Carbon Tax

[Tilter]

Hopefully y'all know you are responsible for ruining peoples health and causing mass tracts of land and species to be destroyed.

I think it is highly meaningful to turn oil sands devs into 0 emissions operations, that is have in built emissions systems in the devs. They are multibillion dollar companies racking in tons of profits, they can put some of that back into 0 emissions systems. Hell it should be mandatory as it is feasable and they have the assets to do it. Oilsands is BP horizon on a daily basis for the air.

Then you arses are playing as if you are making tap water from sweat, it screws with the environment and all our lives are made worse by that, where is our cut of the profits? We shouldn't be getting negatives and no compensation. Perhaps continuous class action suits for despoilment and health destruction are in order? Hmmm???

Its not all good don't make like it is. There is a social duty not to ruin other peoples lives for personal gain. It is recognized that is what the devs are doing, - they have the capacity to prevent it, it is negligence for them not to clean up... they should be sued for neglegence.

Bad things really are happening and anyone who defends that, and makes like no harm done, deserves to be shot on the spot because they really are social vermin decaying society like the cancer they cause.

This is only a drop in the bucket:

http://mostlywater.org/why_is_cancer_sweeping_tiny_fort_chipewyan

One question----- do you drive a car, ride a bus or fly anywhere?-- Perhaps you also boat or use electricity? If so you are a CARBON CONSUMING PIG like the rest of us.

[William Ashley]

Actually, that's you. Go buy an electric car and farm your own vegetables and meat. Otherwise you need to stop complaining about our oil. Stop buying ANY goods shipped anywhere. Make your own clothes from the sheep in your pasture.

Are you that stupid, the oil sands production creates 8% of Canada's carbon emissions and we arn't even counting other toxic releases from the operation - this is before it goes to the US to get refined (creating more toxic release, then to peoples cars)

I would unfortunately I travel too much to tend a farm, then there are administrative loop holes, I am zoned as a residential farm but I only got 1/2 acre. It is gastly to even think about downing a moose, but that would be a safer alternative to a sheep.. (I'll be practicing my aim with some crossbows this year... if it is a life and death situation a few years down the road atleast my chances - I might try stalking too... just for practice..I'm still to animal friendly to consider killing anything but a seriously injured animal for example something with broken limbs splatered in blood example something hit by a vehcile or something that fell off a hill - if it would never survive and was just betting to be offed (I do support euthenasia, this is a drastic situation I hope I'm neve rin, and I'd really have to be invoked by nature and god to do something of that sort.) although my winter clothes should last a while. I would totally be down for a sheep. But I'm in a lakefront zone so I'm not sure, also it might be expensive to ship a live one to the middle of nowhere I live, I'm considering hens right now, but it prolly will be another year. I'm into primitive techs so getting a sheep and a spinner is totally up my alley. Getting my grid developed to a couple kilowatts is first on my list though, and that will probably take another 9 months -- then I should be energy self sufficient producting enough for heating, once I get to 2kw I can hook back up to the grid if I wanted. But any energy can be put to improvement projects like electric farm equipment, irrigation pumps etc.. it is way down the road but I've been easing into it. This year is the grid and electric heating.

If you're not doing that, you are a hypocrit.

Its the source that makes the pollution that is the problem. You an idiot if you don't recognize it is the polluter. You have the mindset of a hitman - its money I don't care what 3 year old gets raped for me to make that $50 an hour, line em up. Mentalities like that make me sick.

It's there, for you. When you're ready to spend $70k on an electric car (charged by your small scale hydro project in the backyard) and several million on an acreage big enough to support sustainence farming, then start complaining about the oil sands.

An electric vehicle can be got for $3000 or less. I've just gone off grid, and plan on generating my own electricity. I don't use my vehicle as I've been in urban areas, but no, I jog or run most places. On long trips its mass transit. I keep my use of the car to a minimum, if a walk is under 30 minutes I don't drive example with 2km. If it is more I jog (within 10km) or bike if it is within 40 km. Then I turn to mass transit. While I do have a car, there are cheaper electric alternatives, and they don't take 70k. Also I could use my own batteries from my offdgrid op that took only a few thousands to set up --- and reuse the $1000 in batteries for an electric vehicle or relocate it to an RV or boat. You can get an electric vehcile for only a couple thousand, an electric heater running on 1 battery enough to heat a large room can be got for a couple hundred dollars. that is say $4000 for that and there is a $10000 rebate for buying one - you do the math. It is the production point that could make cleaner products - it is doable - that is the fault. Buying the product of course is horrible in some cases, but it is the companies that could be doing better and should. I 100% agree though it is compromising your morality to buy this stuff for instance antifreeze or engine oil tested on animals - it really is quite disgusting, -- this is why I advocate for an environmental tax (although while removing income taxes) that is set on imports and production of products to tax on the cost of cleaning up and removing the environmental harm in Canada --- the cost needs to STOP being lumped on the public while private companies often american make off with the loot.

