Carbon by Country over time: Why are we taxing Canadians?

[CdnFox]

This is a graphic of Carbon output by Country over time. Why the hell are WE pretending we can do ANYTHING about GHGs, and why are we taxing ourselves to death?

 

 

 

[Legato]

Ideology tends to supersede practicology.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Ideology tends to supersede practicology.

I mean, we’re not even on the screen anymore by the current date. We are that insignificant. 

[Legato]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I mean, we’re not even on the screen anymore by the current date. We are that insignificant. 

If the graph showed a countries futility in taxing it's population to change the weather we would be top of the list.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Legato
spllelling

[Queenmandy85]

Well, if you are worried about taxes, it costs about 970 billion to operate the government of Canada. During the hight of the pandemic, it cost over a trillion. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the services Canadians want. It is easy to cut off the services I don't use but millions of others do, but that really isn't fair. Eg. tens of millions of people want the CBC, but a few Socreds are upset by hearing news they don't like so they want to ruin it for everyone else.

I don't like to see the government waste money on a crappy F-35 that will be so expensive we can only buy a few and so, will be overwhelmed in a real war. But other people want it. So I pay my taxes to buy them. If you think taxes are high in Canada, try living in Norway. 

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is a graphic of Carbon output by Country over time. Why the hell are WE pretending we can do ANYTHING about GHGs,

First, we can't tell India, China or the US to cut their emissions if we don't. Our contribution should be to build nuclear reactors all over the world and supply them with fuel from Western Canada. 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

First, we can't tell India, China or the US to cut their emissions if we don't. Our contribution should be to build nuclear reactors all over the world and supply them with fuel from Western Canada. 

Yes we should build those reactors but please don’t be silly by thinking any of those countries are going to take climate action advice from us.  Our emissions continue to climb with our carbon taxes and immigration. China won’t change its standards for us.  The US won’t match our existence tax.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Boges]

Per Capita, Canada's emissions are three times that of China. Higher than the US to.

That's why we should be encouraged to reduce emissions. 

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

#	Country	CO2 Emissions per capita (tons)	CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)	Population (2016)
1	China	7.44	10,432,751,400	1,401,889,681
2	United States	15.32	5,011,686,600	327,210,198
3	India	1.89	2,533,638,100	1,338,636,340
4	Russia	11.45	1,661,899,300	145,109,157
5	Japan	9.76	1,239,592,060	126,993,857
6	Germany	9.42	775,752,190	82,331,423
7	Canada	18.72	675,918,610	36,113,532
8	Iran	7.71	642,560,030	83,306,231

Edited August 30, 2023 by Boges

[suds]

According to the chart, China's total GHG emissions have quadrupled since 1990, while the International Energy Agency estimates that China's GHG emissions/capita have tripled over the same time period. India's emissions/capita have doubled. Consider also that the vast majority of much smaller developing nations have substantially increased GHG emissions (per capita) in their desire to provide a more affluent western lifestyle for its citizens. Latest figures provided by the IEA show that total world GHG emissions increased by 6%. The factors affecting climate change don't care about GHG emissions/capita, but only TOTAL world GHG emissions. Any realistic (and fair) approach in reducing world GHG emisions would result in many countries taking quite a hit in living standards while others increased theirs. Or... do something about reducing world population on a drastic scale. No matter how you look at it, with the technology we have today any increase in world population will have a negative affect on climate change and on everyone's living standards. So it becomes a tradeoff. So why isn't anyone (except for the odd few) not taking reducing world population seriously?

[ExFlyer]

37 minutes ago, Boges said:

Per Capita, Canada's emissions are three times that of China. Higher than the US to.

That's why we should be encouraged to reduce emissions. 

