The carbon tax is going up and so are emissions

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I didn't post anything about dairy. 

And yet that's what we were talking about. Amusing.

 

Quote

Nobody else posted anything about dairy.  That's just your lame pivot after faceplanting again.  🤣

Sigh.  - this all started with herbies comment below

The ship from Honduras costs nothing, but the truck from the warehouse cost everything, all because of the 20c/L carbon tax? The truck from the warehouse 100 miles away is just so expensive it adds $1 to every jug of milk? The 100 mile trip from the refinery in a 20,000L delivery truck adds 20c to the gas price? $40 a mile?

And i addressed that in my first comment to you:

The carbon tax isn't just in the trip from the refinery.  It's in the cost of getting feed to the cows. It's in the cost of keeping them warm. It's in the cost of getting the milk to the refinery.  It's in the cost of producing and shipping the feed the cows eat.

That was the conversation. Why are bananas from honduras so cheap and milk so expensive.

But yeah - nobody mentioned it.

F*ck you're an 1diot.  You could at least make this a challenge.

 

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Pretty easy to blame climate change, it is the go to for everything these days...and i can see that climate change does have an impact of prices, of food,through shortages or supply issues... but how do you explain other products, say electronics, vehicles, housing, etc etc...that do not need perfect weather to manufacture items...

Same basic issue, everything's harder and more expensive to come by. We've creamed off the best of everything we need, trees, fish, minerals etc and now we have to work harder just to keep things going never mind growing.

War and runaway greed, fuelling societies increasing needs also comes to mind.

Central banks responsible for controlling inflation have only recently started studying the effects of climate change on inflation. That's how far behind the times we are.

The Bank of Canada is ramping up efforts to better understand climate change because of its important effects on the economy and prices (inflation). The Bank also needs to understand the risks from climate change on the financial system as part of efforts to help keep it safe for Canadians.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/11/climate-change-is-a-big-issue-for-central-banks/

Ohhhh, it's so woke it's positively uplifting. Maybe one day they'll get around to understanding economic inequality.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Where. Did you read it?

No, I trust Scientific American's read on the topic. Is there some reason I shouldn't?

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And as we all know - that's your way of saying you've lost

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said crying my ass off so you'd know what I really meant.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No,

This is why you're so woefully under-educated.

 

Quote

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said crying my ass off so you'd know what I really meant.

I knew what you really meant   same thing you always mean when you type that.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

This is why you're so woefully under-educated.

I'm certainly well educated enough to know that Scientific America's read on the topic can be trusted. What's your excuse for distrusting them

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I knew what you really meant   same thing you always mean when you type that.

Good, everyone's in the same page then.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm certainly well educated enough to know that Scientific America's read on the topic can be trusted.

 

But not educated enough to understand their take.  So sad.

Quote

Good, everyone's in the same page then.

Yep. And it's pretty much the same page we always end on - you look like a ****** and i look like a patient person who has to explain things to retards  

Sorry your echo chamber talking points didn't work out for you. Maybe next time. But i doubt it.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But not educated enough to understand their take.  So sad.

Says the guy who can't even tell what time it is.

[Moonbox]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That was the conversation. Why are bananas from honduras so cheap and milk so expensive.

But yeah - nobody mentioned it.

Gosh, you're right.  Herbie mentioned the jug of milk, so that means the debate is all of the sudden  only about milk.  🙄

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

F*ck you're an 1diot.  You could at least make this a challenge.

Speaking of 1diots, let's talk milk.  You provided a source with a high-end estimate for carbon taxes increasing its cost by 0.9 to 0.95% annually, and only if it received no exclusions whatsoever (which isn't the case).  Based on that, we're looking at a <5% increase in the price of milk  attributable to carbon taxes since Jan 2019, vs a ~20% overall increase in the price over that time span.  
 

As your own source stated, this is one of the food items that would be worst effected by carbon taxes.  It's also based on worst-case no-exclusion scenario, which didn't happen.  It's also only a fraction of the food budget, with most agriculture receiving far more substantial exclusions. 

Soo...whoopsie for you again.  🤣

 

Edited March 10 by Moonbox

[herbie]

Whatever you don't don't mention the Carbon Tax is going up 3.5¢ a litre, refer to it as a 23% increase so dummies will think 50¢ or more!

Then completely ignore the 16¢ the gas stations jacked it up last week just to line their pockets and march with PP because he best represents the interest of working people.
Maybe give the oil companies $1 a litre tax break so they won't gouge us anymore, eh?
He's sucked in a bunch of Tory dimwits in this riding. Maybe he'll make the local teenagers work at Timmies and stop those immigrants!

[CdnFox]

On 3/9/2024 at 2:46 PM, Moonbox said:

Gosh, you're right.  Herbie mentioned the jug of milk, so that means the debate is all of the sudden  only about milk.  

