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

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

Did you miss the eight other examples I gave? 

 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

Just because you don't like to hear other opinions than your own, doesn't make them wrong. It is vital to hear opposing views in order to grow. But the CBC is a lot more than politics and news. What private broadcaster has programming such as the Nature of Things, Cross Country Check-up, Quirks and Quarks, Coronation Street, As It Happens, Ideas, Q,  Rick Mercer, and quality children's programming.

"CBC as a whole had 24.2-million monthly average unique visitors in fiscal 2022," (Globe and Mail)

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why the hell are WE pretending we can do ANYTHING about GHGs

I'd like to think we're doing it in the hope that setting a better example is preferable to giving up and doing nothing and ignoring the issue.

I get it, moral suasion isn't cutting it, but it's still the right thing to do.

I've yet to see any politicians openly suggesting giving up is the only option and policy but our action speaks loud enough.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Did you miss the eight other examples I gave? 
 

Fine - just because 8 countries waste money doesn't make it a core duty    Really you should have worked that out on your own.
 

Quote

Just because you don't like to hear other opinions than your own, doesn't make them wrong. It is vital to hear opposing views in order to grow. erage unique visitors in fiscal 2022," (Globe and Mail)

It DOES absolutely mean i shouldn't have to pay for it.  And i suspect if the gov't was supporting fox news to come to canada to the tune of well over a billion dollars a year you'd be singing a different tune.  If you want to spend public money then BOTH sides should be represented.

And it's not a different opinion - it's misinformation and political hackery. Look at the alberta election - that was utterly shameful behavior on their behalf.

Quote

But the CBC is a lot more than politics and news. What private broadcaster has programming such as the Nature of Things, Cross Country Check-up, Quirks and Quarks, Coronation Street, As It Happens, Ideas, Q,  Rick Mercer, and quality children's programming.

Thats nice - so pay for it.  Just like people pay for the disney channel.  YOU pay for it, YOU subscribe and YOU keep it on the air. Nobody's stopping you.  We're just talking about completely de funding it .    So YOU and those millions of others can pay for it.

I think you'll find when push comes to shove - millions don't think it's worth paying for.

I'm sorry - if you wanted to keep the cbc you should have been speaking up to make it more fair and inclusive a long time ago. At this point it's just getting scrapped. There's nothing you can do to stop it at this point - PP will win, he will defund it, and the lefties like yourself will refuse to dig into their pockets to pay for it.  CBC radio and a few podcasts might survive.  And some french shows

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd like to think we're doing it in the hope that setting a better example is preferable to giving up and doing nothing and ignoring the issue.

So virtue signalling.  That's some pretty damn expensive virtue signalling. And we're not actually lowering our emissions.

Quote

I get it, moral suasion isn't cutting it, but it's still the right thing to do.

It's causing a generation of kids to grow up with poor parents who can't give them what our parents gave us.  How is that "the right thing"?

Quote

I've yet to see any politicians openly suggesting giving up is the only option and policy but our action speaks loud enough.

Well this is the thing. There are those who say nothing and do nothing,  and those who say lots but do nothing, and nobody who admits that theres nothing to do and that's the plan

[Queenmandy85]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

Is saving the lives of future generations a core duty of the government? Our actions today are going to determine the survival of future generations of Canadians.

I have to assume that if you end the carbon tax, you will bring in rationing of fossil fuels.

 

[Queenmandy85]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It DOES absolutely mean i shouldn't have to pay for it.

You sound like a Liberal. You are certainly consumed with money, rather than conservative values. 

[Legato]

12 hours 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. 

Casino's are a choice, the carbon tax is not, They do have one thing in common, neither achieve anything.

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Casino's are a choice, the carbon tax is not, They do have one thing in common, neither achieve anything.

Well, as I said, we can replace the carbon tax with rationing. At least with the carbon tax you have a choice to burn less fossil fuel. That is the whole point. We can reduce carbon emissions or herd future generations into a global crematorium.

[suds]

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

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. 

Can't say I disagree with anything you've posted but you're missing the whole point. It's been 30 years since the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and 25 years since Kyoto. Do you see any improvement on total world GHG emissions? Do you see any signs of where it might improve in the near future with world population set to increase by 2.3 billion people over the next 60 years?  I don't. Any chart I've seen shows world GHG emissions going up and up and up and up. This is a global problem and not a domestic problem, and realistically if we are to achieve set goals (while maintaining acceptable living standards) we have to embrace nuclear and drastically limit or reduce population growth as a main part of any solution. That's my whole point. And you're absolutely right about us (and the US as well) exporting all our dirty manufacturing jobs to places like China with low environmental standards. It does nothing for our economy and does nothing for reducing GHG emissions on a global scale. But it makes politicians look good, as if we're actually accomplishing something.

