Ft. McMurray hits 60 minutes

[August1991]

The fact is he wouldn't. Regulations on important things like water pollution and toxic waste work better than a pollution tax (which is nearly impossible to inforce) which will just become an operating expense.

"Well if we pay 5% more in pollution tax and make 25% more in profit... lets do it!" says the Pollution Inc. CEO.

Precisely. And that's why everyone will love it.

It's a cheaper (more profitable) way to achieve two goals: pay for government services and protect the environment. Politicians are behind on this one, and the general public even moreso. When the first jurisdiction gets it right, it will be imitated quickly.

Greenhouse gas emission (carbon taxable) are not responsible for global warming. The composition of green house gases is only about 0.9% CO2. Remember that over 95% is water vapour, something we have absolutely no control over. So no, nice try, go back to Suzuki and give him a hug because he's probably crying.

Lets get working on real environmental issues like soil toxicity and water pollution, things that actually make a difference and stop worrying about how a few Euros will cry when we rip up Kyoto.

Separate issue. What constitutes "serious" garbage dumping? Dunno. (My personal favourite is batteries. I think one AAA should have at least a $2 deposit, like beer bottles.)

Guys, the issue is not "global warming". In Left Speak, the issue is paying for government services and protecting the environment at the same time. In Right Speak, the issue is cutting income tax and GST and so on. It's a no-brainer.

The only thing stopping this now is that politicians have no credibility. No one believes any politician who talks about cutting or changing taxes.

[bTW, income taxes are less than a century old. I venture to argue that they will not exist in 100 years.]

[geoffrey]

Separate issue. What constitutes "serious" garbage dumping? Dunno. (My personal favourite is batteries. I think one AAA should have at least a $2 deposit, like beer bottles.)

Guys, the issue is not "global warming". In Left Speak, the issue is paying for government services and protecting the environment at the same time. In Right Speak, the issue is cutting income tax and GST and so on. It's a no-brainer.

The only thing stopping this now is that politicians have no credibility. No one believes any politician who talks about cutting or changing taxes.

[bTW, income taxes are less than a century old. I venture to argue that they will not exist in 100 years.]

Interesting idea with the batteries. In Alberta we've came up with an electronics recycling fee on computer stuff.

Income taxes are an easy way to raise a huge amount of capital. We've needed them for our massive increase in government expenditures. I honestly don't see carbon taxes working (for one they tax the wrong pollutant), it will just have businesses justifying their pollution in a profit statement.

[Hollus]

My point is that income taxes could be (will be) abolished and government will obtain its revenues from environmental taxes such as a carbon tax. We will eat our cake (pay for our government services) and have it too (protect the environment). This is an obvious no-brainer.

Have you got some resources to support this?

The fact is he wouldn't. Regulations on important things like water pollution and toxic waste work better than a pollution tax (which is nearly impossible to inforce) which will just become an operating expense.

"Well if we pay 5% more in pollution tax and make 25% more in profit... lets do it!" says the Pollution Inc. CEO.

Greenhouse gas emission (carbon taxable) are not responsible for global warming. The composition of green house gases is only about 0.9% CO2. Remember that over 95% is water vapour, something we have absolutely no control over. So no, nice try, go back to Suzuki and give him a hug because he's probably crying.

Lets get working on real environmental issues like soil toxicity and water pollution, things that actually make a difference and stop worrying about how a few Euros will cry when we rip up Kyoto.

How do you expect to go mountianeering with no glaciers?

"As discussed in the TAR, most models also indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric stabilization levels but that implementation would require socio-economic and institutional changes."-UPCC Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers

Get onboard man

[geoffrey]

My point is that income taxes could be (will be) abolished and government will obtain its revenues from environmental taxes such as a carbon tax. We will eat our cake (pay for our government services) and have it too (protect the environment). This is an obvious no-brainer.

Have you got some resources to support this?

The fact is he wouldn't. Regulations on important things like water pollution and toxic waste work better than a pollution tax (which is nearly impossible to inforce) which will just become an operating expense.

"Well if we pay 5% more in pollution tax and make 25% more in profit... lets do it!" says the Pollution Inc. CEO.

Greenhouse gas emission (carbon taxable) are not responsible for global warming. The composition of green house gases is only about 0.9% CO2. Remember that over 95% is water vapour, something we have absolutely no control over. So no, nice try, go back to Suzuki and give him a hug because he's probably crying.

Lets get working on real environmental issues like soil toxicity and water pollution, things that actually make a difference and stop worrying about how a few Euros will cry when we rip up Kyoto.

How do you expect to go mountianeering with no glaciers?

"As discussed in the TAR, most models also indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric stabilization levels but that implementation would require socio-economic and institutional changes."-UPCC Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers

Get onboard man

Even if global warming is our fault (which its not), its too late to stop my glaciers from retreating in my lifetime.

[August1991]

Income taxes are an easy way to raise a huge amount of capital. We've needed them for our massive increase in government expenditures. I honestly don't see carbon taxes working (for one they tax the wrong pollutant), it will just have businesses justifying their pollution in a profit statement.

Income taxes an easy way to raise government revenue? Huh?

