Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It makes sense to me. Unilateral actions that increase costs make you uncompetitive in a global economy. Global problems require global solutions, not ad hoc policies based on ideology.

How is climate action in Canada unilateral?

Edited March 31 by Michael Hardner

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is climate action in Canada unilateral?

Because it seem like Canada is the only one beating the climate change drum yet failing in climate change targets and adding to the cost of living with it's policies.

Don't get me wrong, I belie there is climate change problems but, I also believe we in Canada are fooling ourselves with our approach.

Edited March 31 by ExFlyer

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is climate action in Canada unilateral?

Because every country has different policies to deal with it. Our biggest trading partner and competitor has no carbon tax. That is an extra cost our industry and citizens bare and theirs do not.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Because it seem like Canada is the only one beating the climate change drum yet failing in climate change targets and adding to the cost of living with it's policies.

2. Don't get me wrong, I belie there is climate change problems but, I also believe we in Canada are fooling ourselves with our approach.

1. Well we can say it seems unilateral. Lots of other countries are spending money in this of course.

2. There seem to be basically two approaches, a tax or credits trading. Both have been criticized.

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Because every country has different policies to deal with it. Our biggest trading partner and competitor has no carbon tax. That is an extra cost our industry and citizens bare and theirs do not.

If other countries are dealing with it then it's not unilateral is it by definition?

If they're spending money on the problem and not raising revenue by putting anything on industry, then they're either deficit spending or taking money away from other programs.

Andrew Scheer had a trading system.  

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well we can say it seems unilateral. Lots of other countries are spending money in this of course.

2. There seem to be basically two approaches, a tax or credits trading. Both have been criticized.

If other countries are dealing with it then it's not unilateral is it by definition?

If they're spending money on the problem and not raising revenue by putting anything on industry, then they're either deficit spending or taking money away from other programs.

Andrew Scheer had a trading system.  

What do you think the tax does if not increase costs and reduce disposable income? Or approach is unilateral if it is not in common with other approaches. That is the definition of unilateral.

The cost of administering this tax isn’t nothing. It is paid for by the revenues it generates or debt.

Edited March 31 by Aristides

[ExFlyer]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well we can say it seems unilateral. Lots of other countries are spending money in this of course.

2. There seem to be basically two approaches, a tax or credits trading. Both have been criticized.

If other countries are dealing with it then it's not unilateral is it by definition?

If they're spending money on the problem and not raising revenue by putting anything on industry, then they're either deficit spending or taking money away from other programs.

Andrew Scheer had a trading system.  

1. While 195 countries signed the various protocols, it is near impossible to determine which are actually complying and/or making a difference. I suspect that less than a handful are actually achieving or close to achieving the goals of the numerous signed protocols.

2. As stated, while there are "basically two approaches" , the issues resulting in climate change have nor decreased. We are polluting more than before and Canada is one of the big offenders regardless of the taxes and efforts which have a deleterious effect on our economy and cost of living. We have yet to live up to any of our accord agreements.

Edited March 31 by ExFlyer

[Aristides]

My other problem is that government wants to bludgeon people into electrification with no plan to produce the massive amount of power that will be required or even knowing how to do it. It’s lazy, ingenuous and isn’t serious.

Edited March 31 by Aristides

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is climate action in Canada unilateral?

Well, 80% of our trade is with the US and China, and neither of them have a carbon tax. So we're daming our own economy while instead directing orders to factories in the US and China that don't care about carbon production. Just for a start.

Second, does it make sense to spend ten trillion dollars in order to ease the future cost of not doing it by two trillion dollars? And even that's an estimate. The costs of this effort to reduce emissions in hopes of lowering our presumed temperature in a hundred years by 0.17 degrees seems absurd.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

We are polluting more than before and Canada is one of the big offenders regardless of the taxes and efforts which have a deleterious effect on our economy and cost of living. We have yet to live up to any of our accord agreements.

