The Green Rise in Canada

[jacee]

On 5/17/2019 at 1:56 AM, August1991 said:

Some people want to change "the system".

As a conservative, I merely want to change the government.

====

But to return to my OP,  leftists always want to fix the world in one, good way - and yet they invariably disagree and argue among themselves. 

https://outabouter.com/2018/10/16/experts-say-vast-deserts-absence-of-life-may-indicate-mars-was-once-run-by-conservatives/

[ReeferMadness]

On 5/11/2019 at 6:27 AM, -1=e^ipi said:

With respect to people misunderstanding the magnitude of climate change, good examples include the Extinction Rebellion in the UK and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that the word will end in 12 years.

This statement is simply idiotic.  AOC never said that and people who claim she did have zero credibility.  Get your facts straight or stay out of the debate.

The 12 year timeframe has been repeated in dozens of news stories such as this one  which is quoting an IPCC report that says:

Quote

Global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C.

 

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, ReeferMadness said:

This statement is simply idiotic.  AOC never said that and people who claim she did have zero credibility.  Get your facts straight or stay out of the debate.

See beginning of youtube video.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

See beginning of youtube video.

You honestly believe she meant the literal physical destruction of the planet?

It was clearly a figure of speech in a informal discussion. Any attempt to portray it as more than that is ridiculous

[eyeball]

When someone says taking action against human caused climate change will destroy the economy, it sounds like they're alluding to an end of the world as we know it. Are they actually being literal or is it just a figure of speech?

[ImBrock]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You honestly believe she meant the literal physical destruction of the planet?

It was clearly a figure of speech in a informal discussion. Any attempt to portray it as more than that is ridiculous

Its actually a rather weak strawman argument. I'm going to give it a 2/10 on the strawman scale.

[-1=e^ipi]

My statement was that some people, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Extinction Rebellion people, misunderstand climate change. I gave the example of AOCs claims about the world ending in 12 years, after which Reefer Madness falsely accused me of lying about AOC.

 

With respect to eyeball's question of what I believe AOC meant, I do not think that AOC meant the physical destruction of the planet. My guess is that AOC's claim was more on the lines of if emissions are not reduced drastically in the next 12 years, a climate tipping point will be passed, which will cause runaway global warming and the extinction of humans. I think that this view is shared by the Extinction Rebellion people and also Elizabeth May of the Green Party. For example, May recently said:

 

"Somewhere below two degrees is the tipping point to where we run into something (that) scientists call runaway global warming," she said. "A self-accelerating irreversible global warming that could lead to temperatures that call into question the survival of this biosphere."

May said the Greens are the "only party that have a plan that allows human civilization to survive."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-carbon-emissions-climate-change-1.5138676

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-oil-green-party-leader-elizabeth-may-1.5151214

 

For the sake of relevant information, runaway global warming is unphysical for Earth. The feedbacks on Earth are too small to cause runaway global warming. This is the mainstream scientific position, and this position is backed up by a large quantity of scientific evidence, including General Climate Models, paleoclimate data, and our understanding of physics. The mainstream scientific position, according to the IPCC, is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases the global average temperature by 1.5-4.5 degrees celcius, a position that has been around since Arrhenius first quantified the magnitude of warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2 in 1896.

 

CO2 emissions are a problem, and the net negative externalities of CO2 emissions should be internalized with a pigouvian tax. However, that is very different from the claims of May, AOC, and Extinction Rebellion, that continued CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming, which will cause an extinction.

Edited June 9, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

With respect to eyeball's question of what I believe AOC meant, I do not think that AOC meant the physical destruction of the planet. My guess is that AOC's claim was more on the lines of if emissions are not reduced drastically in the next 12 years, a climate tipping point will be passed, which will cause runaway global warming and the extinction of humans. I think that this view is shared by the Extinction Rebellion people and also Elizabeth May of the Green Party. For example, May recently said:

 

"Somewhere below two degrees is the tipping point to where we run into something (that) scientists call runaway global warming," she said. "A self-accelerating irreversible global warming that could lead to temperatures that call into question the survival of this biosphere."