Imagine how much environmental taxes would raise, and how (politically) easy it would be to do it.

This is an idea just waiting for a credible politician who can figure it out.

[Hollus]

My point is that income taxes could be (will be) abolished and government will obtain its revenues from environmental taxes such as a carbon tax. We will eat our cake (pay for our government services) and have it too (protect the environment). This is an obvious no-brainer.

Have you got some resources to support this?

The fact is he wouldn't. Regulations on important things like water pollution and toxic waste work better than a pollution tax (which is nearly impossible to inforce) which will just become an operating expense.

"Well if we pay 5% more in pollution tax and make 25% more in profit... lets do it!" says the Pollution Inc. CEO.

Greenhouse gas emission (carbon taxable) are not responsible for global warming. The composition of green house gases is only about 0.9% CO2. Remember that over 95% is water vapour, something we have absolutely no control over. So no, nice try, go back to Suzuki and give him a hug because he's probably crying.

Lets get working on real environmental issues like soil toxicity and water pollution, things that actually make a difference and stop worrying about how a few Euros will cry when we rip up Kyoto.

How do you expect to go mountianeering with no glaciers?

"As discussed in the TAR, most models also indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric stabilization levels but that implementation would require socio-economic and institutional changes."-UPCC Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers

Get onboard man

Even if global warming is our fault (which its not), its too late to stop my glaciers from retreating in my lifetime.

Maybe you could explain who's fault it is? Im sure your grandchildren will be proud of the effort

you've made.

[geoffrey]

Even if global warming is our fault (which its not), its too late to stop my glaciers from retreating in my lifetime.

Maybe you could explain who's fault it is? Im sure your grandchildren will be proud of the effort

you've made.

It's a natural process that has been occuring since the beginning of Earth. For some reason we have this ridiculous belief that it should stop for us (even though we've already been through one major ice age and another mini-iceage during the middle ages). CO2 makes up such a tiny tiny amount of green house gases (compared to water vapour, which is pretty much single handedly the only gas to consider) to even be considered.

Look at Mars. It has more CO2 in its atomosphere. Why is it colder? Because it has no water vapour (or less water vapour actually).

I don't want to get into the science, because I'm no scientist and I really have no idea about the details. But I do have common sense that says when CO2 is 0.0097% of our air it doesn't really matter too much.

The glaciers have been receding for a long long time. Go look at how big of an area your local river took up back in the day, when the glaciers (if your river is glaicer fed) were running off at higher rates than today.

[Hollus]

Even if global warming is our fault (which its not), its too late to stop my glaciers from retreating in my lifetime.

Maybe you could explain who's fault it is? Im sure your grandchildren will be proud of the effort

you've made.

It's a natural process that has been occuring since the beginning of Earth. For some reason we have this ridiculous belief that it should stop for us (even though we've already been through one major ice age and another mini-iceage during the middle ages). CO2 makes up such a tiny tiny amount of green house gases (compared to water vapour, which is pretty much single handedly the only gas to consider) to even be considered.

Look at Mars. It has more CO2 in its atomosphere. Why is it colder? Because it has no water vapour (or less water vapour actually).

I don't want to get into the science, because I'm no scientist and I really have no idea about the details. But I do have common sense that says when CO2 is 0.0097% of our air it doesn't really matter too much.

The glaciers have been receding for a long long time. Go look at how big of an area your local river took up back in the day, when the glaciers (if your river is glaicer fed) were running off at higher rates than today.

"MYTH: Even if the Earth is warming, we can't be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities.

FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes.

Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases - form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat form the sun, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.

The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, Spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying."

Climate Change: The Scientific Basis

[geoffrey]

Where is the evidence that this isn't natural though? Refute my claim that CO2 makes up next to nothing in the big picture on the greenhouse effect.

I really hate debating science because it means I actually have to research so lets end this quick.

[hades_ibex]

But I do have common sense that says when CO2 is 0.0097% of our air it doesn't really matter too much.

Could I put 0.0097% cyanide into your morning coffee? Every morning.

It is only 0.0097%

[geoffrey]

But I do have common sense that says when CO2 is 0.0097% of our air it doesn't really matter too much.

Could I put 0.0097% cyanide into your morning coffee? Every morning.

It is only 0.0097%

I have such a hardened stomach from the amount of coffee I drink I'm sure it'd have no effect.

I do see your point.

[Hollus]

Where is the evidence that this isn't natural though? Refute my claim that CO2 makes up next to nothing in the big picture on the greenhouse effect.

I really hate debating science because it means I actually have to research so lets end this quick.

"Over the millennium before the Industrial Era, the atmospheric

concentrations of greenhouse gases remained relatively

constant. Since then, however, the concentrations of many

greenhouse gases have increased directly or indirectly

because of human activities.

Table 1 provides examples of several greenhouse gases and

summarises their 1750 and 1998 concentrations, their

change during the 1990s, and their atmospheric lifetimes.

The contribution of a species to radiative forcing of climate

change depends on the molecular radiative properties of the

gas, the size of the increase in atmospheric concentration,

and the residence time of the species in the atmosphere,

once emitted."

Thats on page 38 of the link I provided.