 

Nooooo -nOOOOOooo body menitoned it - it was all something i made up remember?!?!? LOLOL

Yeah he did - then i mentioned it back and we kept talking about it and it's come up several times since. That was the discussion - why are bananas cheap when they come so far but milk from down the street costs a fortune. 

LOL - And having realized what a retarded twit you look like you're trying to blame my source for your stupidity

And you're back to struggling with how math works i see  

Dude - you make yourself look stupid every time we talk but you have SEVERELY outdone yourself this time.  You have reached Peak Stupid   Well done You were so desperate to try to find something to claim victory over you completely forgot what we were discussing  

So  lets recap -

Despite your idiiotic claims to the contrary carbon tax keeps getting added and added to the products we buy. It's not a one off tax. Worse - as it contributes to inflation it drives up other related costs indirectly such as labour - gotta pay them more if they can't afford stuff.

BBBBBZZZZZTTTT - thanks for playing, try harder next time. This was really pathetic.

[Moonbox]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Despite your idiiotic claims to the contrary carbon tax keeps getting added and added to the products we buy. It's not a one off tax. Worse - as it contributes to inflation it drives up other related costs indirectly such as labour - gotta pay them more if they can't afford stuff.

I didn't claim otherwise.  In fact, I acknowledged this was true.  Once again, you're just making up what you want to argue against.  

My point of contention is and always was that the tax doesn't multiply and snowball on top of itself over and over for outsized effect.  You provided a source yourself that proved it doesn't, estimating a worst-case scenario on a worst-affected item like milk increasing prices by less than 1% per year because of the carbon tax.  

Waving your hands around doesn't change the numbers you posted, and peeing your pants and spamming emojis doesn't either.  🤣

Edited March 12 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I didn't claim otherwise.  In fact, I acknowledged this was true.  Once again, you're just making up what you want to argue against.  

My point of contention is and always was that the tax doesn't multiply and snowball on top of itself over and over for outsized effect.  You provided a source yourself that proved it doesn't, estimating a worst-case scenario on a worst-affected item like milk increasing prices by less than 1% per year because of the carbon tax.  

Waving your hands around doesn't change the numbers you posted, and peeing your pants and spamming emojis doesn't either.  🤣

I DIDN"T CLAIM OTHERWISE -  and then immediately claims otherwise.

The tax does 'snowball' for an outsized effect.  And once again you completely misunderstand and misread what the source says.  It ceratinly does NOT say that's not the case at all. Not to mention it's when the tax was much lower.

Sigh.  This is so simple. And you still manage to screw it up.

The carbon tax will be added to goods produced all the way along.  ANd that's for everything - but in the case of the milk it will be added to the cost of producing the feed, and again when raising the cows and milking them. Then it will get bumped again heading to the bottling plant and then again on the way to the grocer and then again by the grocer to keep it cool.  That's how it works.

How the hell do you even get your pants on in the morning without help?

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The carbon tax will be added to goods produced all the way along.  ANd that's for everything - but in the case of the milk it will be added to the cost of producing the feed, and again when raising the cows and milking them. Then it will get bumped again heading to the bottling plant and then again on the way to the grocer and then again by the grocer to keep it cool.  That's how it works.

Nobody's saying otherwise!   🤣

You're just arguing with yourself again!

The source you posted estimated a worse-case scenario of less than 1% annual food price inflation on milk, which it pointed at as one of the most vulnerable to carbon taxes, and that was supposing it received no exemptions at all (which it does).  When they say "food prices", that's what the consumer pays.  Your hand-waving and pseudo-economic bullshitting doesn't magically multiply these end price increases.    

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody's saying otherwise!  
🤣

You literally said otherwise.

Your words:  "My point of contention is and always was that the tax doesn't multiply and snowball on top of itself "

It does and you're wrong. 

Lets go through it slowly - Farmer smith marks up his goods 10 percent.  So the carbon tax he pays to grow the feed gets marked up 10 percent in his pricing. Then the farmer who has the milk cows marks up his costs 10 percent - which includes the carbon tax from before, etc etc.

Sigh. I swear it's like trying to get a puppy to stop chasing it's tail and learn quadratic equations.

 

 

 

[Moonbox]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You literally said otherwise.

Your words:  "My point of contention is and always was that the tax doesn't multiply and snowball on top of itself "

My words are not contending that carbon taxes are paid throughout the supply chain.  They're contending your donkey math and the wildly exaggerated snowball effect you attribute to them.  

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Lets go through it slowly - Farmer smith marks up his goods 10 percent.  So the carbon tax he pays to grow the feed gets marked up 10 percent in his pricing. Then the farmer who has the milk cows marks up his costs 10 percent - which includes the carbon tax from before, etc etc.

