Australia Repeals 'Useless' Carbon Tax

[Boges]

It's interesting that the figure 2 hours comes up.

I calculated my 20-30 minute drive to work would take an hour and a half on public transit. It would be impossible for my wife to use transit to get to work.

So yeah that's a choice.

I guess we'll need Agenda 21 to empty all rural and suburban areas to keep people from driving.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes a car is a convenience. So is home heating, indoor toilets or free medical care (after all no one *needs* to live to 85 - wouldn't it be better for the environment if the government just let people die young?)

Now you are just preaching a religion. You are no different than someone claiming that Jesus is savoir and all people should choose to believe in order to protect their immortal soul. People drive cars because it improves their quality of life. There is nothing wrong with this.

Cars are as much a necessity as home heating, indoor plumbing and medical care? Advocating for public transit is the same as claiming Jesus is saviour???

Your arguments are goofy, your logic is weak and your reasoning is specious. Come back again when you've learned how to think, Bub.

And I am pretty sure you make lots of self-centered decisions when it comes to your lifestyle choices. You really have no business judging others for theirs.

I cycle to work. My house is heated without fossil fuels. I drive few miles per year. I'd stack my carbon emissions up against most peoples. How about you?

[ReeferMadness]

It's interesting that the figure 2 hours comes up.

I calculated my 20-30 minute drive to work would take an hour and a half on public transit. It would be impossible for my wife to use transit to get to work.

Yes, thanks to all the right-wing tar-holes whining about funding public transit, it often isn't that great. Funny thing, though. If these same tar-holes suddenly couldn't afford to drive their hummers to work, they would ride the bus. Then these same yahoos would be demanding better service.

The other thing is that the suburbs are the result of the car culture. They weren't always there.

I guess we'll need Agenda 21 to empty all rural and suburban areas to keep people from driving.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you.

[Boges]

Not everyone in the burbs drive inefficient cars. Is the Hummer even made anymore? That's just useless hyperbole.

So instead of offering viable alternatives Liberals just want to reduce the quality of life of people who choose not to live in an urban centre.

This is why a carbon tax was roundly rejected in 2008 and to with this past election Kathleen Wynne backed of raising the gas tax to fund transit.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Boges

[GostHacked]

It's interesting that the figure 2 hours comes up.

I calculated my 20-30 minute drive to work would take an hour and a half on public transit. It would be impossible for my wife to use transit to get to work.

Ottawa has a good public transit system, but it still can take a long time. My bus rides to and from work at one point were 1.5 hrs each way. That's 3hrs out of my day. I could drive that distance in 20 minutes. Even in moderate traffic.

So yeah that's a choice.

I guess we'll need Agenda 21 to empty all rural and suburban areas to keep people from driving.

More truth in that than you realize. Check out something called ICLIE http://www.icleicanada.org/ It's also about land property owning rights, water rights, everything. There is an ICLIE plan/organization in every major country around the world. Backed by UN entities and government leaders of those countries.

[TimG]

Cars are as much a necessity as home heating, indoor plumbing and medical care?

Yes. None of those things are necessary. People got by without them in the past. Why should they be called "necessities" if car use is a choice? Try engaging the brain and answering the question instead of avoiding it.

Advocating for public transit is the same as claiming Jesus is saviour???

You were not advocating for transit. You were complaining that people don't want to use/fund public transit. The latter is proselytizing. Learn the difference.

I cycle to work. My house is heated without fossil fuels. I drive few miles per year. I'd stack my carbon emissions up against most peoples. How about you?

I was not talking about CO2 emissions. There are plenty of choices you make in your life and I bet some of them others would think are quite self-centered. Are you really trying to argue that you are a paragon of self-sacrifice and never expect others to accommodate how you want to live? Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

I'd stack my carbon emissions up against most peoples. How about you?

I think I would beat you in that regard.

[waldo]

I think I would beat you in that regard.

this comment adds nothing - you're either prepared to state your comparative life-style emission contributions (or lack thereof) or you're simply suggesting "mines bigger"!

[ReeferMadness]

Yes. None of those things are necessary. People got by without them in the past. Why should they be called "necessities" if car use is a choice? Try engaging the brain and answering the question instead of avoiding it.

Really, Tim? Do I really need to spell this for you??? OK.

I spent years living without a working vehicle. It was inconvenient (particularly having to carry groceries) but not a hardship. Lots of people do this. That's why we call owning a private vehicle a convenience.

I've never met anyone in Canada who lives year round in an unheated dwelling. Why is that? Oh, I remember - because it gets very cold in Canada and you'd wind up dead. That's why heating is considered a necessity.