Cars and the transportation of goods in this country emit several times the amount of CO2 compared the oil sands. That's your problem, not Alberta's.

All this Eastern high on their horse mentality about CO2. What utter rubbish. Telling us in Alberta to spend tens of thousands per capita in carbon sequestration while they still drive their internal combustion cars and buy shipped good.

YOU go spend the tens of thousands. Then come whine to us. Until then, we simply don't care about what Ottawa has to say. And if you push too hard, watch out. No oil, no money. Yikes.

There are cleaner alternatives that are just as cost effective.

Oil production doesn't have to be dirty, the tech is out there to make production clean.

Clean production doesn't = no money, it = less adverse health and environmental damage.

The companies make billions they can afford to spend some on not killing Canadians and ruining their environment.

Exon made $30 billion NET last year alone '$30000000000'. It has no excuse not to spend the millions to make their Canadian operations 0 emissions and filtering of chemicals for storage and reuse rather than dumping them in a lake that people used to be able to drink out of.

It is disgusting and gross abuse of the people of Canada. I don't understand why you like people to piss in your cup when they are mass loaded and giving you a nickle for your troubles while they take the other 95 cents. You're the one who's drinking from that cup at the end of the day.

----

Take into account these Evechicles cost a penny a km in some case. And if you are charging yourself... on your dumpload... it costs you nothing, except battery life.

Edited April 11, 2011 by William Ashley

[geoffrey]

So you want the 8% emitters to pay for the carbon issues of the whole country? Grow up. Those carbon emissions are part of the emissions that are used elsewhere in teh country. Those emissioss should flow through to the end users. Those emissions wouldn't exist without all the cars and factories in Ontario and elsewhere.

I don't even know where you got that number from. The Pembina Institute estimates it's 5% (http://www.pembina.org/pub/1966).

Yet Alberta should transfer wealth to Ontario and Ottawa because the oilsands industry is responsible for 5% of GHG emissions.

If you want to change the world in your own naive way, you need to raise gas prices through carbon taxes and dramtically increase the cost of food and other goods that are transported. The only way to reduce GHG emissions is through less demand of fossil fuels... not taxing a supplier.

If you impose a massive tax on Suncor for example, do you think they can afford to spend extra dollars on environmental projectsand still earn an appropriate return on investment?

Such a socialist attitude. It's always someone else's fault.

What you'll see happen is investment drop off, jobs will be lost and you'll import more oil from Islamic extremists. If that's your choice, I can't help ya.

Edited April 11, 2011 by geoffrey

[blueblood]

Sustinance living on half an acre? That is proposterous. You can't raise an animal on half an acre unless your trucking in feed for the winter. I assume that half an acre also consists of a house and yard. Not much room for growing berries. Then there is winter time, you would need hydroponics in a heated shop to keep yourself fed all winter. Have fun trying to power that, that would be borderline phase 3.

Then there is the obscene opportunity cost involved with being self sufficient. I farm 3000 acres and there is no way I am wasting my time and money with that nonsense. It is not financially viable to raise cattle because of the opportunity cost of the land used to feed them vs growing a crop. There is a reason people don't sustinance live anymore, it is too expensive.

[geoffrey]

I agree blueblood, so you require oil. Now does that oil come from Alberta or Libya? And at what price?

Your (intelligent) relucance to be self-reliant just shows that you are the user of that oil, and should be responsible for the costs associated with producing it. In a global marketplace, that means placing any carbon tax squarely on the end user of a resource.

[TimG]

The funny thing about enviros: they always expect someone else to make sacrifices so they can feel good.

Try taking away something that they care about and they will scream murder.

[blueblood]

I agree blueblood, so you require oil. Now does that oil come from Alberta or Libya? And at what price?

Your (intelligent) relucance to be self-reliant just shows that you are the user of that oil, and should be responsible for the costs associated with producing it. In a global marketplace, that means placing any carbon tax squarely on the end user of a resource.