Yup. I guess you either commit to doing it or not. As Yoda would say "there is no try."

Canadians simply aren't up to the task IMO, people are already complaining about costs and we're gassing out 20 seconds into round #1. I think we watched too many motivational videos (from the couch) instead of doing the road work.

If they were asked, how many people would voluntarily turn their thermostat down to 13 degrees (next winter) and only drive their cars twice a week to help with reaching our stated goals?

Well, who knows eh, but I bet the answer is darned few. 

In the grand scheme of things, and even assuming everyone did it, it still qualifies as a weak sister effort because more is required.

Instead of shivering in the dark maybe we should invest in R&D and take a leadership role in developing the new technologies required to actually get er done. In the final analysis, and IMO of course, new technology and a massive investment in infrastructure is the only way we will be hitting those accord targets at all, and it won't happen in under 6 years either.

And that assumes we collectively agree to stay the course. if a vote were held today, and it outlined the effort required and projected costs in an honest way, I'm not even sure about predicting that vote's outcome.

 

Edited March 31 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

1. Or approach is unilateral if it is not in common with other approaches. That is the definition of unilateral.

2. The cost of administering this tax isn’t nothing. It is paid for by the revenues it generates or debt.

1. Unilateral - 1. a. : done or undertaken by one person or party
Since other countries are implementing responses to climate change, including 27 countries with a Carbon Tax ... I just don't think it applies.
2. The cost of ADMINISTERING is, I'm pretty sure, paid for by the tax itself and might be almost negligible but... ok.  And I'm not sure why we're zeroing in on that part of the tax. 

My argument, which you don't seem to be addressing at all, is that people are framing this as Canada acting on its own or acting more than it needs to.  I don't see how that's true.  And we can see that the Conservatives have (and likely will under Poilievre) submit responses.

 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

1. While 195 countries signed the various protocols, it is near impossible to determine which are actually complying and/or making a difference. I suspect that less than a handful are actually achieving or close to achieving the goals of the numerous signed protocols.

2. As stated, while there are "basically two approaches" , the issues resulting in climate change have nor decreased. We are polluting more than before and Canada is one of the big offenders regardless of the taxes and efforts which have a deleterious effect on our economy and cost of living. We have yet to live up to any of our accord agreements.

1. Ok, yes I agree with this pivot into a new line of discussion on the topic... and the implied concurrence with my point.
2. No, but there have been impacts nonetheless.  And it's odd to me for people to concurrently say that we're doing too much and not enough simultaneously.  My take is that the framework will eventually yield better results when technology provides more effective responses.

 

-----

My points, again: we're doing something.  The global community is doing something.  It's likely not enough, but it's something.  At some point it should get better.  Will it work ?  Nobody knows.  

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Well, 80% of our trade is with the US and China, and neither of them have a carbon tax.

2. So we're daming our own economy ...

3. Second, does it make sense to spend ten trillion dollars in order to ease the future cost of not doing it by two trillion dollars? And even that's an estimate.  The costs of this effort to reduce emissions in hopes of lowering our presumed temperature in a hundred years by 0.17 degrees seems absurd.

1. Ok but climate "action" is not unlateral - see my othe response.
2. "Damning" is far too strong a word.  
3. I have grave doubts about your math and your numbers in general.   I haven't read extensively on the economic costs and benefits.  Here's one that I will read soon, that seems to be widely known: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/sternn/128NHS.pdf

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is climate action in Canada unilateral?

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that have a carbon tax and Canada's emissions are only 1.5% of the global fossil emissions.  So Canada's Liberals and NDP are punishing Canadians in a futile effort.  If carbon taxes had any effect on climate change, one might have a legitimate argument, but since Canada is taxing Canadians to death for living normally, and it has absolutely no effect on the climate, it is criminal.  It is a scam.

China's emissions are about 33 or 34% of the global fossil emissions, yet they have no carbon tax.

.  

