Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court seems to have flawed reasoning for saying the carbon tax was constitutional

[blackbird]

 

"Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for the majority, said the federal government is free to impose minimum pricing standards because the threat of climate change is so great that it demands a co-ordinated national approach."

I see several flaws in his reasoning:

1.  How is he qualified to declare "the threat of climate change is so great"?  On what basis does he make this claim?

Climate change is a normal part of history and has always occurred down through the ages.

2.  Canada's fossil CO2 emissions are only about 1.5% of the global fossil fuel emissions.  So whatever Canada does is not going to make any difference at all to the global emissions.  

3.  His reasoning also is flawed because a tax is not going to make any significant difference to CO2 fossil emissions by Canada.

So his ruling is flawed and it is punishing Canadians for something they have no control over.  

Supreme Court rules Ottawa's carbon tax is constitutional | CBC News

 

Edited August 31, 2024 by blackbird

[eyeball]

He knows how to judge the quality of evidence and the qualifications of the people presenting it. Judges are called on to do so in all manner of cases often involving evidence that's even more esoteric.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Climate change is a normal part of history and has always occurred down through the ages.

The judge would probably just as wisely roll his eyes and chuckle at this claim if it was presented as an argument for doing nothing.

In any case what isn't normal is the accelerating pace at which our planets climate is changing - its been faster since the mid 20th century than anything seen in the last 10,000 years.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

He knows how to judge the quality of evidence and the qualifications of the people presenting it. Judges are called on to do so in all manner of cases often involving evidence that's even more esoteric.

No, that's absoutely not how it works.  What he is qualified to do is weigh evidence against counter evidence. If only one 'side' presents evidence to that regard then that is the only evidence considered regardless of the quality.  Further he may only consider whether or not the govt' BELIEVES this  is the case and simply accept that it is their job to determine that and not assess the quality of their research at all. 

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The judge would probably just as wisely roll his eyes and chuckle at this claim if it was presented as an argument for doing nothing.

The opposite is true. If someone presented evidence that the carbon tax is doing nothing or that the current climate cycle is not outside of normal bounds he would consider that.  However that really wasn't what the case was about - the case was about whether the gov't had the right to impose such taxes if they felt it required a national response. 

I don't know why you just make shit up you don't know anything about but if you'd thought about it you'd realize that if what you just said was accurate, you'd have been saying the judge does not care about the law or science but rather makes judgements on his personal opinion without regards to the evidence. 

Is that what you meant to say? Its' what you said, but i suspect you'll be backpeddling as hard as  possible pretty quick. 

[herbie]

So who were the whiney pinheads that wasted money trying to say it wasn't constitutional/ Couple disgruntled Premiers? Cdn Taxdodgers Assn? Sue them.

Or just plain old disgruntled uneducated plebes that claim the Judge was wrong because they don't 'like' his decision.

 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

So who were the whiney pinheads that wasted money trying to say it wasn't constitutional/ Couple disgruntled Premiers? Cdn Taxdodgers Assn? Sue them.

 

And if they have a bouncy castle, declare the emergency act!!!!!! 

LOL, typical leftie. Weaponize the courts to attack people you don't like  

[eyeball]

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

So his ruling is flawed and it is punishing Canadians for something they have no control over.  

Why do you and Scott Moe, Jason Kenney, Erin O'Toole and apparently most conservatives act like the core reason for the dissenting opinion is that the idea climate change is real is nuts?

The dissenting opinion doesn't seem to say anything about the reality of climate change or the need to take action to prevent further warming. It's strictly a difference in opinion over federal vs provincial jurisdiction and concerns about  slippery slopes in the future.

From the article you posted;

"Its implications go far beyond the [carbon tax] act, opening the door to federal intrusion — by way of the imposition of national standards — into all areas of provincial jurisdiction, including intra-provincial trade and commerce, health, and the management of natural resources. It is bound to lead to serious tensions in the federation."

Scott Moe, Jason Kenney, Erin O'Toole and whoever else was behind this court challenge need to stop doing things that skirt their real issue by pressing for Parliament to legislate a Climate Change is Nuts or We Don't Give a Rats Ass Act.

Or something to that plain English effect.

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why do you and Scott Moe, Jason Kenney, Erin O'Toole and apparently most conservatives act like the core reason for the dissenting opinion is that the idea climate change is real is nuts

 

Why do you feel the need to lie and pretend that that's the issue? 

If climate change is real, climate change is always happened, climate change will always continue to happen till eventually the Sun Goes Nova.