Oil is not an input that causes problems. I would be extremely foolish to complain about high oil prices. To hedge against oil, I buy into dividend paying oil companies, which gives me some cash and helps out with future retirement.

Putting a carbon tax on oil is ridiculous. Supporters of that tax say it puts a price on carbon. Well carbon has a price, it trades on the nymex and is trading at 109.43 per barrell. If 147 dollar oil can smarten consumers up, why do we need a tax?

[geoffrey]

Try taking away something that they care about and they will scream murder.

So true. Alberta should pay but we should not. Why? Well, they don't really know.

The reality is that in an international marketplace, if you were to impose a tax on oil sands oil, companies cannot pass it through to consumers (as consumers will just buy dirty or bloody oil cheaper from someone else) so it erodes Canadian output in favour of foreign markets (which are mostly Islamic extremists). This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

A real impact on climate change (if it indeed is caused by GHG) would be a tax on gasoline, especially for transportation industry. Reducing consumption of fuel is the way to reduce emissions, not just buying oil from a bloody dictator instead of Suncor because it makes Suzuki smile in the morning.

No economic sense, no rational sense. Just bad policy.

[blueblood]

So true. Alberta should pay but we should not. Why? Well, they don't really know.

The reality is that in an international marketplace, if you were to impose a tax on oil sands oil, companies cannot pass it through to consumers (as consumers will just buy dirty or bloody oil cheaper from someone else) so it erodes Canadian output in favour of foreign markets (which are mostly Islamic extremists). This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

A real impact on climate change (if it indeed is caused by GHG) would be a tax on gasoline, especially for transportation industry. Reducing consumption of fuel is the way to reduce emissions, not just buying oil from a bloody dictator instead of Suncor because it makes Suzuki smile in the morning.

No economic sense, no rational sense. Just bad policy.

There already is a tax on gasoline, it makes up a big portion of what consumers pay at the pumps. Why do we need another tax?

Its not a tax needed, its a sky high futures price (which ironically the same people complain about - a la the speculators)

[dpwozney]

Why is Alberta and the Right Winger cons against Carbon tax if Alberta is the only province with Carbon Tax???

It struck me as, what the heck?

Is the whole anti carbon tax thing just to protect provincial revenues?

Alberta has carbon tax.

Why are they whining about carbon tax?

There is a difference between Albertans and the “Government of the Province of Alberta”.

Many Albertans are opposed to any carbon tax.

The “Government of the Province of Alberta” is opposed to a carbon tax imposed at the federal level.

A so-called carbon tax was imposed by the “Government of the Province of Alberta".

The vast majority of Albertans did not vote for the current “Government of the Province of Alberta”.

Of Albertans who were eligible to vote, only about 40.6% voted in the last election for the “Government of the Province of Alberta” in 2008, a record low.

Edited April 13, 2011 by dpwozney

[William Ashley]

There is a difference between Albertans and the “Government of the Province of Alberta”.

Many Albertans are opposed to any carbon tax.

The “Government of the Province of Alberta” is opposed to a carbon tax imposed at the federal level.

A so-called carbon tax was imposed by the “Government of the Province of Alberta".

The vast majority of Albertans did not vote for the current “Government of the Province of Alberta”.

Of Albertans who were eligible to vote, only about 40.6% voted in the last election for the “Government of the Province of Alberta” in 2008, a record low.

Ok but shouldn't it be fair for all provinces to share the same carbon tax since carbon migrates everywhere, and pollution crosses provincial borders making it an interprovincial issue thus federal...

I agree Canadians should have more voice and that is why I advocate for an advisory council to oversight legislation of parliament. One where every Canadian has one vote.

[William Ashley]

There is a difference between Albertans and the “Government of the Province of Alberta”.

Many Albertans are opposed to any carbon tax.

The “Government of the Province of Alberta” is opposed to a carbon tax imposed at the federal level.

A so-called carbon tax was imposed by the “Government of the Province of Alberta".

The vast majority of Albertans did not vote for the current “Government of the Province of Alberta”.

Of Albertans who were eligible to vote, only about 40.6% voted in the last election for the “Government of the Province of Alberta” in 2008, a record low.

Ok but shouldn't it be fair for all provinces to share the same carbon tax since carbon migrates everywhere, and pollution crosses provincial borders making it an interprovincial issue thus federal...