In Canada, almost everyone has indoor plumbing. I wonder why that is. Oh, I remember. It's because in countries without indoor plumbing, people defecate in ditches and drink unclean water. There are epidemics of nasty things like cholera and dysentery. And people wind up dead. And that's why plumbing is considered a necessity.

As for healthcare, well do I really need to go on?

So, now you understand the difference between convenience and necessity. If you need help with you colors and numbers, my daughter could help you out.

I was not talking about CO2 emissions. There are plenty of choices you make in your life and I bet some of them others would think are quite self-centered. Are you really trying to argue that you are a paragon of self-sacrifice and never force others to accommodate how you want to live?

If you're not talking about CO2 emissions, you're off topic. Reducing CO2 emissions is the whole point behind a carbon tax.

I'm not a paragon of anything, although I'm probably well below average in terms of my CO2 footprint. I've never forced anyone to do anything. I'm just suggesting that carbon be priced in proportion to its cost on society (that's a whole topic in itself). And if people dragging their lazy asses out of their climate-controlled, seat-warmed, vehicular monstrosities in favour of public transit or (god forbid!) moderate exercise counts as self-sacrifice, then we are in a sorry state.

Finally, let's deal with the topic of who is self-centred. When I cycle to work, I increase my odds of staying healthy (lowering the demands on the health care system), avoid polluting the atmosphere, put minimal demands on city streets, avoid consuming non-renewable resources and am a minimal risk of injuring or killing the people around me. As I do, I inhale fine particulates and other pollutants from the thousands of motorists around me who don't. These fine particulates will likely shorten my life. Many of these motorists could choose other forms of transportation and a large majority among them could choose vehicles that would consume less fuel. These motorists are a risk to themselves, fellow motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. So, don't tell me I'm the self-centred one.

[ReeferMadness]

I think I would beat you in that regard.

If you do, then I applaud you. But, there are plenty of people who would 'beat me in that regard'.

Personal choices can make a significant amount of difference. Good environmental choices are often better for ones physical and emotional health as well.

However, it's time that everyone recognized that personal choice only takes us so far. The 'tragedy of the commons' is that a lot of people (like some posting here) don't give a flying fig about anybody but themselves. Or, they kind of, sort of want to do the right thing but they're too lazy or apathetic to figure out what that is. They are told by moronic politicians and economists that consumption is good because it keeps the economy going. They pay attention to the messages that they want to believe - that excessive consumption is OK.

So, personal choice has to be reinforced by sound public policy. And sound public policy means that when you cause damage, you pay proportionally. And that, kids, are where carbon taxes come in.

So, for those of you who are bright enough, have enough time and have enough resources to know better but are too ideologically committed to right wing economics, you have no excuse. You should be ashamed.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So, for those of you who are bright enough, have enough time and have enough resources to know better but are too ideologically committed to right wing economics, you have no excuse. You should be ashamed.

We don't need any excuses and make no apologies. Those who want to feel guilty and send their money to others are always free to do so. Write a cheque today...don't be so selfish !

[-1=e^ipi]

When I cycle to work, I increase my odds of staying healthy (lowering the demands on the health care system), avoid polluting the atmosphere, put minimal demands on city streets, avoid consuming non-renewable resources and am a minimal risk of injuring or killing the people around me. As I do, I inhale fine particulates and other pollutants from the thousands of motorists around me who don't. These fine particulates will likely shorten my life. Many of these motorists could choose other forms of transportation and a large majority among them could choose vehicles that would consume less fuel. These motorists are a risk to themselves, fellow motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. So, don't tell me I'm the self-centred one.

Yeah, this pisses me off to.

[Boges]

So, for those of you who are bright enough, have enough time and have enough resources to know better but are too ideologically committed to right wing economics, you have no excuse. You should be ashamed.

And if the people who made the decisions actually had that attitude then we'd never get anywhere regarding efficient liifestyles. Innovations in reducing carbon and living more efficient lives aren't realized because people are wagging their finger at people telling them how selfish they are. Business' see that there is a demand for efficient vehicles and efficient home comfort appliances and they're brought to market.

Not everyone wants to live in a concrete jungle packed together like cattle. Not everyone wants to take 2 buses and a train to get to work. Which is why I bring up Agenda 21. I'm not being paranoid, but if governments decide people living rural or suburban lives are undesirable then what are they going to do? Force people out of their homes or just make their lives so expensive that they have no choice.

Next you're going to tell me that those that have kids are selfish because they're introducing new carbon creating life into the world. Which I wouldn't be surprised if you believe that. My wife and I live relatively thrifty lifestyles. We do both have cars out of necessity and eat meat but heating and hydro bill are low and both our commutes are under an hour. I know, however, that if we ever had kids that our consumption would skyrocket.