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

#	Country	CO2 Emissions per capita (tons)	CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)	Population (2016)
1	China	7.44	10,432,751,400	1,401,889,681
2	United States	15.32	5,011,686,600	327,210,198
3	India	1.89	2,533,638,100	1,338,636,340
4	Russia	11.45	1,661,899,300	145,109,157
5	Japan	9.76	1,239,592,060	126,993,857
6	Germany	9.42	775,752,190	82,331,423
7	Canada	18.72	675,918,610	36,113,532
8	Iran	7.71	642,560,030	83,306,231

Per capita in this case is meaningless. It is easy to lessen output per capita if you have several billion people. I am sure Monaco, the country of luxury cars and no industry is higher than Canada and China too.

[Zeitgeist]

Canada’s population is very spread out, our winter heating needs are brutal, and natural resource development is our bread and butter.  Canada is not reducing emissions and bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year at the same time.

Canada cannot reduce emissions without expanding rapid rail options, expanding nuclear or hydro power, and reducing immigration levels.  Ever.

Carbon taxes do nothing basically because everyone needs energy and there simply aren’t affordable “green” transportation and power options.  Adding them through tax breaks and/or subsidies won’t make much difference.

Only a technological revolution and code changes to how we build and produce on a mass scale, along with the measures I already mentioned (lower immigration, better transit options, and more large scale non-emitting power production) will make substantial change.

However, we barely make a dent in global emissions compared to China and India.  Also, what is the impact of our population to land mass ratio?  That matters too.  So much depends on the data collected and the questions you ask.

 I think we should try to lower emissions, but not through unproven means if the costs are high.  High living standards bring better education and technology, leading to greater efficiency, productivity, and greener ways to do everything.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, suds said:

According to the chart, China's total GHG emissions have quadrupled since 1990, while the International Energy Agency estimates that China's GHG emissions/capita have tripled over the same time period. India's emissions/capita have doubled. Consider also that the vast majority of much smaller developing nations have substantially increased GHG emissions (per capita) in their desire to provide a more affluent western lifestyle for its citizens. Latest figures provided by the IEA show that total world GHG emissions increased by 6%. The factors affecting climate change don't care about GHG emissions/capita, but only TOTAL world GHG emissions. Any realistic (and fair) approach in reducing world GHG emisions would result in many countries taking quite a hit in living standards while others increased theirs. Or... do something about reducing world population on a drastic scale. No matter how you look at it, with the technology we have today any increase in world population will have a negative affect on climate change and on everyone's living standards. So it becomes a tradeoff. So why isn't anyone (except for the odd few) not taking reducing world population seriously?

World population is set to decline significantly as the Boomers die off, a more educated urban population has fewer kids, and sperm counts continue to drop.  Without immigration almost all western countries would have a negative birth rate.  The same will happen in developing countries as they become developed.  The 2050’s are the Big Crunch.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Well, if you are worried about taxes, it costs about 970 billion to operate the government of Canada. During the hight of the pandemic, it cost over a trillion. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the services Canadians want. It is easy to cut off the services I don't use but millions of others do, but that really isn't fair. Eg. tens of millions of people want the CBC, but a few Socreds are upset by hearing news they don't like so they want to ruin it for everyone else.

I don't like to see the government waste money on a crappy F-35 that will be so expensive we can only buy a few and so, will be overwhelmed in a real war. But other people want it. So I pay my taxes to buy them. If you think taxes are high in Canada, try living in Norway. 

those figures are wildly innacurate.  heck - in 2021-22  the total gov't expenditures were 628.9  billion. It was almost the same in 2020-2021

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2022/report.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2021/report.html

Nowadays it costs less supposedly - although the gov't hasn't released total budget expenditures for this year for some reason.

As far as services go - it IS ENTIRELY fair to say if lots of people don't use or want a service the gov't shouldn't be paying for it.   If tens of millions of people love the cbc (and i think you're overestinating that by about 9.9s millions)  then THEY CAN PAY FOR IT.

Why on earth should i pay for a non essential service i don't want? There's nothing REMOTELY fair about that - cancell the funding and let people like you dig into your own pocket and pay for it.

That's going to apply to a LOT of services i think.  Grants and spending and bloated bureaucracies that we don't need to be funding at all

 

Sorry kiddo - people are more concerned about eating than being able to watch reruns of beachcombers.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

First, we can't tell India, China or the US to cut their emissions if we don't.