A lot of people also believe that man makes a significant and substantial contribution to those changes. There is degrees of argument as to how much or how little mankind is playing the role but nonetheless most people understand with 9 billion of us on the planet we're actually having some sort of impact.

The problems are that

a) People like you wanted to be a crisis without being able to provide a shred of evidence that it is in fact some sort of existential crisis that needs an immediate response. In fact when the response is inconvenient to you you frequently throw climate change out the window. So a lot of people ask why they should suffer horrible economic hardship in order to address something that does not seem to actually be a crisis

And,

b) What is an idea that is real nuts is that anything we can do will make any real difference unless other countries take even more substantial steps. Canada represents such a low amount of emissions that even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow it would barely make a blip and china would replace those emissions with growth in their own emissions within a year and a half. So pretending that something that we can do today is going to somehow save the future and end climate change is beyond nuts. So again, explain why we should suffer hardship in order to do something that will make absolutely no difference.

I haven't even gotten into the hypocrisy yet or the blind devotion to snake oil cures. I mean, first tell me that this is a hyper important issue and that you have a solution in the form of carbon taxes, and then tell me that there are no ways to measure whether it has any effect and no targets involved with it. There is no way that both of those statements can be true. Either it's urgent and we are taking it seriously or it isn't and we are not. And currently we are not

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

The dissenting opinion doesn't seem to say anything about the reality of climate change or the need to take action to prevent further warming.

That is where you're way off base.  I noticed that you climate alarmists, doomsday cultists have one thing in common.  You believe your understanding of the universe grants you the right to impose your ideology and measures on everyone else.  Kind of like Marxist or Communist dictators.  There is no such thing as man-made climate change.  It has never been proven and never will be.  Therefore what you feel you have a right to impose on everyone else is wrong.  You have no right.  The vast populations are the ones paying for your insanity. 

Fortunately some of us are capable of bearing the carbon taxes, harm to industries, and the war on climate change.  However there are many people who are struggling to make ends meet and they are the ones that suffer the most.  Many may lose their jobs in such things as the energy industry and their families will suffer.  But the lunatics don't care.  They still force their agenda on everyone as Trudeau has done.  He has lots of money and never had to really work for a living.  So he can pursue his dream of fighting climate change at no cost to himself.  Everyone else is not so fortunate.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

reality of climate change

Do you understand there always has been climate change?   It is a fact of the natural world we live in.  Man had nothing to do with it.  Why now all of sudden is it man's fault?  There is no proof; just speculation and a cultish like belief that man causes it.

[CrazyCanuck89]

That's what judges do.  They found it was the federal government's jurisdiction to impose a carbon tax. 

Obviously the Fathers of Confederation couldn't forsee ever future jurisdictional argument.

[Aristides]

Does anyone really think judges should or could be experts on everything they have to rule on?

[Aristides]

Anyone who thinks 8 billion humans consuming renewable resources at 1.5 times faster than the planet’s capacity to replace them and dumping all kinds of crap into the environment (eg. Great Pacific  Garbage Patch) isn’t changing that environment, needs a reality check.

Edited September 1, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Anyone who thinks 8 billion humans consuming renewable resources at 1.5 times faster than the planet’s capacity to replace them and dumping all kinds of crap into the environment (eg. Great Pacific  Garbage Patch) isn’t changing that environment, needs a reality check.

Sorry, is there anyone saying that here? I have never seen a poster even suggest that.

This is the dishonesty that winds up making people think that you climb it alarmists are full of absolute crap. Why do you feel the need to lie? Isn't the truth good enough? Do you think you can convince other people of with lies?

The issue was never about whether or not the climate changes or whether or not mankind has any impact at all. The issue has always been is it actually a crisis and how much will changes in human behavior actually impact climate change?

And because you ignore that and failed to address those issues everybody with half a brain looks at you and says "He is selling bullsh*t And snake oil".

Case in point, you and your kind screamed to the High Heavens for 10 years that a carbon tax would make a substantial difference to climate change and was absolutely necessary and if we didn't do it then there would be a climate disaster.

Now we find out that the government didn't even set up goals or targets for how much the carbon tax would reduce emissions or any method of tracking it to determine if it was working. Basically they Didn't give a crap. This supposedly hugely important massively critical thing and they don't care about it one tiny little bit other than to pocket the revenue

And we're supposed to believe you guys. 10 years of taxes have done absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions

[Aristides]

The OP's first post maintains exactly that.