I'm curious what the people who think living a suburban or rural lifestyle think of first nations people who decide to live in remote areas that require lots of resources just to get supplies up to areas that aren't easily accessible. How is that desirable? Should the government do something about that?

[TimG]

I spent years living without a working vehicle. It was inconvenient (particularly having to carry groceries) but not a hardship.

For many people being without a vehicle *is* a hardship akin to going without indoor plumbing or central heating (I made an error in my original post - I meant central heating which *is* a luxury). The fact that you, given your circumstances of your life, managed does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Just like people can live in the bush without indoor plumbing or central heating. It is unpleasant but they are unlikely to die.

As for healthcare, well do I really need to go on?

You do actually. I said free healthcare. Please explain why this is a necessary but a car is not?

If you're not talking about CO2 emissions, you're off topic. Reducing CO2 emissions is the whole point behind a carbon tax.

Stop evading the point. You obsess about CO2 emissions as if they are the only thing that matters. You lecture people because they make choices which you have decided are not necessary but I suspect you are are hypocrite because you make your own choices which others think are bad. Why should you be entitled to make those choices that make you happy but others are not entitled make their own choices ?

I'm not a paragon of anything, although I'm probably well below average in terms of my CO2 footprint.

Not if you live in Canada. Your CO2 footrprint is huge due to the energy required to sustain the lifestyle you take for granted (do you think that food in your local market is teleported there?). The fact that you might have a relatively lower footprint than other Canadians is moot.

And if people dragging their lazy asses out of their climate-controlled, seat-warmed, vehicular monstrosities in favour of public transit or (god forbid!) moderate exercise counts as self-sacrifice, then we are in a sorry state.

More proselytizing. You got a hair shirt to go with that? Do you use a whip or a stick for your self-flagellation? Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG

[Boges]

Heating can be thought of as a luxury. But when it gets hot, the debate begins about whether people should use Air Conditioning. HVAC heating and cooling is most certainly a comfort many are not afforded.

People somehow think it's noble sitting at home on a hot and humid day sweating their asses off. I lived in a Basement apartment where the people who controlled the AC rarely opted to. I can say for certain I hope I never have to live in an environment like that again.

[ReeferMadness]

Not everyone in the burbs drive inefficient cars. Is the Hummer even made anymore? That's just useless hyperbole.

So instead of offering viable alternatives Liberals just want to reduce the quality of life of people who choose not to live in an urban centre.

This is why a carbon tax was roundly rejected in 2008 and to with this past election Kathleen Wynne backed of raising the gas tax to fund transit.

Hyperbole, eh?

Check out the top selling vehicles in Canada during Q1 of 2014. The top 2 with a bullet are full size pickup trucks. In the US, with lower gas prices, it's the top 3. In fact, full size pickups make up almost a full third of new vehicles sold (and that doesn't count all the gas guzzling SUV's). Either there are a lot more wealthy farmers than I thought or a lot of people are buying unneeded gas guzzlers. Of course, you don't need statistics to know this - just look out your window.

The carbon tax was rejected for the reasons I mentioned above. Right wing mouthpieces telling people that they don't need to take responsibility for their wasteful lifestyles. Telling them that their wasteful lifestyles are good because they help the economy.

Edited July 20, 2014 by ReeferMadness

[bush_cheney2004]

So why aren't the self righteous environmental do gooders living as simply as possible ? Like this....

[Boges]

Hyperbole, eh?

Check out the top selling vehicles in Canada during Q1 of 2014. The top 2 with a bullet are full size pickup trucks. In the US, with lower gas prices, it's the top 3. In fact, full size pickups make up almost a full third of new vehicles sold (and that doesn't count all the gas guzzling SUV's). Either there are a lot more wealthy farmers than I thought or a lot of people are buying unneeded gas guzzlers. Of course, you don't need statistics to know this - just look out your window.

The carbon tax was rejected for the reasons I mentioned above. Right wing mouthpieces telling people that they don't need to take responsibility for their wasteful lifestyles. Telling them that their wasteful lifestyles are good because they help the economy.

Pickuo trucks aren't SUVs

It says a lot that you think only farmers need pick up trucks.

Most people with trucks use it for work. Contractors, construction, trailing things.

Also many people with SUVs or vans use them for family reasons. As much as you want to think so,not everyone has a large car just to be wasteful.

[Wilber]

I'm not a paragon of anything, although I'm probably well below average in terms of my CO2 footprint. I've never forced anyone to do anything. I'm just suggesting that carbon be priced in proportion to its cost on society (that's a whole topic in itself). And if people dragging their lazy asses out of their climate-controlled, seat-warmed, vehicular monstrosities in favour of public transit or (god forbid!) moderate exercise counts as self-sacrifice, then we are in a sorry state.

