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

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

1. Once again - what do you want to be done ?  If nobody is to pay anything to convert away from fossil fuels and reduce use, how is that going to work ?
2. How much do you get back in your tax credit ?
3. So we will pay in the end, exactly what I am saying also.

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

1. 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.
2. 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?

1. Nobody asked me about electricity.
2. The approach makes sense to me, not to say whether it will work or when.

And I repeat: 
 

What do you want to be done?

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

[blackbird]

The CTV news just reported a poll indicates 70% of Canadians are opposed to the carbon tax increase that will come into effect tomorrow, April 1st.

Liberals and federal NDP don't care.  We are ruled by a dictator.  This has never been so obvious as it is now.

Surprisingly, even NDP Premier Wab Kinew of Manitoba is opposing the carbon tax increase for April 1st.

When an NDP Premier opposes it, that should tell Trudeau something, but he is tone deaf.

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Once again - what do you want to be done ?  If nobody is to pay anything to convert away from fossil fuels and reduce use, how is that going to work ?
2. How much do you get back in your tax credit ?
3. So we will pay in the end, exactly what I am saying also.

1. Nobody asked me about electricity.
2. The approach makes sense to me, not to say whether it will work or when.

And I repeat: 
 

What do you want to be done?

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

1. Once again Michael, perhaps they can penalize the main polluters? And why do we, Canadians, need to convert away from fossil fuel and reduce use? We are one of the smallest contributors of CO2 in the world.  And I do not buy "we gotta start somewhere BS LOL. When I see other countries doing their share, I may reconsider.

2.  Very little actually.It is based on income. But that is a very poor comment. Why tax and then give back? What does that prove? Plus, how much does it cost to administer this give and take game??

3. No, we will not pay if we are not coerced into playing the trudeau game. If it is so good, why is most of the world not playing??

3.

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Once again Michael, perhaps they can penalize the main polluters?
2. And why do we, Canadians, need to convert away from fossil fuel and reduce use? We are one of the smallest contributors of CO2 in the world.  And I do not buy "we gotta start somewhere BS LOL. When I see other countries doing their share, I may reconsider.
3.  Very little actually.It is based on income. But that is a very poor comment.
4. Why tax and then give back? What does that prove? Plus, how much does it cost to administer this give and take game??
5.. No, we will not pay if we are not coerced into playing the trudeau game. If it is so good, why is most of the world not playing??

1.  Yes, and we will pay for that also.
2. Why do we need to ?  Because every country has to reduce according to their output.  Our share is small because we are small.
3. Why is it a poor comment ? You were the one decrying the impact to your lifestyle - so how much is it ?  What is the impact on you ?
4. I don't know - look it up.  I'm not defending the current program as it is, beyond what I have said.
5. Every country who signed onto the Paris Accord is doing *something* as far as I know.

And once again: 

 

What do you want to be done?  Anything being done is going to cost something.

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

[herbie]

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

70% of Canadians are opposed to the carbon tax increase that will come into effect tomorrow, April 1st.

Gee Cpt Obvious, so what? That many are opposed to any tax increase on anything.

You don't want to pay a carbon tax, period. And like all Tories have no alternative climate plan at all.

[Legato]

On 3/30/2024 at 12:30 PM, Aristides said:

Except we are pumping far more carbon into the atmosphere than existing plants can handle. To produce more oxygen you need more plants, not more carbon.

That's why many growers add CO2 to their greenhouses. Increase CO2 increase growth.

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html#:~:text=In a greenhouse supplemented with,the ambient CO 2 level.

[ExFlyer]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Yes, and we will pay for that also.
2. Why do we need to ?  Because every country has to reduce according to their output.  Our share is small because we are small.
3. Why is it a poor comment ? You were the one decrying the impact to your lifestyle - so how much is it ?  What is the impact on you ?
4. I don't know - look it up.  I'm not defending the current program as it is, beyond what I have said.
5. Every country who signed onto the Paris Accord is doing *something* as far as I know.

And once again: 

 

What do you want to be done?  Anything being done is going to cost something.

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

Last time Michael "they can penalize the main polluters?"

I do not know what you want form me, to agree with everything you propose? Well I agree with some but not all.
You cannot seem to see another way or other way. You are becoming like the two uber conservatives in your obsessiveness of this issue.

No Michael, just because you oppose some things that are not your way, it is hyperbole? It is not . It is just not your take but not the wrong take.

Edited March 31 by ExFlyer

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, Legato said:

That's why many growers add CO2 to their greenhouses. Increase CO2 increase growth.

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html#:~:text=In a greenhouse supplemented with,the ambient CO 2 level.

So what, greenhouses are a closed environment, CO2 levels are going to be lower than normal because there is nothing producing it other than the few people who work in them. 

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Last time Michael "they can penalize the main polluters?"

 

1. Yes and we will pay for that also.
 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

When I see other countries doing their share, I may reconsider.

When other countries see a very wealthy country like Canada screwing the pooch the way we do they're probably wondering why they're knocking themselves out.

This is the legacy Trudeau is leaving behind and it's why I say no one is more responsible for the lack of inertia on climate change action.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When other countries see a very wealthy country like Canada screwing the pooch the way we do they're probably wondering why they're knocking themselves out.

Imagine the world announcing a global climate treaty that allows Canada to wait and see how it's going...

[ExFlyer]

 

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When other countries see a very wealthy country like Canada screwing the pooch the way we do they're probably wondering why they're knocking themselves out.