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

My points, again: we're doing something. 

Yes, you are screwing the people for nothing.

[blackbird]

 Canada is one of only a few countries that have a carbon tax.  This website won't let me copy this map because it is a different file format, but if you go to the link you can see the world map.

Which countries have put a price on carbon? - Our World in Data

Canada's emissions are 1.5% of the world's fossil emissions and China's are about 33%

Why are Trudeau and the Liberal/NDP punishing Canadians?  There must be some other reason.

[ExFlyer]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

.....

 

1. Ok, yes I agree with this pivot into a new line of discussion on the topic... and the implied concurrence with my point.
2. No, but there have been impacts nonetheless.  And it's odd to me for people to concurrently say that we're doing too much and not enough simultaneously.  My take is that the framework will eventually yield better results when technology provides more effective responses.

 

-----

My points, again: we're doing something.  The global community is doing something.  It's likely not enough, but it's something.  At some point it should get better.  Will it work ?  Nobody knows.  

Impacts? What impacts other than fuel (gas, oil, natural gas) has gone up. Carbon tax has detrimentally impacted our cost of living and really, we have not progressed in reducing any pollutants.

Technology? It would be great if our government would invest in technology but it rather taxes the users hoping industry does all the technological innovations..

Well, we are taxing but really not doing anything to reduce our output. The global community is also not doing much to reduce pollutants.

"There is one country that is complying with the Paris Accord.".

https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/572652-only-one-country-in-the-world-is-living-up-to/

Edited March 31 by ExFlyer

[I am Groot]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok but climate "action" is not unlateral - see my othe response.

And it only works if everyone joins in. And so far maybe two dozen out of two hundred countries are doing much about it. So it might as well be unilateral. 

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. "Damning" is far too strong a word.  

Er. damaging.

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I have grave doubts about your math and your numbers in general.   I haven't read extensively on the economic costs and benefits.  Here's one that I will read soon, that seems to be widely known: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/sternn/128NHS.pdf

Not my math. It was in the cited piece.

 Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Institute, has calculated, using one of the UN’s own models, that all policies from the Paris Agreement would “likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17 degrees Celsius in 2100,” an impact which would be imperceptible.

Edited March 31 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Impacts? What impacts other than fuel (gas, oil, natural gas) has gone up.

2. Carbon tax has detrimentally impacted our cost of living and really, we have not progressed in reducing any pollutants.

3.Technology? It would be great if our government would invest in technology but it rather taxes the users hoping industry does all the technological innovations..

 

1. Slowing of the acceleration of warming.

2. Not surprising, that.

3. Industry is working on solutions.

Do you think nothing should be done?  If not then?

[Aristides]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok but climate "action" is not unlateral - see my othe response.
2. "Damning" is far too strong a word.  
3. I have grave doubts about your math and your numbers in general.   I haven't read extensively on the economic costs and benefits.  Here's one that I will read soon, that seems to be widely known: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/sternn/128NHS.pdf

It is not in common with our main trading partners and competitors which puts us at a dissadvantage.

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Slowing of the acceleration of warming.

Canada's fossil emissions are 1.5% of global fossil emissions.  How much do you think Canada will reduce its global emissions from 1.5%   Suppose it reduced it to 1.4% of global emissions, how much would that affect climate change, assuming human fossil emissions are really affecting climate change?   If Canada reduced its emissions by 10% what is 10% of 1.5%?    The answer is 0.15%.  Do you seriously think carbon taxes are reducing Canada's fossil emissions by 10%?

People use fossil fuels to drive to work, pick up their kids at school or hockey.  Drive to buy groceries (if they have enough money) and go to doctors, etc.  People that live in rural areas must often drive hundreds of km for normal things like medical appointments, work, etc.  These people cannot stop using fossil fuels.  We live in a cold country that must heat their homes.  Carbon taxes will not stop people from driving or heating their homes.   So what is the point?