I agree Canadians should have more voice and that is why I advocate for an advisory council to oversight legislation of parliament. One where every Canadian has one vote.

Why should Alberta be taxed if other provinces arn't.

I think "carbon" is a little vauge - and it should be enviornmental damages levy on imports and produduction not just carbon outputs.

Because the public is being hurt by this stuff while people like Blueblood profit on other peoples cancer.

It is very disturbing that people like him are willing to dump toxic chemicals into someones drinking water to have 20% gain on their profits.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[dpwozney]

Ok but shouldn't it be fair for all provinces to share the same carbon tax since carbon migrates everywhere, and pollution crosses provincial borders making it an interprovincial issue thus federal...

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have not yet been proven to cause global warming or climate change. Therefore, it is not fair to classify carbon dioxide emissions as pollution.

[blueblood]

Ok but shouldn't it be fair for all provinces to share the same carbon tax since carbon migrates everywhere, and pollution crosses provincial borders making it an interprovincial issue thus federal...

I agree Canadians should have more voice and that is why I advocate for an advisory council to oversight legislation of parliament. One where every Canadian has one vote.

Why should Alberta be taxed if other provinces arn't.

I think "carbon" is a little vauge - and it should be enviornmental damages levy on imports and produduction not just carbon outputs.

Because the public is being hurt by this stuff while people like Blueblood profit on other peoples cancer.

It is very disturbing that people like him are willing to dump toxic chemicals into someones drinking water to have 20% gain on their profits.

What are you talking about, I profit on people's tummy's being empty, not cancer. I hedge my fuel inputs by investing.

[William Ashley]

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have not yet been proven to cause global warming or climate change. Therefore, it is not fair to classify carbon dioxide emissions as pollution.

The higher the concerntration of C02 the more damage it does to us.

C02 causes respitory issues --- this not to mention all the other junk released into the air.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html#_1_1

You can say but C02 is still safe -- sadly it isn't. The more C02 the more cancer -- you may not understand the simple concept of poisoning but c02 is a poison. It is a pollutant and toxic. Just because there is poison in the air, pumping more poison into the air doesn't make it less polluted. Plants like it humans don't. We don't need more C02 we need lesss.. adding more poison doesn't HELP. This is the same for dumping mass quantities of toxic flouride into our environment .. was bad with mining --- even worse with all water supplies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2007/10/23/science-carbon-sink.html

I don't get where you get your idiotic positions that if it doesn't kill you outright its not bad for you.. all the junk destroys organs, brain function and often cause cancer... in very high levels it causes mass brain damage, but the little doses add up. There is a "safe range" and a "dangerous range" inbetween it is unsafe but not outright debilitating... it has effects they are just very gradual.. the effects are still there though.. carbon causes cancer oxygen damages organic matter by oxidization. This is VERY simple science.

C02 causes nevrvous system damage.

It may not seem like a lot but an increase of 2ppm per year adds up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

There is 30% more Co2 in the atmopshere than there was in 1960....

and this is just c02 not all the other toxic substances.. IT ADDS UP ...

The worst part is that there are processes these companies can use to sequester all the carbon in non atmospheric releases.. by creating scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Not 1 spec of carbon needs to be released if only 0 emissions technologies were implemented in the processes. Instead they are killing us and ruining our health and making money in the process.

The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.

20 MILLION YEARS -- it the highest level in HOMINID EXISTENCE!!! humans have NEVER been exposed to this level before, and we are getting cancer from it... desperately seeking a mutation to adapt us and change us...... IT IS TOO MUCH, TOO MUCH DAMNIT.. THEY ARE KILLING US!!! KILLING US ALL DAMNIT!!!

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[TimG]

The higher the concerntration of C02 the more damage it does to us.

Nonsense. Most urban dwellers are exposed to CO2 at levels of 800ppm all of the time and they don't even realize it. The CO2 levels could go to 2000ppm and we would be fine.

20 MILLION YEARS -- it the highest level in HOMINID EXISTENCE!!! humans have NEVER been exposed to this level before, and we are getting cancer from it...

Absolute hogwash.

[William Ashley]

Nonsense. Most urban dwellers are exposed to CO2 at levels of 800ppm all of the time and they don't even realize it. The CO2 levels could go to 2000ppm and we would be fine.

no you would be stupid and likely frying your central nervous system and respitory systems.

Absolute hogwash.

Aboslutely true..........