If this is how you think the carbon tax is applied, it's no surprise that you need to go through things slowly.  You don't even know how it works on the most basic, fundamental level.  🫠

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

My words are not contending that carbon taxes are paid throughout the supply chain.  They're contending your donkey math and the wildly exaggerated snowball effect you attribute to them.  

And you're wrong.  Thanks for playing. Glad you figured it out in the end.

That is how it works, sorry you weren't smart enough to realize there's a mark up on mark ups

But hey.  You couldn't even remember we were talking about milk. So i guess we shouldn't have expected much.

🫠 

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And you're wrong.  Thanks for playing. Glad you figured it out in the end.

Wrong about the numbers that you cited?  

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is how it works, sorry you weren't smart enough to realize there's a mark up on mark ups

Mark ups on mark ups amounting to...less than 1% annually...according to your source.  

Way to go playa.  Nobody scores on his own net as much as you.  🤣

[blackbird]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:34 AM, eyeball said:

I'm certainly well educated enough to know that Scientific America's read on the topic can be trusted. What's your excuse for distrusting them

Scientific American is not trustworthy in all areas.  They hold a Darwinist world view, which is an anti-God, anti-Christianity bias.  They are pro evolution which is an unproven theory.  The natural result of being pro-evolution is being anti-Christian.  The reason is because most scientists in the most influential positions are Darwinists.  It is more of a religion to them.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Wrong about the numbers that you cited?  

Nope.  Just wrong.
 

Quote

Mark ups on mark ups amounting to...less than 1% annually...according to your source.  

Nope. You still can't read/

There is a large variation among food price increases due to the federal carbon tax, with the
range being from 0.34% to 3.6%. The most affected food commodities are fishery products, with
an increase in price of 3.60%, followed by unprocessed fluid milk and eggs, with an increase of
2.24%.

Annually. 

And - that's the 'commodity price'. Now add on the mark up for the bottling and transport to the store, and the grocer etc.

Sigh. You just can't read.

 

Quote

Way to go playa.  Nobody scores on his own net as much as you.

Says the man who screwed up what 100-50 is and then posted a research paper that proved he was wrong and i was right

Sorry kiddo - when it comes to making yourself look stupid, you hold the title.

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Scientific American is not trustworthy in all areas.  They hold a Darwinist world view, which is an anti-God, anti-Christianity bias.  They are pro evolution which is an unproven theory.

It's hilarious listening to you talk about unproven theories.

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The natural result of being pro-evolution is being anti-Christian.  The reason is because most scientists in the most influential positions are Darwinists.  It is more of a religion to them.

Your explanation sounds positively analytical, almost like it was science or something.

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Your explanation sounds positively analytical, almost like it was science or something.

Glad you think so.  I believe in what is called empirical science.  That is science that is based on the tried and true scientific method.  It is simple; even a child could understand. 

If you have a hypothesis, you construct an experiment to prove your hypothesis.  If it proves to be true, then you have a fact.  If you can't prove it with an experiment, that means you can't claim it is a fact.  There are a number of things that many people assume are true such as the big bang theory, the theory of evolution, to name two.  But they are simply theories or speculation.  

A serious problem that many scientists have is they are biased.  Many are biased against the idea of God because it is not a part of the material universe.  However, logic tells us that every effect has a cause.  Therefore since the universe is an effect, it must have had a cause.  Again simple logic tells us that nothing does not create something.  In other words the universe had to have had a cause.  The complexity of it with all the complex and intricate laws of physics that govern matter, atoms, molecules, energy, gravity, the spectrum of energy is something that could not have happened without an infinitely powerful designer Creator.  

Science and the scientific method were actually discovered and brought forward by scientists who believed in God in the past number of centuries.

The problem with the theory of evolution is it is believed by many as an indisputable fact.  Children and students are taught evolution is a fact although it has not be proven.  The reason it has not been proven is the theory rests on events that supposedly happened over periods of millions of years.  Nobody saw it happen and nobody found solid proof that it happened.  There are no eye witnesses.  The time period of millions of years cannot be re-enacted.  There is no way of re-enacting it and therefore it cannot be said to be a fact. 

There are lots of false beliefs in the world.  The world is an imperfect, fallen place.  Science is no different.  It has its faults and failings and does not have all the answers. 

Edited March 13 by blackbird

[blackbird]

The claim of man-made climate change is similar to the theory of evolution in the sense neither can be proven.

They are based on speculation. Speculation is not science and it is not proof of anything.

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

I believe in what is called empirical science.

LMAO!

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

There are lots of false beliefs in the world.  The world is an imperfect, fallen place.  Science is no different.  It has its faults and failings and does not have all the answers. 

Science poses questions.  Religion doesn't, because it's perfect and has all the answers. Vanity, Satan's favourite sin.

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Science poses questions. 

There is true science which I described and false science which I also described.  

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is true science which I described and false science which I also described.  

Let me guess, only true scientists ascend to Heaven?