[suds]

35 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You sound like a Liberal. You are certainly consumed with money, rather than conservative values. 

Sounds more like a fiscal conservative to me. It takes one to know one.

[Legato]

31 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Well, as I said, we can replace the carbon tax with rationing. At least with the carbon tax you have a choice to burn less fossil fuel. That is the whole point. We can reduce carbon emissions or herd future generations into a global crematorium.

There are many people who do not have a choice. Canada is severally lacking in public transport, why not use the weather tax to fund more PT.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Is saving the lives of future generations a core duty of the government? Our actions today are going to determine the survival of future generations of Canadian

 

According to the courst - no, not really   but preserving our sovereignty for future generations is.  So to answer your specific question no, there is no all encompassing obligation to save the future.

It's something most canadians want to do - leave a better country for our children.  But - then you have to prove it'll be better. The problem with your kind is you say "want to leave a better country? THen you MUST do this cockamamie idea that very clearly hasn't produced results and if you want to do ANYTHING else instead or DARE question this then you are an EVIL PERSON WHO WANTS TO DESTROY THE FUTURE

And really - that just makes your kind a lying sack of shite.  Not worthy of giving the time of day to.  So i hope that's not where YOU personally were going,

Rationing is every bit as useless and more - it destroys the economy and achieves nothing at all.

And no - people can't "choose" to freeze in the winter.  Or roast in heat waves.  They can't "Choose" not to drive for work if their work requires it. People in smaller towns or remote communities with limited transit can't "choose' not to be able to shop for food and the like.

That is the problem. The original models for carbon tax assumed that energy costs were 'elastic',  and it has long since proven they are not.  So - the tax doesn't stop people from driving, it stops them from buying as much food.  From buying clothes. From going out or on vacations.  In short - it hurts the economy before it does anything for 'carbon'.

 

[Queenmandy85]

If we continue in the direction we are going, the temperature will rise at an accelerating rate, faster than the earth can adapt. It is the velocity that is the problem. Previous warming periods took place over millennia, not centuries. 

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, suds said:

Can't say I disagree with anything you've posted but you're missing the whole point. It's been 30 years since the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and 25 years since Kyoto. Do you see any improvement on total world GHG emissions? Do you see any signs of where it might improve in the near future with world population set to increase by 2.3 billion people over the next 60 years?  I don't. Any chart I've seen shows world GHG emissions going up and up and up and up. This is a global problem and not a domestic problem, and realistically if we are to achieve set goals (while maintaining acceptable living standards) we have to embrace nuclear and drastically limit or reduce population growth as a main part of any solution. That's my whole point. And you're absolutely right about us (and the US as well) exporting all our dirty manufacturing jobs to places like China with low environmental standards. It does nothing for our economy and does nothing for reducing GHG emissions on a global scale. But it makes politicians look good, as if we're actually accomplishing something.

I don’t expect drastic lowering of emissions for decades because the tech required isn’t available yet and no one will accept lower living standards to “fight climate change”, especially if other countries aren’t making similar sacrifices.

Global emissions will probably increase annually for decades.  It will require migration and adaptation.  Canada will be a net beneficiary of this.  Polar bears lose.  Inuit mariners win.  Until the tech that could really make a difference is widely and cheaply available, we can make small incremental improvements in how we live to lower emissions and we can adapt.

 I know it sounds a bit harsh, but doomsaying and worry accomplish nothing.  Explore your interests and try to hold on to your comforts and freedom until the climate gestapo make you stay home and live a virtual life on Meta. 

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If we continue in the direction we are going, the temperature will rise at an accelerating rate, faster than the earth can adapt. It is the velocity that is the problem. Previous warming periods took place over millennia, not centuries. 

The Earth will always adapt.  Cockroaches can survive global nuclear wars.  It’s humans we have to protect.  We can adapt.  Hopefully we don’t have to leave Earth.  

Edited August 31, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Is saving the lives of future generations a core duty of the government? Our actions today are going to determine the survival of future generations of Canadians.

I have to assume that if you end the carbon tax, you will bring in rationing of fossil fuels.

 

Or, I can let the climate suckers do that and emigrate to a country that doesn’t care.  See the problem?