Is Mulcair and trudeau's carbon tax a good thing?

[PIK]

Regardless of which party wins the Oct. 19 federal election, Canadians can look forward to being ripped off for billions of dollars in the international carbon trading market.

Carbon trading is intrinsic to both NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s carbon pricing plans, since both would use cap-and-trade schemes, supposedly to reduce Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

But even Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives -- the least worst of the three major parties on this issue -- have proposed buying international carbon credits to meet the government’s emission reduction targets.

When Canada legally withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in late 2011, then environment minister Peter Kent said it would have cost Canadian taxpayers $14 billion to buy enough carbon credits -- essentially “hot air” -- to comply with Kyoto

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/08/26/carbon-credit-fraud-no-laughing-matter

And just imagine if we had coughed up 14 billions dollars for Kyoto. Harper saved us a fortune. So do people want to pay higher taxes for everything just to get rid of Harper or are people so well off in this country they don't care?

[Argus]

I think Harper feels pretty much as I do, that it's a waste of time, terribly expensive, and will accomplish nothing. He's been actively resisting the tide of media driven feeling among the mass of Canadian sheep that we must do something to combat global warming - even if it's useless.

Mind you, the media never says it's useless. It just keeps harping on the need to do something. And neither they nor the Liberals or NDP are talking about costs. They don't mention this will mean higher power costs, higher costs for gasoline, for home heating, and for products made and transported in Canada in order to compensate manufacturers and transporters for higher costs.

How much will it cost? No one will say. What will the goal be? Basically, the goal is to lower our emissions because... because that will make some of us feel noble and proud that we're 'doing our share'. It will have zero impact on the world's CO2 emissions, of course, and you'll not find the NDP or Liberals talking about that either.

[-1=e^ipi]

A CO2 emission tax makes more sense than cap and trade.

Edited August 27, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Topaz]

What are the cost to have dirty air, water and land. The health care budgets are in the billions and in the US its in the trillions. Does one take out the other, which is greater importance health or finance or can we find a even solution???

[Keepitsimple]

What are the cost to have dirty air, water and land. The health care budgets are in the billions and in the US its in the trillions. Does one take out the other, which is greater importance health or finance or can we find a even solution???

Here in Toronto, we used to have a lot of "smog" alerts because of particulates in the air. Hardly have any now. Used to be that you could hardly ever swim in Lake Ontario - now it's much better. We've proven that we're perfectly able to clean up our air and water. CO2 is not a pollutant - we don't have to clean it up - and if we did reduce it, it wouldn't have any impact on Healthcare. If you disagree, perhaps you can tell me how reducing CO2 will help air, water and Healthcare?

[waldo]

Regardless of which party wins the Oct. 19 federal election, Canadians can look forward to being ripped off for billions of dollars in the international carbon trading market.

Carbon trading is intrinsic to both NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s carbon pricing plans, since both would use cap-and-trade schemes, supposedly to reduce Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

you haven't the understanding to even create an appropriate thread... you speak of carbon tax in your thread title and cap-and-trade in your OP. If you don't know the difference you certainly have no standing to create this thread. More pointedly, the formal NDP position is to suggest alignment with a variant of cap-and-trade; the formal Liberal Party position is to favour a carbon tax. No details of either have been presented... and most pointedly, no details have been provided because, unlike Harper's absolute unwillingness to meet with provincial leaders as a group, both Opposition party leaders advise they would engage/involve all provincial Premiers, collectively, in working out direction/details for a federal initiative; one that fits within existing provincial policy initiatives, if any.

as for the reference to Canada's failure in Kyoto compliance... failure in meeting Canada's emission reduction target... Canada was faced with a $14 billion penalty for failing to meet our target commitment (which could have been met in buying emissions reductions from other Kyoto protocol countries to meet the Canadian target... or Canada had the option to shift the failed commitment into the second phase of Kyoto). Instead, Harper chose to turn Canada away from Kyoto and pompously trumpeted, as an alternate, his "made in Canada" solution. Of course, this was simply the first of an ongoing stream of emission reduction commitments Harper made to the world community... the first of Harper's many emission reduction commitments that Harper failed to meet.

the ignorant comments that persist in holding that Canada's emission reduction is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, reflect upon a purposeful intent to ignore the impact Canadian tarsands and conventional oil exports has on the world, particularly the developing world. It's not a difficult concept to recognize that alternative sustainable development results in both direct emission reductions in Canada and indirect emission reductions in relation to countries receiving those 'managed' exports.

notwithstanding your link's author, the Sun's Lorne Goldstein, is a long standing denier... one somewhat unique in seeming to favour the label, "climate hysterics", over "alarmists".

[Topaz]

Speaking of water the Great Lakes are getting dirty again especially, Lake Erie and it doesn't help when the minister lives on the East coast and appears not to care.

[PIK]

It is all scams to tax the people even more.

[eyeball]

Speaking of water the Great Lakes are getting dirty again especially, Lake Erie and it doesn't help when the minister lives on the East coast and appears not to care.

You see a lot of that in our fisheries out on the coast too...managers and directors that live 1500 miles from the nearest ocean who wouldn't know what to do even if they did care.

[PIK]

What are the cost to have dirty air, water and land. The health care budgets are in the billions and in the US its in the trillions. Does one take out the other, which is greater importance health or finance or can we find a even solution???

Topaz, we could cut our emissions 100% and it is not going to anything but destroy the country. As long as china and america get away with what they are doing why should we. Tell me how 1.6% hurts anyone. Tell me how cutting it will work when nobody else is doing it.