Spoken like a true city dweller. Unfortunately it is only large cities that have a population density that can support efficient public transport and not everyone can afford the nearly one million average Vancouver house price in order to have access to it. Try telling someone in Fort Nelson he is a lazy ass for not taking a bus, riding a bike or walking to work in January. The lazy ass who is supplying some of what you need to survive in your city. I'd like to be there when you do.

I actually support a tax on carbon if it is offset by reductions in other taxes and it makes me think about my energy consumption, but I get a little peeved when I hear people who have no choice but to use their own vehicle, bad mouthed by those who can't conceive what life is like out of their own little world.

[TimG]

Spoken like a true city dweller. Unfortunately it is only large cities that have a population density that can support efficient public transport.

Even then public transportation is only any good if you need to go where it goes. If you live in Surrey and need to get downtown then transit works great. If you need to get to Richmond then its 2 hours on the bus each way. Same story for people living in Richmond that need to get Burnaby or any other case where people need to go from suburb to suburb.

On top of that you have the transitory nature of employment. i.e. it is almost never worth spending 20-30K (this is what it costs to move if one owns a house) to move your family closer to work in the same city because that work could be gone in a few years and you have to move again. It makes much more sense to buy property in a location that you want to be and commute as required.

Edited July 21, 2014 by TimG

[Boges]

That's the same issue on the Toronto area. People think everyone is going downtown. Many are just going from one burbs to another. But a good majority of the transit funding still goes to bolster ways to get downtown or move within downtown.

[ironstone]

JT has said he will "put a price on carbon". I think that's a political third rail in Canada. The only way he'd be able to ram it through is not talk about it and hope to get elected anyway.

I would hope someone in the media would force him to say exactly how he'd implement a carbon tax.

Apart from Sun News,it seems the mainstream media is not talking about it.Big surprise.

[waldo]

JT has said he will "put a price on carbon". I think that's a political third rail in Canada. The only way he'd be able to ram it through is not talk about it and hope to get elected anyway.

I would hope someone in the media would force him to say exactly how he'd implement a carbon tax.

citation request... I see you've flogged this now in two active threads - never being specific. Let's have you quote Trudeau directly... let's try and have you narrow down exactly what was stated. Thanks in advance.

[Boges]

Your buddy Ezra

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/01/errors-in-reasoning-trudeaus-call-for-carbon-tax-remarkable-as-is-the-free-pass-he-gets-from-media-party

Last week, Justin Trudeau gave a speech at Calgary’s Petroleum Club where he called for a carbon tax.

This wasn’t an off-the-cuff remark. It was a scripted speech. And the choice of his audience was surely no coincidence either. It was a warning. Things will be different if he’s prime minister.

Trudeau has learned from Stephane Dion’s disastrous “Green Shift” carbon tax platform in 2008. So instead of calling it a carbon tax, Trudeau calls it “putting a price on carbon pollution.” But it’s the same thing — taxing oil and gas. Not much different from how Trudeau’s father did it the first time, with the National Energy Program.

Here’s how Trudeau junior put it last week: “We are further than ever from a sensible policy to reduce carbon pollution, and the oilsands have become the international poster child for climate change.”

He said Canada needs “an overall framework that includes a policy that puts a price on carbon pollution.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/30/ready-for-justins-carbon-tax

Over the weekend, Sun Media’s Faith Goldy asked Trudeau three questions about his carbon tax plans — three questions more than the rest of the media combined. Trudeau told Goldy that our lack of a carbon tax is the reason why Barack Obama has not approved the Keystone XL pipeline.

“If the prime minister actually took a lead on being smart about environmental regulations, we would have already seen the Americans approve Keystone XL ,” Trudeau said.

That’s quite something, given that Obama has never himself said that.

The United States does not have a carbon tax, nor does the U.S. impose trade sanctions against any other countries that don’t. China, by far the largest exporter to the U.S., is the most polluted country in the world. Obama doesn’t block trade with them because they lack a carbon tax.

Trudeau also claimed that Obama is declaring war against carbon, and we need to also.

“The United States just put very strong regulations forward on coal plants, which is their largest source of emission, and we need to be similar in that we’re already there, no thanks to Mr. Harper on moving beyond coal, he tried to block it and stall it as much as he could. And now we have to make sure that we’re taking care of our emissions, and our emissions happen through the oilsands to a larger degree than it does in the United States.”

Edited July 30, 2014 by Boges

[overthere]

There are way to many confounding variables to draw any such conclusion. The reality is that CO2 emissions have been dropping in a lot of jurisdictions whether they have a tax or not so the BC emissions would have likely dropped even if the tax was not introduced.

The hypocrisy of shipping billions of dollars of coal out of BC to other countries while trumpeting a carbon tax locally is thrilling to watch.