Whether a carbon tax is necessary or will have a desired effect is debatable (I'm not convinced) but human caused change is not.

People who point at China as the major cause of climate change also want to buy their cheap products (including EV's) manufactured with power generated by coal burning plants while at the same time selling them the coal to burn.

Our consumer lifestyle doesn't just impact our own emissions.

Edited September 1, 2024 by Aristides

[herbie]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Does anyone really think judges should or could be experts on everything they have to rule on?

In cases of law, yes they are and that's why and how they're there.
In this case they didn't have to know dick shit about climate change, they were ruling on LAW.
The last thing we need or want is Judges appointed for their goddam politics or popularity like in the USA.

You think after living with GST for three decades, the Carbon Tax stood a chance of being found unconstitutional? Then that ain't tobacco in your pipe.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The OP's first post maintains exactly that.

How? the op says there's always been climate change and questions how the person speaking is qualified to declare it a crisis.  Where does it say humans don't have any impact on climate change?

Quote

Whether a carbon tax is necessary or will have a desired effect is debatable (I'm not convinced) but human caused change is not.

Well there is some pretty hard core evidence that it makes almost no difference. It has been estimated that it reduced growth of emissions in bc by 5, possibly 10 percent. But that's GROWTH -  it was supposed ot reduce emissions by 30 percent. 

Here's the thing - it is our primary tool for fighting climate change so a) if we can't point to a difference after 10 years then it's useless and b) if they didn't even TRY to track it, set no goals and no monitoring, it is painfully clear they didn't expect it to succeed or have an impact. 

Quote

People who point at China as the major cause of climate change also want to buy their cheap products (including EV's) manufactured with power generated by coal burning plants while at the same time selling them the coal to burn.

SO if climate change is a 'Crisis", why didn't our gov't ban sales of coal to china and ban the import of all chinese made products?

I mean.... is this a crisis or not? 

At the end of the day it's pretty obvious that the climate zealots don't think this is that serious of an issue either. Their actions make that clear. They just want everyone to pretend it is in order to justify SOME actions while ignoring the problem at the same time. 

And that's why people are kind of getting sick of it. 

[Aristides]

If we are among the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gasses, we can't criticize the people of countries like China and India for wanting the same standard of living as us. So we ban sales of coal to China to make ourselves feel better but still buy their goods after they import coal from someone else to make them. Blackbird says we should be selling them coal and other resources so they can make them instead of making them ourselves. Never mind the emissions involved in shipping those resources across the Pacific and then shipping the finished goods back.

Edited September 2, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If we are among the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gasses, we can't criticize the people of countries like China and India for wanting the same standard of living as us.

I'm sorry, is this a crisis or isn't it? If it is a crisis then none of that matters in the slightest. If it's not a crisis why are we freaking out about it?

It doesn't matter at all who is or is not the highest per capita polluter. If getting the CO2 levels down is important then it has to start with them. If it's not important then frankly why are we worried about it. You can't have it both ways

So either it's not a big deal and we shouldn't be throwing away our standard of life for no good reason when it doesn't make any difference or it is an urgent crisis in which case China and India should be pressured to eliminate their excessive pollution regardless

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sorry, is this a crisis or isn't it? If it is a crisis then none of that matters in the slightest. If it's not a crisis why are we freaking out about it?

It doesn't matter at all who is or is not the highest per capita polluter. If getting the CO2 levels down is important then it has to start with them. If it's not important then frankly why are we worried about it. You can't have it both ways

So either it's not a big deal and we shouldn't be throwing away our standard of life for no good reason when it doesn't make any difference or it is an urgent crisis in which case China and India should be pressured to eliminate their excessive pollution regardless

It does matter who is the highest per capita emitter. You can't preach to others what you are unwilling to do yourself. As the populations of other countries strive to imitate our lifestyle, our standard of life will decline anyway. The global pie is only so big and we either accept a smaller piece of destroy the place by demanding more than it can give.

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It does matter who is the highest per capita emitter.

Canada is a very large country geographically with a relatively small population compared with many other countries.

Many large populations are concentrated in smaller geographical areas in the world.  

Because Canada is large many people in rural area must travel long distances for obtain groceries, medical appointments, etc.  They are not able to stop travelling to live.  Why should they be blamed for climate change.

Also, because Canada has large areas of forests, we have more forest fires than much of the rest of world.  Forest fires emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases.  That is just nature doing what it does.  Why should that be assumed to be a bad thing because it happens in this part of the world?  It is natural.  In fact, forest fires probably emit far more CO2 than Canadians emit with their motor vehicles per year.