Speaking of tipping points they probably say this because that's what the IPCC and the vast VAST majority of scientists around the planet are saying.  Mass extinctions are entirely possible so too is the collapse of the economy and much of civilization around the globe due to the increasing dysfunction and collapse of the planet's ecosystems that are underwriting them.

Not the physical destruction of the planet but close enough to what is quite accurately describable as the end of the contemporary world as we know it.  For that reason we should be applying a strong precautionary principle and much MUCH sooner than later.

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Speaking of tipping points they probably say this because that's what the IPCC and the vast VAST majority of scientists around the planet are saying.

 

How much clearer do you need them to be? Elizabeth May specifically said runaway global warming and human extinction. The Extinction Rebellion has extinction in its name for a reason. Their claims not only do not align with mainstream climate science, but some of their claims, such as runaway global warming, are unphysical.

 

The green party doesn't understand climate science, but they're not going to get called out on it because the other parties don't understand climate science as well.

 

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Mass extinctions are entirely possible so too is the collapse of the economy

 

There are empirically based estimates of the impact of climate change on global GDP, and many of them are summarized by the IPCC's assessment reports. The magnitude of impact is a few % points of GDP, hardly the collapse of the economy.

 

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

For that reason we should be applying a strong precautionary principle and much MUCH sooner than later.

 

The strong precautionary principle is insane and self-contradictory. If you apply the strong precautionary principle to itself, then it says that you should not follow the strong precautionary principle since there is a risk of significant negative impacts by following it.

 

What you should do instead, is have a pigouvian tax, where the pigouvian tax is estimated while taking risk aversion into account. As William Nordhaus, the winner of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work in Climate Economics, has done.

Edited June 9, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

What you should do instead, is have a pigouvian tax, where the pigouvian tax is estimated while taking risk aversion into account. As William Nordhaus, the winner of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work in Climate Economics, has done.

A carbon tax in other words.  Only some 40 odd countries do this and all are under pressure to stop destroying the economy with it.

This seems like a pretty weak application of precaution.  Perhaps an additional carbon tariff on countries that refuse to get with the program would strengthen it.

Edited June 9, 2019 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

A carbon tax in other words.  Only some 40 odd countries do this and all are under pressure to stop destroying the economy with it.

This seems like a pretty weak application of precaution.  Perhaps an additional carbon tariff on countries that refuse to get with the program would strengthen it.

Well you need to deal with the free rider problem, obviously. Although the Paris agreement, an agreement where everyone does whatever they feel like and there are no penalties of not doing anything, will not address this. The green party also has zero plan to deal with the free-rider problem.

 

We need the main emitters & economic powers (USA, China, India, Europe) to agree to a pigouvian tax, and then threaten tariffs on any other country that doesn't agree to also imposing a pigouvian tax. Furthermore, to get the main emitters to agree to a pigouvian tax, countries (like Canada, Europe) shouldn't unilaterally decrease emissions too much, because that gets rid of our leverage over other countries to reduce their emissions. We should threaten not to reduce our emissions unless other countries agree to a global pigouvian tax, sort of like how we threaten to impose trade barriers on countries that impose trade barriers on us. This would increase the incentive for other countries to reduce their emissions and be a much better way to deal with the free-rider problem.

[ironstone]

Why doesn't AOC clearly state what exactly is going to happen to the world in 12 years if she doesn't get her way? If she makes a drastic statement like that, she certainly owes it to us to explain, in great detail,what's going to happen.

I'm kind of worried about the Greens making gains in Canada. They are basically a one issue party. Too much way too soon. It is somewhat helpful that the left/far left vote get's split up more than the right of centre vote.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Well you need to deal with the free rider problem, obviously. Although the Paris agreement, an agreement where everyone does whatever they feel like and there are no penalties of not doing anything, will not address this. The green party also has zero plan to deal with the free-rider problem.

