Why climate alarmism and carbon taxes are a scam.

[Aristides]

We are frogs in a gradually heating pot and when we eventually realize it is going to kill us, it will be too late to get out.

[Nationalist]

On 7/20/2024 at 12:49 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's proven as much as it could ever be proven.  See the Greenhouse Effect 

2. "Trace gas" is meaningless and irrelevant.

3. I addressed that.

You are part of a small and shrinking minority who believes only what they're told by their tribal leaders...

Here we go again...sigh...

Does this Greenhouse Effect exist? Ya...sure...it's plausible.

Has 8 billion humans had an effect on the global climate? Ya...sure...it's plausible.

If we accept the plausibilities as fact, the question becomes...is this a problem and if it is, how much should we be concerned? Well...if we're gonna make financial demands on humanity, and scare them to the point many people decide to not procreate, there'd better be unequivical and irrefutable evidence that we are facing a CRISIS of epic and imminent disaster...right?

Yet that evidence does not exist. 

In our country, the presumed next PM is running on a slogan..."Axe The Tax". He's leading in polls quite substantially. People are obviously not convinced this fear-porn is a CRISIS. Nor are the scientific community.

Perhaps Mike...you should rethink your religious adherence to what really appears to be nothing more than a political tool.

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

We are frogs in a gradually heating pot and when we eventually realize it is going to kill us, it will be too late to get out.

You could get out now if you like...frogy...

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

1. Well...if we're gonna make financial demands on humanity, and scare them to the point many people decide to not procreate, there'd better be unequivical and irrefutable evidence that we are facing a CRISIS of epic and imminent disaster...right?

Yet that evidence does not exist. 

2. Perhaps Mike...you should rethink your religious adherence to what really appears to be nothing more than a political tool.

You could get out now if you like...frogy...

1. If people are scared then that's their choice. From your points here, you got all the information and made a rational assessment that maybe something's going on. You didn't get scared. You just got the information and made it an analysis. 

Some people are going to get scared, but it doesn't mean we should stop talking about it.  

The economic case is a separate discussion from whether there is actually problem or a risk of a problem. 

It becomes a math problem. What percentage of the economy should be devoted to the problem versus what would be the cost if nothing was done? 

2. You will find that almost all my posts on this topic are around the science of whether there is something happening and the discussion about whether there's a risk. 

You don't seem to like my style of posts, which is fine. But there's nothing religious about my approach. Because I come on here... Mostly critical of other posts, I get a lot of people who make assumptions about my position. I'm not saying that you do that generally, but by saying I'm religious about this, you're making an error. 

 

 

[Guest]

On 7/20/2024 at 7:15 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Because globally, it causes temperature to change.  And all countries would need to agree to lower emissions to have an effective approach.

Thats part of the problem.

Alarmists are spelling gloom and doom, when this is a global problem. Meaning the solution must be global.

Meaning, the worst polluters must be involved, or you're essentially throwing a drop of water in an Olympic pool.

That "at least I am doing something", talk is rather useless, when you don't prioritize them.

Spelling the end of the world to tax people higher, isn't a solution, either.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Thats part of the problem.

Alarmists are spelling gloom and doom, when this is a global problem. Meaning the solution must be global.

Meaning, the worst polluters must be involved, or you're essentially throwing a drop of water in an Olympic pool.

That "at least I am doing something", talk is rather useless, when you don't prioritize them.

Spelling the end of the world to tax people higher, isn't a solution, either.

Agreed.  The entirety of the planet must be brought into any attempt to address the issue.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If people are scared then that's their choice. From your points here, you got all the information and made a rational assessment that maybe something's going on. You didn't get scared. You just got the information and made it an analysis. 

Some people are going to get scared, but it doesn't mean we should stop talking about it.  

The economic case is a separate discussion from whether there is actually problem or a risk of a problem. 

It becomes a math problem. What percentage of the economy should be devoted to the problem versus what would be the cost if nothing was done? 

2. You will find that almost all my posts on this topic are around the science of whether there is something happening and the discussion about whether there's a risk. 

You don't seem to like my style of posts, which is fine. But there's nothing religious about my approach. Because I come on here... Mostly critical of other posts, I get a lot of people who make assumptions about my position. I'm not saying that you do that generally, but by saying I'm religious about this, you're making an error. 

 

 

The topic is becoming as volatile as the one about covid vaccines.

Too much "preaching"by both sides of the argument makes the actuall prob;em become mot a it is more "fun" to argue.