[waldo]

Here in Toronto, we used to have a lot of "smog" alerts because of particulates in the air. Hardly have any now. Used to be that you could hardly ever swim in Lake Ontario - now it's much better. We've proven that we're perfectly able to clean up our air and water. CO2 is not a pollutant - we don't have to clean it up - and if we did reduce it, it wouldn't have any impact on Healthcare. If you disagree, perhaps you can tell me how reducing CO2 will help air, water and Healthcare?

CO2 is not a pollutant in the toxic sense of the word; it is however formally designated as a pollutant by both Environment Canada and the U.S. EPA

see Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) - by textbook definition, for example: an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year... intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in human health, net agricultural productivity, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change, etc.

.

[waldo]

Topaz, we could cut our emissions 100% and it is not going to anything but destroy the country. As long as china and america get away with what they are doing why should we. Tell me how 1.6% hurts anyone. Tell me how cutting it will work when nobody else is doing it.

you don't know what you're talking about

[PIK]

you don't know what you're talking about

Then explain it to me. Tell me how china gets to keep doing what it does for 30 more yrs, but yet we are the problem.

[waldo]

Then explain it to me. Tell me how china gets to keep doing what it does for 30 more yrs, but yet we are the problem.

you simply choose to ignore... to not read... posts that provide you the information. China does not, as you say, "get to keep doing what it does for 30 more years". There has been significant MLW discussion on just what the U.S.-China agreement means (which is what you can only be referring to)... educate yourself! To meet the China peak-pledge it must start immediately in order to not go beyond that mark. Educate yourself! The, "Canada problem", as you word it, reflects upon the expressed intent of Harper Conservatives/Big Oil to maximize development, unfettered/unrestricted/full speed ahead of the tarsands... to fully exploit it... and send the related export product to international markets. If you don't see that as a problem... then... you are a part of the problem.

[Keepitsimple]

CO2 is not a pollutant in the toxic sense of the word; it is however formally designated as a pollutant by both Environment Canada and the U.S. EPA

see Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) - by textbook definition, for example: an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year... intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in human health, net agricultural productivity, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change, etc.

.

That's not the question that I asked - it was....how does specifically reducing CO2 clean up air and water - and save on Healthcare? How does going from 400PPM back to 350PPM (for example) clean up water and air - and save on Healthcare? As I mentioned, Toronto air and water was a lot dirtier back when PPM were 370 or so.....and now we have cleaner air and water. Lets not confuse Global Warming Armagheddon with environmental cleanliness.

[waldo]

That's not the question that I asked

Lets not confuse Global Warming Armagheddon with environmental cleanliness.

sure it was - again, do some research on the social cost of carbon in relation to health. I mentioned examples of it in terms of direct health versus indirect health impacts related to increased emission affects (re increased warming) on agriculture, ecosystems, forests, oceans, water quality, extreme weather, etc., etc., etc..

to you... does health simply mean "environmental cleanliness", notwithstanding your most regional and localized look at Toronto air/water? It's a big world out there Simple!

[Keepitsimple]

sure it was - again, do some research on the social cost of carbon in relation to health. I mentioned examples of it in terms of direct health versus indirect health impacts related to increased emission affects (re increased warming) on agriculture, ecosystems, forests, oceans, water quality, extreme weather, etc., etc., etc..

to you... does health simply mean "environmental cleanliness", notwithstanding your most regional and localized look at Toronto air/water? It's a big world out there Simple!

I was "simply" responding to Topaz's dirty air and water - which you've been absolutely no help....but thanks for trying.

[waldo]

I was "simply" responding to Topaz's dirty air and water - which you've been absolutely no help....but thanks for trying.

I was "simply" responding to your narrow focus; to giving you a broad appreciation of how increased emissions can/do impact upon health, directly and indirectly. I was most helpful... you didn't even try!

[ReeferMadness]

We've had a carbon tax in BC for years. I haven't seen the resulting apocalypse yet.

[msj]

We've had a carbon tax in BC for years. I haven't seen the resulting apocalypse yet.

Yes I agree.

It's like chicken little syndrome or something.

[Argus]

A CO2 emission tax makes more sense than cap and trade.

Depends on your perspective. If the federal cap and trade is anything like the one Ontario is planning on it's designed to raise money for the government while being almost entirely opaque.

On the other hand, when the government slaps a tax on your electricity or gasoline, people notice.

[Argus]

We've had a carbon tax in BC for years. I haven't seen the resulting apocalypse yet.

Got a lot of intensive manufacturing in BC, do you? A large oil industry? And doesn't most of your power come from hydro anyway?

[Argus]

What are the cost to have dirty air, water and land. The health care budgets are in the billions and in the US its in the trillions. Does one take out the other, which is greater importance health or finance or can we find a even solution???

How does a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme have any impact on air or water pollution?

[Argus]

the ignorant comments that persist in holding that Canada's emission reduction is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, reflect upon a purposeful intent to ignore the impact Canadian tarsands and conventional oil exports has on the world,

Virtually nil.

Oilsands represents about 7% of Canada's emissions, which itself represents about 1.5% of the world emissions.

[waldo]

Virtually nil.

Oilsands represents about 7% of Canada's emissions, which itself represents about 1.5% of the world emissions.

what principles, what value assessment are you using to completely ignore that Canada is an emissions peddler? How is it you conveniently continue to ignore the emissions created by the burning of Canadian exported oil/gas/coal/tarsands sludge?