 

We need the main emitters & economic powers (USA, China, India, Europe) to agree to a pigouvian tax, and then threaten tariffs on any other country that doesn't agree to also imposing a pigouvian tax. Furthermore, to get the main emitters to agree to a pigouvian tax, countries (like Canada, Europe) shouldn't unilaterally decrease emissions too much, because that gets rid of our leverage over other countries to reduce their emissions. We should threaten not to reduce our emissions unless other countries agree to a global pigouvian tax, sort of like how we threaten to impose trade barriers on countries that impose trade barriers on us. This would increase the incentive for other countries to reduce their emissions and be a much better way to deal with the free-rider problem.

Given how long it's taken to get even 40 odd countries on board with carbon taxes to be date the above sounds like a recipe for screwing the pooch for another 50 years. It'll take 15 years alone just to get people's heads around the word pigouvian.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Given how long it's taken to get even 40 odd countries on board with carbon taxes to be date the above sounds like a recipe for screwing the pooch for another 50 years. It'll take 15 years alone just to get people's heads around the word pigouvian.

You don't need 40, you just need the main economic powers to agree.

[Zeitgeist]

If China agreed to comply with a UN resolution to reduce emissions with all members of the Security Council, and their associated military and trading blocks, including members of the WTO, enforced by a form of taxation, that would both take care of emissions and trade imbalances.  Basically bring in labour and wage requirements of equal purchasing power between countries.  For example, if $15.00  buys you the equivalent of three meals worth of groceries, and that is the average hourly wage here and in most developed countries, then if you want to sell into these markets, ensure that average hourly wages in those countries buys you basically three meals at the grocery store.  Working hours and environmental policy would have to have similar standards to target markets  or face higher trade costs to offset the cheaper lower standards.  Good, enforceable international rules will save the planet.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If China agreed to comply with a UN resolution to reduce emissions with all members of the Security Council, and their associated military and trading blocks, including members of the WTO, enforced by a form of taxation, that would both take care of emissions and trade imbalances.  Basically bring in labour and wage requirements of equal purchasing power between countries.

 

Not that simple, as many nations would point out GHG emissions per capita as leverage.

China (and India) are not highest emitters per capita, and will not just roll over for climate change.

 

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not that simple, as many nations would point out GHG emissions per capita as leverage.

China (and India) are not highest emitters per capita, and will not just roll over for climate change.

 

It’s a matter of imposing costs for emission rises and incentives to reduce.  Cap and trade does that less painfully than carbon taxes.  It can’t be all on consumers.  I’m also more interested in direct policies such as banning coal burning energy production.  Doing that made Ontario a lead reducer.  Requiring solar and smart tech in building construction and switching to a share economy with EV fleets is probably the future.  The challenge is doing all these things without feeling a substantial drop in living standards.  Most people like big houses and private vehicles.  

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s a matter of imposing costs for emission rises and incentives to reduce.  Cap and trade does that less painfully than carbon taxes.  It can’t be all on consumers.  I’m also more interested in direct policies such as banning coal burning energy production. 

 

Cap and trade just shifts the emissions to developing countries, which will also demand more billions for lower emissions technology.

It is an even more difficult economic and political sell in developing nations, as those citizens know who currently enjoys a much higher standard of living with commensurate higher emissions per capita.

Coal fired power plants (and steel production) respond far more to economic conditions around the world.   Canadian (or American) circumstances do not apply to many other nations.

Edited June 10, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s a matter of imposing costs for emission rises and incentives to reduce.  Cap and trade does that less painfully than carbon taxes.  It can’t be all on consumers.  I’m also more interested in direct policies such as banning coal burning energy production.  Doing that made Ontario a lead reducer.  Requiring solar and smart tech in building construction and switching to a share economy with EV fleets is probably the future.  The challenge is doing all these things without feeling a substantial drop in living standards.  Most people like big houses and private vehicles.  