We absolutely can.  Of course we can. What a silly thing to say.  The OPPOSITE would be true - they can't ask us to do anything if they're not willing.

Either this is destroying the planet or it isn't - if it is as the biggest polluter they should want to do something whether the smallest does or not.

And they don't want our nuclear reactors at the moment. 

 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

First, we can't tell India, China or the US to cut their emissions if we don't. Our contribution should be to build nuclear reactors all over the world and supply them with fuel from Western Canada. 

Since when did anyone listen to what Canada has to say, we are like that little squeaky dog in the Disney movie, can i do it spike can i can i...We are not the leading nation we think we are, and if we think we are you have been drinking the cool aid.....

second we have not built anything in regards to new clean energy sources, becasue the left environmentalist does not like nuclear reactors, to the point that even this direction is poisoned...leaving us with solar and wind, which is not enough to power our nation now, and certainly not our future needs...That point aside what has our government done in regards to climate change other than tax us...

Have they improved our electrical grids, poured bils into R&D for an alternative energy source, have they provided incentives to have citizens improve their household energy systems, NOPE to all these questions... they tax you then at the end of the year give some back to you...thats the plan...so when other countries look at what Canada is doing they laugh...and gullible leftist think the plan is working.    

[suds]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

World population is set to decline significantly as the Boomers die off, a more educated urban population has fewer kids, and sperm counts continue to drop.  Without immigration almost all western countries would have a negative birth rate.  The same will happen in developing countries as they become developed.  The 2050’s are the Big Crunch.

The UN's population division estimates world population will peak around 10.4 billion in 2086 which would be an increase of 2.3 billion from today's figure. Estimates from other sources claim population will peak between 2060-2070. Whatever, it might be wise to assume the worst case scenario of 2.3 billion more bodies to accommodate in 2086 if the increase in world population goes unchecked. What is a realistic number for world population in terms of dealing with climate change and resources while maintaining acceptable (and equitable) living standards for all? You tell me. If things aren't fair and equitable now, they're only going to get worse.

 

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

As far as services go - it IS ENTIRELY fair to say if lots of people don't use or want a service the gov't shouldn't be paying for it.   If tens of millions of people love the cbc (and i think you're overestinating that by about 9.9s millions)  then THEY CAN PAY FOR IT.

You could say the same about DND and that would save a lot more money. Nobody in Canada actually wants a viable military. What we have is a token, incapable of defending the realm. So why spend all that money. Let the people who do want a military pay for it themselves. I'm just using that as an example. I don't want to derail the thread.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You could say the same about DND and that would save a lot more money. Nobody in Canada actually wants a viable military.

No you could not. National defense is in fact a core duty for a sovereign nation.  And what you're proposing when you say people can buy it themselves is that people be allowed to pay for their own tanks and missiles out of pocket.  I'm not sure that's a thing ontairo would want to allow ,. oh, say albertans to pick a province at random ..  to do.  

So nice attempt at a straw man - but no.  THat was an utter intellectual fail.

Gov'ts don't exist to spread information, that's not a core duty. They certainly don't exist to spread MISinformation which is mostly what the Cbc does these days.   Pay for it yourself.

Want lesbian dance theory? Pay for it yourself. Want to be a nurse or an engineer or a business person - fine. Those benefit society, and pay back their costs in revenue and service.

 

But sorry - no gov't owes the world a cbc.  Cancel it and if you like it pay for it. Gov't doesnt' need to be in the entertainment business.

[Queenmandy85]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Gov'ts don't exist to spread information, that's not a core duty

Actually it is. We have the CBC and the Mother Country has the BBC. Many western nations have a public broadcaster. NRK, BBC, France Televisions, Deutsche Welle, RTE (Ireland), RTVE (Spain), Radio New Zealand National - NZ on Air, and the Australia Broadcasting Corporation are all state owned public broadcasters. 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

National defense is in fact a core duty for a sovereign nation

If that were true, we would have a viable military capable of fulfilling its core duty, to defend the realm rather than the token force we have now. I would not be surprised if more people in Canada support the CBC than DND.