As for the economic part of this, when only a small number of countries, and they are the ones least polluting, enforce significant economic burden on their citizen, it is an issue that is absolutely useless. While the climate problem is real, making life difficult by climate taxation on Canadians is laughable.

i realize and understand your posts are main scientific but our governments fight is using economic weapons. Hard to listen to reason when my wallet is emptying.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

i realize and understand your posts are main scientific but our governments fight is using economic weapons. Hard to listen to reason when my wallet is emptying.

Sure.  I would say that economic hardship is a general problem, making it unreasonable for people to be expected to get behind this.

In other words, if we were flush we'd probably be more acceptable to paying for this.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The entirety of the planet must be brought into any attempt to address the issue.

I mean when you look at things like the pacific garbage patch, you're looking at some of the poorest countries, which collectively contribute heavily to the problem. 

If many can't even afford proper sewage or sanitation, you can't expect them to crack down on pollution, either.

Kind of unsure how taxing me more, fixes that or India, China or the US, or the many other leaders in carbon emissions.

We get ours low, and then virtue signal, while the situation is the same?

Am logical, so the end game is critical for me, to understand the purpose of something.

Climate change is real. Taxing me for it (citing forrest fires as proof), is nothing more than a scam.

Ironically enough, you're burning through our tax dollars while not dramatically reducing consumption.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I mean when you look at things like the pacific garbage patch, you're looking at some of the poorest countries, which collectively contribute heavily to the problem. 

If many can't even afford proper sewage or sanitation, you can't expect them to crack down on pollution, either.

Kind of unsure how taxing me more, fixes that or India, China or the US, or the many other leaders in carbon emissions.

We get ours low, and then virtue signal, while the situation is the same?

Am logical, so the end game is critical for me, to understand the purpose of something.

Climate change is real. Taxing me for it (citing forrest fires as proof), is nothing more than a scam.

Ironically enough, you're burning through our tax dollars while not dramatically reducing consumption.

My posts keep disappearing. I did respond and ask about the garbage issue. I don't know much about it... Wouldn't poor countries have pure plastics to throw away in to the ocean? 

As for carbon tax... It's up to each country how they want to reduce emissions. Without a framework you can't even go to another country and say they're not meeting an agreement right? 

 

Andrew Scheer proposed carbon credits for Canada. Maybe you like that plan better.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If people are scared then that's their choice. 

Ok - we choose not to be. Take your tax and eff off.

Well - that was easy  

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Ok - we choose not to be. Take your tax and eff off.

Well - that was easy  

I'm fine with adopting Scheer's plan... go for it !

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm fine with adopting Scheer's plan... go for it !

Already rejected i'm afraid, you should have been 'fine with it' when he was running for office. 

Erin's plan (which i actually liked better) is also off the table. 

Now there probably won't be much of a plan.  And that's what happens when you left wing types refuse to even listen to or consider the concerns of others. Anyone who says the carbon tax isn't effective is a .... (gasp!)... CLIIIIIIMMMAAATTTEEE DEEEENIIIERRRR!!!!! (echo echo echo.. ) Queue the thunder! 

for 10 years you've had free reign to do the right thing and produce solutions that give results and you've utterly failed. So much for your claims it's a 'crisis',  a crisis you don't even care enough to take seriously 

Now it'll likely get backburnered and we'll likely see a bit of investment in tech and maybe some tree planting etc and thats it. 

Well done. 

[ExFlyer]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Already rejected i'm afraid, you should have been 'fine with it' when he was running for office. 

Erin's plan (which i actually liked better) is also off the table. 

Now there probably won't be much of a plan.  And that's what happens when you left wing types refuse to even listen to or consider the concerns of others. Anyone who says the carbon tax isn't effective is a .... (gasp!)... CLIIIIIIMMMAAATTTEEE DEEEENIIIERRRR!!!!! (echo echo echo.. ) Queue the thunder! 

for 10 years you've had free reign to do the right thing and produce solutions that give results and you've utterly failed. So much for your claims it's a 'crisis',  a crisis you don't even care enough to take seriously 

Now it'll likely get backburnered and we'll likely see a bit of investment in tech and maybe some tree planting etc and thats it. 

Well done. 

Are you saying PP does not have a plan? Or that he won't have much of a plan?

 

Bit of tech? What tech?

Tree planting?  Ongoing for decades.

"Canada plants 600 million trees annually."  https://8billiontrees.com/trees/how-many-trees-are-planted-each-year/

""On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia. " https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/factsheet-reforestation-in-bc

"Forests Ontario and its partners planted approximately 2.5 million trees across the province this season as part of its 50 Million Tree Program. This brings the program's total to almost 40 million trees planted,"  https://forestsontario.ca/en/article/forests-ontario-planted-2-5-million-trees

Other Provinces are planting trees every year too. That is not counting the logging companies that re legally obliged to re plant.

