Jump to content

I solved the carbon issue in Canada


Recommended Posts

Solution:  slap a large fee to the price of any new gas-only vehicle that has a hybrid or EV alternative, then use these fees to add more rebates to the cost of new hybrid and EVs.

ie:  A Toyota Corolla, which starts at $20k new, has a $5000 carbon fee, so costs 25k.  Toyota Prius starts at 30k new.  Add a $5k rebate, and the Prius and Corolla now cost the same, while the drivers get savings on gas refills due to the hybrid tech, and therefore many will choose the hybrid over the gas-only car.

This program is revenue-neutral.  You can also lower or eliminate the controversial carbon taxes.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a great solution: End all carbon taxes and “climate action” spending, which will lower the cost of living for all. More people will be able to afford higher education and green technology.  Production and energy will become more efficient and green as the world population ebbs and falls due to low birth rates mid-century.   By the 2060’s global annual emissions will be much lower.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Solution:  slap a large fee to the price of any new gas-only vehicle that has a hybrid or EV alternative, then use these fees to add more rebates to the cost of new hybrid and EVs.

ie:  A Toyota Corolla, which starts at $20k new, has a $5000 carbon fee, so costs 25k.  Toyota Prius starts at 30k new.  Add a $5k rebate, and the Prius and Corolla now cost the same, while the drivers get savings on gas refills due to the hybrid tech, and therefore many will choose the hybrid over the gas-only car.

This program is revenue-neutral.  You can also lower or eliminate the controversial carbon taxes.

Lol...how...silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Solution:  slap a large fee to the price of any new gas-only vehicle that has a hybrid or EV alternative, then use these fees to add more rebates to the cost of new hybrid and EVs.

ie:  A Toyota Corolla, which starts at $20k new, has a $5000 carbon fee, so costs 25k.  Toyota Prius starts at 30k new.  Add a $5k rebate, and the Prius and Corolla now cost the same, while the drivers get savings on gas refills due to the hybrid tech, and therefore many will choose the hybrid over the gas-only car.

This program is revenue-neutral.  You can also lower or eliminate the controversial carbon taxes.

Transportation is far from the entire problem.

Are you also going to slap a tax on poorly insulated homes or poorly insulated homes' heating bills, in order to subsidize home retrofitting and renovations which make homes more energy efficient; slap a tax on appliances which are energy hungry in order to subsidize appliances which are more energy efficient; slap a tax on factories which are more polluting in order to subsidize less polluting factories; slap a tax on high-carbon farms in order to subsidize farms which are less carbon intense; slap a tax on imported items which are capable of being produced locally in order to subsidize more locally produced items?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

High per capita carbon output and pushback over carbon taxes.

Here's the solution to that. Stop calling carbon dioxide carbon and it will help you with your indoctrination problem where you're being inculcated with BS terms to believe there is a problem when there's no real evidence there is. Carbon Dioxide is clear, clean and necessary for plants to exist. Saying Carbon when you mean Carbon Dioxide is meant to convince the gullibles CO2 is black and pollutey.

Oh and while you're at it lose that goofy term "climate change". Climate changes. That has nothing to do with what you're being told to get all Swedish teenager over. What you're actually being frightened about is the more correctly termed "bad weather." Heat waves happen. They didn't start with Al Gore. Heat records were being set for the 100 year temperature record long before Al.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Climate change is caused by humans, almost certainly.  A graph that trends up and up is not a "wave".

Science Trolls will kill us...

Did Climate change exist long before you decided get all chicken little about it? Of course it did. So what's with this bogus redefining of the term. So now extreme summer heat is climate change but extreme winter cold is just bad weather, is it?

As far as graphs trending up they've actually stopped doing that in any way predicted by the computer models Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on.

BTW, speaking of bad science, did you notice the Artic Ice that was supposed to be gone years ago is not only still there, it increased this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Here's the solution to that. Stop calling carbon dioxide carbon and it will help you with your indoctrination problem where you're being inculcated with BS terms to believe there is a problem when there's no real evidence there is. Carbon Dioxide is clear, clean and necessary for plants to exist. Saying Carbon when you mean Carbon Dioxide is meant to convince the gullibles CO2 is black and pollutey.

Oh and while you're at it lose that goofy term "climate change". Climate changes. That has nothing to do with what you're being told to get all Swedish teenager over. What you're actually being frightened about is the more correctly termed "bad weather." Heat waves happen. They didn't start with Al Gore. Heat records were being set for the 100 year temperature record long before Al.

You should write science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Did Climate change exist long before you decided get all chicken little about it? Of course it did.

2. So what's with this bogus redefining of the term.

3. So now extreme summer heat is climate change but extreme winter cold is just bad weather, is it?

4. As far as graphs trending up they've actually stopped doing that in any way predicted by the computer models Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on.

5. BTW, speaking of bad science, did you notice the Artic Ice that was supposed to be gone years ago is not only still there, it increased this year.