[geoffrey]

Ok cool. I'm not debating whether we are increasing CO2 though, I know we are, and its neat to see by how much.

I'm saying the overall amount of greenhouse gases haven't increased that much at all. A 10% increase in CO2 is such a minor increase in the overall picture.

This is what I take issue with. Obviously the world is getting warmer, but I don't think we are to blame. I don't agree with rampant pollution either though, because higher rates of asthma (though that might also have something to do with lazy kids) and more smog days aren't acceptable in my opinion either.

I'm working with ya here, I'm just not willing to blame humanity for turning up the thermostat.

[Hollus]

Ok cool. I'm not debating whether we are increasing CO2 though, I know we are, and its neat to see by how much.

I'm saying the overall amount of greenhouse gases haven't increased that much at all. A 10% increase in CO2 is such a minor increase in the overall picture.

This is what I take issue with. Obviously the world is getting warmer, but I don't think we are to blame. I don't agree with rampant pollution either though, because higher rates of asthma (though that might also have something to do with lazy kids) and more smog days aren't acceptable in my opinion either.

I'm working with ya here, I'm just not willing to blame humanity for turning up the thermostat.

I appreciate your working attitude

"FACT: Before human activities began to dramatically increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources closely matched the amount that was stored or absorbed through natural processes. For example, as forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis; this carbon is then sequestered in wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released back to the atmosphere when leaves, roots and wood die and decay. Carbon dioxide also cycles through the ocean. Plankton living at the ocean's surface absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The plankton and animals that eat the plankton then die and fall to the bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the water and returns to the surface via ocean currents. As a result of these natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air had changed very little for 10,000 years. But that balance has been upset by man.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has put about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere. Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels, higher than they have been in the last 420,000 years and are probably at the highest levels in the past 20 million years. Studies of the Earth's climate history have shown that even small, natural changes in carbon dioxide levels were generally accompanied by significant shifts in the global average temperature. We have already experienced a 1°F increase in global temperature in the past century, and we can expect significant warming in the next century if we fail to act to decrease greenhouse gas emissions."

I can't understand why your holding on to the idea that global warming could just be some coincidence

[August1991]

It's a natural process that has been occuring since the beginning of Earth. For some reason we have this ridiculous belief that it should stop for us (even though we've already been through one major ice age and another mini-iceage during the middle ages). CO2 makes up such a tiny tiny amount of green house gases (compared to water vapour, which is pretty much single handedly the only gas to consider) to even be considered.

Look at Mars. It has more CO2 in its atomosphere. Why is it colder? Because it has no water vapour (or less water vapour actually).

I don't want to get into the science, because I'm no scientist and I really have no idea about the details. But I do have common sense that says when CO2 is 0.0097% of our air it doesn't really matter too much.

There are two arguments in response: one moral, the other political.

One. I was raised to leave a place better than I found it. I recall this particularly for guest beds and campsites. In the case of a planet, I don't know what constitutes "better place" but I do know that if something appears to be free, people use too much of it. The environment appears to be free.

Two. Once a politician figures out a credible way to use environmental tax revenue to pay for government services, there will be no end to tax reform. We get clean air, clean lakes, uncongested roads - and no income or property taxes.

[geoffrey]

There are two arguments in response: one moral, the other political.

One. I was raised to leave a place better than I found it. I recall this particularly for guest beds and campsites. In the case of a planet, I don't know what constitutes "better place" but I do know that if something appears to be free, people use too much of it. The environment appears to be free.

Two. Once a politician figures out a credible way to use environmental tax revenue to pay for government services, there will be no end to tax reform. We get clean air, clean lakes, uncongested roads - and no income or property taxes.

I'm not disputing the first idea, or the second for that matter. I'm concerned that a carbon tax in particular is taxing the wrong thing and won't do anything.

I like the sound of making people responsible for their own goings on. Stop punishing people for working and getting ahead and start taxing on things that they do that degrade life for everyone else. Your making sense to me here, but can it be effectively done? And why environmental impact? People have negative effects on society in various ways beyond their environmental harm. Or perhaps the environment impact tax would be just one of many taxes on harms.

What about a crime tax?

[tml12]

There are two arguments in response: one moral, the other political.

One. I was raised to leave a place better than I found it. I recall this particularly for guest beds and campsites. In the case of a planet, I don't know what constitutes "better place" but I do know that if something appears to be free, people use too much of it. The environment appears to be free.

Two. Once a politician figures out a credible way to use environmental tax revenue to pay for government services, there will be no end to tax reform. We get clean air, clean lakes, uncongested roads - and no income or property taxes.

I'm not disputing the first idea, or the second for that matter. I'm concerned that a carbon tax in particular is taxing the wrong thing and won't do anything.

I like the sound of making people responsible for their own goings on. Stop punishing people for working and getting ahead and start taxing on things that they do that degrade life for everyone else. Your making sense to me here, but can it be effectively done? And why environmental impact? People have negative effects on society in various ways beyond their environmental harm. Or perhaps the environment impact tax would be just one of many taxes on harms.

What about a crime tax?

It would be difficult to make but I suppose it could be done effectively...