 

On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Already rejected i'm afraid, you should have been 'fine with it' when he was running for office. 

 

2. for 10 years you've had free reign to do the right thing and produce solutions that give results and you've utterly failed. So much for your claims it's a 'crisis',  a crisis you don't even care enough to take seriously 

 

1. I was.
2. I have ?  Me ?  MY claims that it's a crisis ?  Hey it's me, Michael !  Wait, do you think I'm really Trudeau ?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know much about it...

Well I have been to a few developing countries, and its a complex issue.

But corruption plays a massive part.

IE large firms with plants that pollute profusely, and prefer to pay bribes to governments, vs fix the problem.

Governments turn a blind eye, and its the people at the bottom that truly suffer:

The above is mild. 

I remember experiencing the (Pasig) "dead river" in Manila. Obviously its nickname, due to the fact no aquatic life could be sustained in it, before they invested heavily in trying to clean it.

Several such rivers all over developing countries. Raw sewage, water fully murky brown, gray, green etc. The smell of some, is unreal, and I have a strong stomach.

This is without getting into the CO2 emissions from those factories which aren't following any emissions guidelines.

"Belching" cars spewing black soot is the norm. Coughing black phlegm was followed by migraines when I didn't mask up in some of the worst cities I went to in the world.

Again, they want to increase my taxes for this being the norm in several developing countries with heavy populations?

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Well I have been to a few developing countries, and its a complex issue. But corruption plays a massive part.

IE large firms with plants that pollute profusely, and prefer to pay bribes to governments, vs fix the problem.

 

2. Again, they want to increase my taxes for this being the norm in several developing countries with heavy populations?

 

1. Wow.  Terrible.
2. If you think that asking China to unilaterally act to improve things, then that's a very special mindset.

[Political Smash]

On 7/28/2024 at 2:33 PM, Aristides said:

We are frogs in a gradually heating pot and when we eventually realize it is going to kill us, it will be too late to get out.

Perhaps you should come to Earth where there is no such crisis, just a small bunch of radicals with a sick agenda and a strangle hold on main stream media of which not one of them (let alone you) can prove that 3% of the Earth's surface area occupied by humans raises the Earth's atmospheric temperature 0.000001 degree.

Edited July 29, 2024 by Political Smash

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you saying PP does not have a plan? Or that he won't have much of a plan?

 

I think it'll be a much lower priority. At least in his first four years.  I think he knows people are focused on other things after 10 years of liberal rule. Like having food and shelter  

So i don't expect  a major effort on the environment. I'm sure there will be some but i woudn't look for anyone to 'fix' climate change. 

 

Quote

Bit of tech? What tech?

Are you suggesting there's NO tech that would make a difference to climate change?

Quote

Tree planting?  Ongoing for decades.

Just like the carbon tax.  But more useful.

Quote

"Canada plants 600 million trees annually."  https://8billiontrees.com/trees/how-many-trees-are-planted-each-year/

Excellent - bump it to 650 and call it done. It would actually do more than carbon taxes did. 

 

 

Quote

On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia.

Perfect - so they're already out there doing it provincially, have hem stick a couple of extra million in and call it the 'federal' tree program.  

That's what justin does pretty often - rolls in on a provincial program and adds a few bucks, and then announces the total as a combined  FEDERAL (provincial) PROGRAM and takes credit for the whole thing  

Good idea  

Look - for 10 years the feds sold people on the idea that climate change was URGENT!!!! And that the CARBON TAX WILL SOLVE IT!!! (think of the forest fires!)

Now people can't afford to live, and we still have forest fires. The carbon tax hurt us badly, and solved nothing.  The climate activists squandered their golden chance over a decade by not taking it seriously and now people have other fish to fry. 

So - i think you'll see some efforts, like  i said some investment in tech, probably more of a focus on adaption, but basically it'll be a lower priority issue for the gov't and the people 

What did you expect? You can't tax people into oblivion for a decade or so without benefit and expect them to be happy about it when they can't afford a home.

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. If you think that asking China to unilaterally act to improve things, then that's a very special mindset.

Why?  They're big enough to actually make a difference.  They currently increase pollution at the rate of canada's entire output every year and a half or so.  So if they did something it would actually have meaning.  

I thought you said this was urgent. If it's a crisis why wouldn't they? And if it's not then what are we talking about it for?

