissal of geothermal. Where exactly can you not build geothermal? Is not the majority of North America ideally suited for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heating

For home and office heating and cooling, there is a huge continuous source of a renewable energy that produces zero emissions. Costs have dropped substantially and when applied to new buildings, it saves the cost or new furnaces, boilers, air conditioners and gas lines.

Even if you don't believe in carbon emissions, you have to accept that geothermal represents the best way to get over dependence on energy that is not renewable and subject to speculation. Hard to speculate on power you draw from your home ground.

All of this means that attempts to significantly reduce CO2 emissions will result in higher prices and lower standards of living for everyone. Now you could be honest and simply tell people that being poorer is the price they have to pay for "saving the the planet". I would disagree with that but I would not call it hypocritical. Trying to tell people that it is possible to significantly reduce CO2 emissions without lowering their standard of living is simply dishonest.

Higher costs are expected if emissions are not reduced. We will be sicker according to the government's own study. That has to cost a lot of money and we will be poorer.

Of course, many on the right don't believe anything about warming just as they don't believe in the problem of CFCs.

Edited August 4, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

For home and office heating and cooling, there is a huge continuous source of a renewable energy that produces zero emissions. Costs have dropped substantially and when applied to new buildings, it saves the cost or new furnaces, boilers, air conditioners and gas lines.

You can't turn on your lights with geothermal nor can you drive your car. We need sources of energy that can produce huge amounts of electricity.

Higher costs are expected if emissions are not reduced. We will be sicker according to the government's own study. That has to cost a lot of money and we will be poorer.

If those claims were credible then we would have had lost of research that shows a strong correlation between warmer climates a lower health outcomes once income disparities are factored in. No such body of evidence appears to exist.

[jdobbin]

You can't turn on your lights with geothermal nor can you drive your car. We need sources of energy that can produce huge amounts of electricity.

Or sources that save huge amounts of electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

The current use of geothermal heat pump technology has resulted in the following emissions reductions:

* Elimination of more than 5.8 million metric tons of CO2 annually

* Elimination of more than 1.6 million metric tons of carbon equivalent annually

These 1,000,000 installations have also resulted in the following energy consumption reductions:

* Annual savings of nearly 8,000 GWh

* Annual savings of nearly 40 trillion Btus of fossil fuels

* Reduced electricity demand by more than 2.6 GW

Why are you so opposed to geothermal?

If those claims were credible then we would have had lost of research that shows a strong correlation between warmer climates a lower health outcomes once income disparities are factored in. No such body of evidence appears to exist.

And with that, the right wing dismisses any possible health problems with rising temperatures.

[Riverwind]

Why are you so opposed to geothermal?

It is a drop in the bucket that only makes sense in less densly populated areas with the right climates and the right geology (i.e. southern manitoba). Outside of those areas the capital cost makes it impratical (drilling through rock is expensive).

dismisses any possible health problems with rising temperatures.

The better question is why you give such claims any credence at all considering when a warm weather-health link was never discussed before the onset of climate alarmism? Edited August 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

It is a drop in the bucket that only makes sense in less densly populated areas with the right climates and the right geology (i.e. southern manitoba). Outside of those areas the capital cost makes it impratical (drilling through rock is expensive).

Geothermal is well suited for most places in Canada and the U.S. including rural areas.

Your opposition sounds political rather based on actual facts.

The better question is why you give such claims any credence at all considering when a warm weather-health link was never discussed before the onset of climate alarmism?

The health effects that might occur with rising temperatures have always been talked about. Why is the extremist, radical right wing thinking there are no health effects?

[Riverwind]

Geothermal is well suited for most places in Canada and the U.S. including rural areas.

Then why hasn't it been used more widely? BTW - I don't oppose it and have no problems with subsidies to encourage its use. I simply think it is a drop in the bucket of our energy needs and will not allow us to stop emitting CO2 without significantly reducing our standard of living.

The health effects that might occur with rising temperatures have always been talked about.

Really? I must have missed the media hype telling people to move north because it is better for your health. Why are you so insistent that the health problems created by cold weather are less severe than the ones that arise from hot weather? I agree that hot climes mean more people suffer from heat stroke but that also means that fewer people suffer frost bite. The issue is not whether the types of health issues change (they will). The issue is whether a warmer climate is a net negative when it comes to health. Edited August 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Then why hasn't it been used more widely?

Lower fossil fuel prices relative to people's incomes have had a major impact on people making the change. That is becoming less of an issue now.

The geographic location has not what has restricted growth. It is the costs of installation. For new office and home construction, it looks like a winner.

Really? I must have missed the media hype telling people to move north because it is better for your health. Why are you so insistent that the health problems created by cold weather are less severe than the ones that arise from hot weather? I agree that hot climes mean more people suffer from heat stroke but that also means that fewer people suffer frost bite. The issue is not whether the types of health issues change (they will). The issue is whether a warmer climate is a net negative when it comes to health.

I think you miss the point of what the Health Canada study was saying. In Canada, there will be health problems related to warming. Perhaps you should look at the report before saying they acting hysterical. It just sounds like more right wing extremism.

[Riverwind]

In Canada, there will be health problems related to warming.

And there will be helath benefits from the warming. Any report that chooses to empahsize the negative without discussing the positives is a piece of propoganda.

[jdobbin]

And there will be helath benefits from the warming. Any report that chooses to empahsize the negative without discussing the positives is a piece of propoganda.

They discuss this in the report. Extreme temperatures of both hot and cold can cause health problems. The report discusses what extreme temperatures from warming would do to Canada. First, it says cold related deaths would drop. They are 10 to 25% than higher than heat related deaths in Canada. The problem is that extreme heat related deaths will accelerate. The report discusses what those health problems might be.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/hpr-rpms...limat-5-eng.php

Of course for the ring wing extremist who doesn't believe in global warming, this is all irrelevant. It is propaganda and should be ignored.

Edited August 4, 2008 by jdobbin

[TomS]

They discuss this in the report. Extreme temperatures of both hot and cold can cause health problems. The report discusses what extreme temperatures from warming would do to Canada. First, it says cold related deaths would drop. They are 10 to 25% than higher than heat related deaths in Canada. The problem is that extreme heat related deaths will accelerate. The report discusses what those health problems might be.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/hpr-rpms...limat-5-eng.php

Of course for the ring wing extremist who doesn't believe in global warming, this is all irrelevant. It is propaganda and should be ignored.

I joined this forum today, but already I have noticed a trend with you. I encourage everybody to check my claim. You think that by calling other subscibers "extreme",or "right wing" that you have made a point. My or anybody else's political leanings are not "points" or "facts", nor are they in anyway relevent to a discussion.

[jdobbin]

I joined this forum today, but already I have noticed a trend with you. I encourage everybody to check my claim. You think that by calling other subscibers "extreme",or "right wing" that you have made a point. My or anybody else's political leanings are not "points" or "facts", nor are they in anyway relevent to a discussion.

I have no idea what your claim and I haven't claimed any poster is extreme or right wing. I said it sounds like an extremist right wing position.

It depends on your point of view whether it is relevant or not.

[Wilber]

I joined this forum today, but already I have noticed a trend with you. I encourage everybody to check my claim. You think that by calling other subscibers "extreme",or "right wing" that you have made a point. My or anybody else's political leanings are not "points" or "facts", nor are they in anyway relevent to a discussion.

You catch on quick.