Well geuss who has lots of Cancer.... urban people. I'll give you 3 guesses as to the leading cause.

Its not water,

Its not the soil..

ok one more..

ITS THE AIR...

thats right...

1. AIR

2. WATER

3. SOIL (and food consumed grown in it)

4. contact with everything else

when you add these things together it is a recipe for disaster.... cancer rates increase in combination of these things.

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

What causes cell control breakdown is "cellular transport issues" that is transport of toxins... and absences of minerals such as zinc. There are various interactions but c02 inhibits certain functions.. and is very bad to enter the blood stream...

It stresses the body more and more the more there is this causes cellular breakdown... (also known as free radicals that contribute to carcinogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO%E2%82%82_retention

One of my fathers long time family friends died of COPD--- and you know what likely contributed to that... the oil sands.

And while people can hurt themselves with smoking--- the oil stands COULD BUT OUT... by using 0 emissions technologies. instead they are giving us all second hand smoke.

If someone continuously blew cigratte smoke in your face. would you be - oh that is fine.. I'm looking forward to the lung cancer.. NO you would likely be don't blow that in my face.

THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BUTT OUT.. and implement 0 EMISSIONS.. THEY ARE LITERALLY RUINING OUR HEALTH AND KILLING US!

THEY CALL IT AGING....... you know what..... its not. it is pollution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_symptoms_of_carbon_dioxide_toxicity.svg

* Negative feedback: a reaction in which the system responds in such a way as to reverse the direction of change. Since this tends to keep things constant, it allows the maintenance of homeostasis. For instance, when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the human body increases, the lungs are signaled to increase their activity and expel more carbon dioxide. Thermoregulation is another example of negative feedback. When body temperature rises (or falls), receptors in the skin and the hypothalamus sense a change, triggering a command from the brain. This command, in turn, effects the correct response, in this case a decrease in body temperature.

These homestatic processes however.. adjust the whole natural process.

Overtime it alters the bodies functions themselves. Homeostatic alteration is stress causing potentially. However increased respiration processing is definately cortisone increasing activity thus stress causing thus contributes to cancer.

What this amounts to is more co2 = more cancer

"liver and pancreas, which increases glucose levels available for muscles to use. It also temporarily inhibits other systems of the body, including digestion, growth, reproduction and the immune system."

BLAMO what you have there is a recipe for cancer by homestatic depression.

If you didn't understand increased respiration = increased cortisol = increased stress - more depression of digestion growth reproductive and immune systems..... along side more oppourtunity for abnormalization of cellular structures.

It CAUSES CACNER its not just global warming but cancer... IT CAUSES CANCER NOT JUST 1degree increase ever 20 years.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[dpwozney]

Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, carbon dioxide released by man near ground level sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere. While sinking, this carbon dioxide stratifies from air; after sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground. The carbon dioxide then dissolves in soil water or alternatively finds its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it readily mixes and dissolves in water or reacts with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed immediately from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.

Continuous direct measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been performed only since 1958 (at Mauna Loa, Hawaii) unlike carbon dioxide measurements before 1958, shown in red in the graph displayed here and in non-green in this chart. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many direct measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements and there was no runaway greenhouse-gas global warming effect.

Edited April 13, 2011 by dpwozney

[TimG]

no you would be stupid and likely frying your central nervous system and respitory systems.

You are so clueless.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/office_building-immeubles_bureaux/co2-eng.php

The concentration of carbon dioxide indoors varies according to location, occupancy, and time of day, tending to increase during the day. Typical office levels are in the range of 600-800 ppm.

[Bonam]

THEY CALL IT AGING....... you know what..... its not. it is pollution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_symptoms_of_carbon_dioxide_toxicity.svg

You might try looking at your own link. Note the CO2 levels the various symptoms appear at: 1%, 3%, 5%, and 8%. That's 10,000 ppm; 30,000ppm; 50,000ppm; and 80,000 ppm, respectively. That is 2 orders of magnitude above the levels being discussed.

[fellowtraveller]

Of Albertans who were eligible to vote, only about 40.6% voted in the last election for the “Government of the Province of Alberta” in 2008, a record low.

I get really weary of the utter vapid stupidity of this claim, which is made so often. It assumes that for all those that did not vote, if they had voted it would all have been against the govt, or all vote for somebody else, or whatever.

The reality is that the election easily and decisively endorsed the existing govt. Period. End of.