[ExFlyer]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think it'll be a much lower priority. At least in his first four years.  I think he knows people are focused on other things after 10 years of liberal rule. Like having food and shelter  

So i don't expect  a major effort on the environment. I'm sure there will be some but i woudn't look for anyone to 'fix' climate change. 

 

Are you suggesting there's NO tech that would make a difference to climate change?

Just like the carbon tax.  But more useful.

Excellent - bump it to 650 and call it done. It would actually do more than carbon taxes did. 

 

 

Perfect - so they're already out there doing it provincially, have hem stick a couple of extra million in and call it the 'federal' tree program.  

That's what justin does pretty often - rolls in on a provincial program and adds a few bucks, and then announces the total as a combined  FEDERAL (provincial) PROGRAM and takes credit for the whole thing  

Good idea  

Look - for 10 years the feds sold people on the idea that climate change was URGENT!!!! And that the CARBON TAX WILL SOLVE IT!!! (think of the forest fires!)

Now people can't afford to live, and we still have forest fires. The carbon tax hurt us badly, and solved nothing.  The climate activists squandered their golden chance over a decade by not taking it seriously and now people have other fish to fry. 

So - i think you'll see some efforts, like  i said some investment in tech, probably more of a focus on adaption, but basically it'll be a lower priority issue for the gov't and the people 

What did you expect? You can't tax people into oblivion for a decade or so without benefit and expect them to be happy about it when they can't afford a home.

 

 

I do not in any way defend the carbon tax. To blame it on trudeau is not quite fair though. Some provinces had it before he made it a national issue and some province do not get anything from the feds for it because they have their own and all they collect is for themselves.

PP will get so much pressure, if he "axe the tax" he will very soon thereafter have something quite simlar in place.

Again, I am not sure what "tech" you are talking abotu and for what?

As for tree planting. Nothing new here. I am from BC and as a young person way back in the stone age (?) we were planting trees. I did it for 3 days and said this is the crappiest job ever and quit LOL.  The logging companies were mandated to plant a lot more trees than they cut. That has been going on forever.

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

PP will get so much pressure, if he "axe the tax" he will very soon thereafter have something quite simlar in place.

And his tribe will talk about how much better it is... *Shrug*

Fine with me, if there's anything in place to*attempt to meet our treaty agreements in good will. Let's see how he does...

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Political Smash said:

Perhaps you should come to Earth where there is no such crisis

Perhaps you should try shouting that from atop soapbox in Jasper. And so post a pic of your bruises from the rocks thrown at you.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not in any way defend the carbon tax. To blame it on trudeau is not quite fair though. Some provinces had it before he made it a national issue and some province do not get anything from the feds for it because they have their own and all they collect is for themselves.

Those gov'ts would have had to wear it and be responsible for it's failure as well. BC is getting pretty furious with it, and that gov't doesn't even return the money it's just a tax. 

But by mandating it AND mandating the INCREASE trudeau took it on himself and has to wear it entirely.  Even if those provinces wanted to get rid of it they couldn't. 

Quote

PP will get so much pressure, if he "axe the tax" he will very soon thereafter have something quite simlar in place.

Nope.  He'll do SOMETHING to look like he's taking action on climate change but nobody's going to give a crap if the other problems start to get bettter.

Quote

Again, I am not sure what "tech" you are talking abotu and for what?

There's a lot of options. I think you're being deliberately obtuse if you're going to claim there's no tech possible to invest in.  There's advanced battery research, there's carbon capture, there's nuclear energy, all kinds of things.

Quote

As for tree planting. Nothing new here.

Doesn't need to be new. In fact not new is better. It's much easier to implement something people are already doing. 

He'll just pay for an extra million trees or the like (Something trudeau promised) and it'll cost about half a million dollars to subsidize and bob's yer uncle. 

People just aren't going to care about it as much, and can be distracted from it just like the libs did with the carbon tax for a lot less money.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I was.

Should have voted for him then.  And so should others

 

Quote

2. I have ?  Me ?  MY claims that it's a crisis ?  Hey it's me, Michael !  Wait, do you think I'm really Trudeau ?

Of course you're not trudeau,  you haven't typed  "ummm" once when talking  

But i'm pretty sure i've seen you suggest that climate change is a crisis or extremely urgent issue. 

If i'm  wrong no problem, you can clarify right now - does climate change represent a crisis or urgent situation?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Fine with me, if there's anything in place to*attempt to meet our treaty agreements in good will. Let's see how he does...

But mike - why would there be? I mean you yourself don't seem to think it's much of a crisis. You accused me of believing you were justin trudeau just for suggesting it and we all know what an insult that would be