1. Yes.
2. I think it means the same thing: climate changing.
3. There's no extreme cold happening, it's all warmer.
4. That's incorrect.
5. If you want to give some cites we could have a look... but every example people have posted is cherry picked, or non-scientists like Gore making extreme claims...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.
2. I think it means the same thing: climate changing.
3. There's no extreme cold happening, it's all warmer.
4. That's incorrect.
5. If you want to give some cites we could have a look... but every example people have posted is cherry picked, or non-scientists like Gore making extreme claims...

You just wasted 5 minutes of your life.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You just wasted 5 minutes of your life.

That took about one minute to type.  When ID goes off to some conspiracy site to get evidence for the hoax theory it will inevitably be something debunked years ago.  I will google it, post the link and a quoted excerpt and that will be that.

Temperatures are going up - only the hardcore loonies are arguing that they're not, maybe because they don't go outside.  Now as to a reason.... well we know the main drivers of temperature, and since CO2 is one of them and humans have produced very much of that substance we have an obvious answer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Here's the solution to that. Stop calling carbon dioxide carbon and it will help you with your indoctrination problem where you're being inculcated with BS terms to believe there is a problem when there's no real evidence there is. Carbon Dioxide is clear, clean and necessary for plants to exist. Saying Carbon when you mean Carbon Dioxide is meant to convince the gullibles CO2 is black and pollutey.

Oh and while you're at it lose that goofy term "climate change". Climate changes. That has nothing to do with what you're being told to get all Swedish teenager over. What you're actually being frightened about is the more correctly termed "bad weather." Heat waves happen. They didn't start with Al Gore. Heat records were being set for the 100 year temperature record long before Al.

Carbon dioxide is carbon and it is a greenhouse gas. One atom of carbon bonded to two atoms of oxygen.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting proposal. If the supply of hybrids and EVs was upped, perhaps worth considering. But the Gang of Dinosaurs would just refuse to buy vehicles that had hybrid/EV versions and double their snivelling and whining.

Thought you might like an answer other than the usual denial. deflection and Trudeau hate they're only capable of posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

Interesting proposal. If the supply of hybrids and EVs was upped, perhaps worth considering. But the Gang of Dinosaurs would just refuse to buy vehicles that had hybrid/EV versions and double their snivelling and whining.

Thought you might like an answer other than the usual denial. deflection and Trudeau hate they're only capable of posting.

It is an interesting proposal but as long as there are mile long wait lists for EV's and PHEV's, I see no need for any cash incentives to buy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.
2. I think it means the same thing: climate changing.
3. There's no extreme cold happening, it's all warmer.
4. That's incorrect.
5. If you want to give some cites we could have a look... but every example people have posted is cherry picked, or non-scientists like Gore making extreme claims...

 

1. Climate Change and Climate Catastrophism are 2 different things. When you try to equate one with the other you're being intentionally evasive or just ignorant. Take your pick.

3. Again you're pretending not to know something I know you do know. Every winter we hear about extreme cold weather somewhere. 

4. On this one I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know any better and aren't just pretending to be ignorant. There are hundreds of climate models, perhaps thousands. It they want to claim accuracy they can find a few that come close if certain conditions are applied or if they backcast. But as far as the models they use to convince the gullibles warmageddon is coming, those don't even come close to what happened with the actual climate.

Here they are in a bunch judged against actual temperatures as gathered by satellite.

24.jpg

5. Do you mean you want a cite that the arctic ice started to return this year? Try this one from the Danish Meteorological Institute:

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Or do you mean you want examples of failed climate predictions  including the well known one that arctic ice would disappear in the Summer?

There are many examples of the Ice Free arctic by greenhouse gases prediction and many more that just predict the results of such a mass melt. My favorite was the one from NASA GISS head Jim Hansen who was predicting the flooding of Manhattan (something like that anyway) a decade or so ago.

But here's one for you:

37.jpg

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Carbon dioxide is carbon and it is a greenhouse gas. One atom of carbon bonded to two atoms of oxygen.

Again, is it that you think we're stupid or is it just you?

You tell us Carbon and Carbon dioxide are the same thing then tell us why they're different. What about Hydrogen H and Water H20? Are they the same thing? You can fill a balloon with one and float it in the air. If you fill a balloon with the other you'll sink it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Again, is it that you think we're stupid or is it just you?

You tell us Carbon and Carbon dioxide are the same thing then tell us why they're different. What about Hydrogen H and Water H20? Are they the same thing? You can fill a balloon with one and float it in the air. If you fill a balloon with the other you'll sink it. 

Ya, I do.

You can't have carbon dioxide without carbon. The carbon comes from the fuel you are using combining with the oxygen in the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,350
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    TomT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
    • Contrarian went up a rank
      Veteran
    • ptif219 earned a badge
      First Post
    • waterman32 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...