And like I said, if Canada reduced its fossil emissions by 10% which is highly unlikely, will it make a difference to the global fossil emissions and climate change?   Canada's total emissions are only 1.5% of the global fossil emissions and if Canada reduces its share by 10%, no it will absolutely not make any difference to anything except the cost of living of Canadians.

[ExFlyer]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Slowing of the acceleration of warming.

2. Not surprising, that.

3. Industry is working on solutions.

Do you think nothing should be done?  If not then?

I think a lot can be done but punishing me, where I live, to heat my home, to drive to the doctors, to buy my groceries and clothing by carbon taxing everything I need and do, is morally wrong.

 

[blackbird]

According to this CBC article:

"

The researchers found that the carbon pricing applied to big industrial polluters will cut between 53 million and 90 million tonnes by 2030, while the pricing on consumers will cut between 19 million and 22 million tonnes. "

So estimates carbon taxes on consumers will cut aprox 20 mega tons by 2030.  That is the claim. Whether it is true is doubtful.

Now let's look at the facts.

Presently global CO2 emissions by humans are estimated to be 26.4 Gt , that is 26.4 giga tons.  A giga ton is 1,000 times a mega ton.   So if Canada's carbon tax reduces CO2 emissions from Canada by 20 mega tons by 2030, that will reduce human emission by one-thousandth of the total human emissions.

Can you see the absurdity of thinking that carbon taxes on Canadians will make any difference at all?

Do you really think reducing human emissions by 1/1000 of total human emissions will affect climate change.  Seriously.  People need to give their head a shake.  

These facts have been kept hidden from Canadians.  We are constantly being lied to.

What's behind the carbon tax, and does it work? | CBC News

Edited March 31 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

 

 

50 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I think a lot can be done but punishing me, where I live, to heat my home, to drive to the doctors, to buy my groceries and clothing by carbon taxing everything I need and do, is morally wrong.

 

The intent isn't to punish, but to incentivize reduced gas use.

What do you want to be done?

People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The intent isn't to punish, but to incentivize reduced gas use.

I know you don't like to reply to me much but I have pointed out indisputable facts which you ignore.

I pointed out a CBC article that stated the objective of carbon taxes is to reduce fossil emissions by Canada by approximately 20 megatons by 2030.  That is 20 mega tons.  Seriously, do you believe that will make any difference to anything?   Humans reportedly emit 26.4 gigatons per year.  That is GIGA TONS!   Did you know a gigaton is 1000 times greater than a megaton?   So Canada hopes to reduce fossil CO2 emissions by 20 megatons per year by 2030.  That is one-thousandth of what humans emit per year (26.4 GT).  Do you seriously believe a reduction of 1/1000 of human emissions by Canada will make any difference to global warming?  Is it really worth hurting Canadians by inflicting punishing carbon taxes on everyone for something that will make absolutely no difference?

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

The intent isn't to punish, but to incentivize reduced gas use.

What do you want to be done?

People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

The intent may not have been so. Michael but, it has and does and as of tomorrow morning will cost me even more. I still have to heat my home, to drive to the doctors, to buy my groceries and clothing.

There is nothing hyperbolic about my statement, it is a fact. It costs me a lot more to live and I am on a fixed income. I do not get cost of living increases or annual pay raises and my pension increase does not cover that.

Like the CBC article mentioned, penalize the large polluters. Force them to become clean. Large companies are not hurt by the carbon tax as they (and all businesses ) pass on the expense. It all comes down to the bottom dwellers, end of the line folks,  us, that pay the toll.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/carbon-tax-controversy-1.7151551

Edited March 31 by ExFlyer

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

The intent isn't to punish, but to incentivize reduced gas use.

What do you want to be done?

People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

You still haven't said where this massive amount of electricity required to electrify everything is going to come from, or even if it is possible. Do governments know or have a plan? If they do they are keeping it very quiet. Or do they just think it is someone else's problem?