Back to the purpose of the thread, If we build enough nuclear power plants in Canada we can demonstrate that prosperity will increase even when emissions are reduced to 10%. We offer to build reactors in every country that will take them from Albania to Zambia. 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Actually it is. We have the CBC and the Mother Country has the BBC

No it isn't. Can you point to it in the charter? Or the constitution?  Nope? Me neither.

The fact that we and one other country waste money on something doesn't make it a core duty.

There was some validity to the idea back when it was the only service for huge areas of Canada where no commercial outfits would go.  But those days are long long long gone.

And there's absolutely no place for partisan hackery in a public broadcaster.

Sorry - they're gone and should be. It's wrong for the gov't to be providing that service. 

22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Back to the purpose of the thread, If we build enough nuclear power plants in Canada we can demonstrate that prosperity will increase even when emissions are reduced to 10%

Well we can't afford it after the carbon tax  

Ontario and alberta will be building new ones but  most of the rest of the country uses hydro.  BC actually has a law forbidding nuclear power for some damn reason, the NDP just announced they intend to keep it and won't consider nukes.

[Queenmandy85]

I find it hard to reconcile people's resistance to paying a carbon tax but , are willing to flush billions of dollars down the toilet in casinos and lottery kiosks. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of money. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I find it hard to reconcile people's resistance to paying a carbon tax but , are willing to flush billions of dollars down the toilet in casinos and lottery kiosks.

There is a much much much higher chance the lottery will have some species of positive effect  on the world   

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, suds said:

The UN's population division estimates world population will peak around 10.4 billion in 2086 which would be an increase of 2.3 billion from today's figure. Estimates from other sources claim population will peak between 2060-2070. Whatever, it might be wise to assume the worst case scenario of 2.3 billion more bodies to accommodate in 2086 if the increase in world population goes unchecked. What is a realistic number for world population in terms of dealing with climate change and resources while maintaining acceptable (and equitable) living standards for all? You tell me. If things aren't fair and equitable now, they're only going to get worse.

 

 

 

The rich countries have the solutions, but adding taxes to essential energy and transportation needs (carbon taxes) for individuals and businesses does little but make us poorer.  Basically we all pay more and accept lower living standards because the current “green” options can’t meet our needs and are too expensive.  Phase in a requirement that new roof systems incorporate solar, provide tax credits for roof retrofits, improving insulation, and incorporating technologies like deep water cooling and geothermal when large developments are planned.  Gradually replace coal with small nuclear or hydro where coal is still burning.  Carbon capture is improving too.

Don’t make driving unaffordable through taxation or ban conveniences like disposable bags when green options become available.  That’s the point of our policy, to innovate our way to lower emissions without lowering living standards.

We also need much more widely available, faster rail transportation.

Growth should be coming through innovation and productivity, not adding millions of people without the necessary infrastructure and efficient services and social adjustment.  We’re actively destroying our quality of life, raising the cost of living, and raising emissions.  We’re also shifting all dirty energy, manufacturing and jobs to Asia, where environmental standards are lower and production is cheaper.  We’re not working smarter.  The private sector must be leveraged.  High living standards bring research and innovation.  Poverty does the opposite. 

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I find it hard to reconcile people's resistance to paying a carbon tax but , are willing to flush billions of dollars down the toilet in casinos and lottery kiosks. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of money. 

People bet in the hope of making money.  Raising the cost of living isn’t the answer to solving climate change.  It does make us poorer and hurts businesses.  I think tax breaks for green investments can help, but ultimately it’s innovation that will get us there.  We need carrots, not sticks.  

Edited August 31, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

People bet in the hope of making money.  Raising the cost of living isn’t the answer to solving climate change.  It does make us poorer and hurts businesses.  I think tax breaks for green investments can help, but ultimately it’s innovation that will get us there.  We need carrots, not sticks.  

That's the beginning and the end really.  Advances in tech are the only way we make a difference.  People can't be forced to change without something as good or better to change into.