 

Where do you get this nonsense from? Cap and trade is more costly than taxing CO2 emissions, that is well accepted by economists, including William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics last year.

And yes, the CO2 emission tax should apply to all consumers because broad based taxes reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Where do you get this nonsense from? Cap and trade is more costly than taxing CO2 emissions, that is well accepted by economists, including William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics last year.

And yes, the CO2 emission tax should apply to all consumers because broad based taxes reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy.

Cap and trade incentivizes technological advancement in production because it creates a baseline against which to measure progress, whereas a carbon tax assumes that higher prices for consumer energy use will change behaviour, but consumers will always buy the best products for value.  If there aren’t better low emission products available, no real change in behaviour.  It’s like trying to force everyone onto public transit without building any heavy or light rail.  People still have to get to work, so they just pay more for fuel and their cost of living rises.  Incentives work: better mass transit, HOV lanes, etc.   I’m not sure carbon taxes on users does much more than dampen economic growth.  Direct policy interventions, such as banning single use plastics, will get a desired outcome, like only allowing LED lighting to be sold to consumers.  

[-1=e^ipi]

21 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Cap and trade incentivizes technological advancement in production because it creates a baseline against which to measure progress, whereas a carbon tax assumes that higher prices for consumer energy use will change behaviour, but consumers will always buy the best products for value.  If there aren’t better low emission products available, no real change in behaviour.  It’s like trying to force everyone onto public transit without building any heavy or light rail.  People still have to get to work, so they just pay more for fuel and their cost of living rises.  Incentives work: better mass transit, HOV lanes, etc.   I’m not sure carbon taxes on users does much more than dampen economic growth.  Direct policy interventions, such as banning single use plastics, will get a desired outcome, like only allowing LED lighting to be sold to consumers.  

 

They do the same thing, but cap and trade has a higher implementation cost and regulatory burden. CO2 emission taxes create a price wedge between the supply of CO2 emissions and the demand of CO2 emissions, which reduces the quantity of CO2 emissions. A CO2 cap creates a wedge between the price demanded for CO2 emissions and the price supplied for CO2 emissions, which becomes the price of cap and trade.

 

I invite you to consult your nearest economics textbook.

 

Or you could consult this article by the David Suzuki Foundation:

https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-tax-cap-trade/

"A carbon tax also has one key advantage: It is easier and quicker for governments to implement. A carbon tax can be very simple."

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

They do the same thing, but cap and trade has a higher implementation cost and regulatory burden. CO2 emission taxes create a price wedge between the supply of CO2 emissions and the demand of CO2 emissions, which reduces the quantity of CO2 emissions. A CO2 cap creates a wedge between the price demanded for CO2 emissions and the price supplied for CO2 emissions, which becomes the price of cap and trade.

 

I invite you to consult your nearest economics textbook.

 

Or you could consult this article by the David Suzuki Foundation:

https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-tax-cap-trade/

"A carbon tax also has one key advantage: It is easier and quicker for governments to implement. A carbon tax can be very simple."

A carbon tax is quick alright, quick to reduce people’s incomes. Taxing is always easy.  Canada is a big country and many Canadians have to drive distances with poor mass transit alternatives.  The carbon tax is a kick in the teeth to everyone but rich urbanites.  

[jacee]

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

A carbon tax is quick alright, quick to reduce people’s incomes.

Horsesh!t. Rebates are higher than costs at lower income levels where the  relief is needed. 

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, jacee said:

Horsesh!t. Rebates are higher than costs at lower income levels where the  relief is needed. 

But if the goal is redistribution of income, then it would be far more efficient to increase the GST, which has a lower cost to the economy, and use the additional revenues to create a universal basic income.

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, jacee said:

Horsesh!t. Rebates are higher than costs at lower income levels where the  relief is needed. 

Who pays for that relief?  Oh yeah taxpayers.