This is the legacy Trudeau is leaving behind and it's why I say no one is more responsible for the lack of inertia on climate change action.

 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Imagine the world announcing a global climate treaty that allows Canada to wait and see how it's going...

Imagine the world, all 195 countries at last count, announcing and signing a global climate treaties and none of the countries meet their announced targets???

Including Canada...the supposed very wealthy country. We should be embarrassed not penalizing our citizens more and more.

Oh wait, that is what is happening now.

To me, these accords are all pie in the sky.

[Aristides]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When other countries see a very wealthy country like Canada screwing the pooch the way we do they're probably wondering why they're knocking themselves out.

This is the legacy Trudeau is leaving behind and it's why I say no one is more responsible for the lack of inertia on climate change action.

Only 27 countries have a price on carbon and most of them are cap and trade, so how are we screwing the pooch?

Edited March 31 by Aristides

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Imagine the world, all 195 countries at last count, announcing and signing a global climate treaties and none of the countries meet their announced targets???

 

1. Yes, that seems more realistic than the "Canada gets a pause for being "small"" one.
 

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, that seems more realistic than the "Canada gets a pause for being "small"" one.
 

Still waiting for governments to tell us where all this electricity is going to come from.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Still waiting for governments to tell us where all this electricity is going to come from.

I can the criticism of them not planning to increase the electricity infrastructure, but it's not like they can't do it...  

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can the criticism of them not planning to increase the electricity infrastructure, but it's not like they can't do it...  

Really, how are they going to do it?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/power-grid-demand-electric-vehicles-1.6440595

Damn right I criticize them, they can't think of anything more original than another tax. If they were actually serious about this, they would be using the tax revenues to enlarge the generating capacity and the grid. 

Edited March 31 by Aristides

[Legato]

58 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So what, greenhouses are a closed environment, CO2 levels are going to be lower than normal because there is nothing producing it other than the few people who work in them. 

You must have not read the  info in the link.

Generally, doubling ambient CO2 level (i.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield. Plants with a C3 photosynthetic pathway (geranium, petunia, pansy, aster lily and most dicot species) have a 3-carbon compound as the first product in their photosynthetic pathway, thus are called C3 plants and are more responsive to higher CO2 concentration than plants having a C4 pathway (most of the grass species have a 4-carbon compound as the first product in their photosynthetic pathway, thus are called C4 plants). An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1,000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40%-100% percent and C4 plants by 10%-25% while keeping other inputs at an optimum level. Plants show a positive response up to 700 to need of 1,800 parts per million, but higher levels of CO2 may cause plant damage (Figure 1).

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Gee Cpt Obvious, so what? That many are opposed to any tax increase on anything.

You don't want to pay a carbon tax, period. And like all Tories have no alternative climate plan at all.

Man cannot control the climate.  So why worry about a "climate plan".  Who invented the idea man can control the climate?  Where is the proof?

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

You must have not read the  info in the link.

Generally, doubling ambient CO2 level (i.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield. Plants with a C3 photosynthetic pathway (geranium, petunia, pansy, aster lily and most dicot species) have a 3-carbon compound as the first product in their photosynthetic pathway, thus are called C3 plants and are more responsive to higher CO2 concentration than plants having a C4 pathway (most of the grass species have a 4-carbon compound as the first product in their photosynthetic pathway, thus are called C4 plants). An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1,000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40%-100% percent and C4 plants by 10%-25% while keeping other inputs at an optimum level. Plants show a positive response up to 700 to need of 1,800 parts per million, but higher levels of CO2 may cause plant damage (Figure 1).

 

 

So what? CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the sun's heat and atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to rise. Obviously, the earth's vegetation is not capable of handling the amount of CO2 being generated.

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

 

So what? CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the sun's heat and atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to rise. Obviously, the earth's vegetation is not capable of handling the amount of CO2 being generated.

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

[herbie]

The ususal 'we can't fix everything 100% so why even try" response.

As if electing Tories and Republicans would do even more about the large emitters that own them lock stock and barrel. Say the mob critical of the miniscule efforts of Liberals and Democrats have made.

Edited March 31 by herbie

[Aristides]

40 minutes ago, Legato said:

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

So what, increasing CO2 levels are increasing the earths temperature. These are two separate issues.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

To me, these accords are all pie in the sky.

They seemed like good ideas at the time and still do but their execution has certainly been a joke for sure. It's hard to understand what all the pissing and moaning is about. Decades of focused denial that climate change was real or required any action has clearly won the war. Emissions are going up, action is going down, subsidies for fossil fuels are through the roof. 7 trillion bucks globally just last year alone.

I doubt if many of the usual suspects would complain in the least if PP changed the carbon tax into a tax that helps pay for more subsidies in the future. As a matter of fact I think it would be rather hypocritical that fans of climate change aren't donating their rebates to the cause.

As the world struggles to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and parts of Asia, Europe and the United States swelter in extreme heat, subsidies for oil, coal and natural gas are costing the equivalent of 7.1 percent of global gross domestic product. That’s more than governments spend annually on education (4.3 percent of global income) and about two thirds of what they spend on healthcare (10.9 percent)

[ExFlyer]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes and we will pay for that also.
 

Michael,  "oil and gas extraction (16 per cent), utilities (7 per cent), primary metal manufacturing (6 per cent) and petroleum and coal products manufacturing (five per cent)." are our worst polluters and considering we export most of that, we do not pay, the buyers/importers pay.