So it is silly to claim that per capita emissions matter.  Some people in some countries must emit more CO2 to live.  If people in poorer countries don't own cars, they probably don't emit much CO2.  So what?  Claiming Canadians emit more CO2 is just a normal part of life and is just the nature of the world.  Why should Canadians be punished for just living?  It's nuts.

But what makes it all nonsensical is the fact there is no proof man is causing global warming.  There are many natural factors that determine global warming.  So how is it even possible to demonstrate man is the cause of it?  It isn't possible.

That means climate alarmism is a hoax and a fraud.

Edited September 2, 2024 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

It does matter who is the highest per capita emitter. You can't preach to others what you are unwilling to do yourself.

BULL - SHIT. 

Are you seriously telling me that they have the science in hand, KNOW they're going to die and the world will be destroyed, and they're deliberately not doing anything about it because they think that CANADA isn't doing enough? They'll bring on the end of the world based on principle?!?

That's not believable. Their actions aren't dicatated one tiny bit by what we do or don't do. That is just pure fantasy. 

Further -we've been doing the carbon tax now for 10 years. (parts of us for more like 15).  And they haven't changed their behavior at all. 

And Trudeau just put a massive levy on their EV's.  So suddenly we DO care more about economics than the climate i guess. 

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

As the populations of other countries strive to imitate our lifestyle, our standard of life will decline anyway.

Why? They'll suffer worse than we will.  Canada actually won't be all that bad off apperently. Those other twits will pay the price before we do. 

And seeing as nothing we do will change anything anyway AND as it's obvious that they're not going to change why would we do ANYTHING? We should be putting our efforts and money into adapting and preparing for climate change.  THe billions the carbon tax raked in for trudeau would have bought a hell of a lot of firebombers for forest fires, or emergency gennies for quebec in case of ice storm. etc etc.  Save up and compensate those people who's property is supposedly going to be under water at some point. 

Again you think you're making some sort of sound argument but everything you're saying just hammers home that we're stupid to be doing ANYTHING to fight climate change because the serious polluters aren't going to stop no matter what we do shy of bombing them. We'd be better off adapting and putting resources into coming up with new tech that will make it cheaper and easier to avoid carbon in the future or take it out of the air. 

[Aristides]

I agree that our climate and size will mean our emissions will be higher than average but that is no excuse to do nothing. Human caused climate change is real, there is so much evidence that one has to be intentionally ignorant not to acknowledge it. How we deal with it will always be a subject of debate but doing nothing to at least slow it down while we figure out how will be disastrous and we can do a lot to reduce emissions without destroying the economy.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

I agree that our climate and size will mean our emissions will be higher than average but that is no excuse to do nothing.

Sure it is.  put it this way, if there was nobody else in the world and canada was the only place in existance some how, would our emissions make any difference? No.  

Quote

Human caused climate change is real, there is so much evidence that one has to be intentionally ignorant not to acknowledge it.

That's nice. Cool story.  Now -  is it a 'crisis'? Is that any reason to destroy our economy or way of life or quality of life? I've seen no evidence of that and i've seen dozens and dozens of requests even on this forum for any science that it is without a single response providing any

And it is CLEAR that the government does not believe you. They don't believe it's serious at all. They don't believe we need to do anything substantial.  Their biggest "action" to date was the carbon tax.... and they admit they didn't even set a single goal for how much it would reduce emissions OR any method of monitoring it in the slighest. 

At least bc did do that, they had a target and had considered how to monitor it. It failed badly btw. And we now know why. 

So ... if the gov't thinks you're bonkers could you explain why I should take you seriously on the matter?

Quote

How we deal with it will always be a subject of debate but doing nothing to at least slow it down while we figure out how will be disastrous and we can do a lot to reduce emissions without destroying the economy.

Why will it be a disaster? The gov't doesn't think it'll be a disaster. China and india don't think it'll be a disastser ,they're increasing output.  Where's the science showing that if Canada doesn't do something it'll be a disaster? What will that 'disaster' look like?

 Here's the thing. Nobody answers those questions.  Honestly most don't even try and the ones who do give vague or unsupported claims or scenarious that assume we would never even try to adapt. 

We've spent ten years at this, trashed our economy and achieved nothing - more and more people are done with it. If you cared you should have been in the liberal's face, they've had 10 years to do something meaningful and this is supposed to be their thing. 

Now we'll just stop trying. PP will get in and axe the tax and if he comes up with something that's FREE that makes things better then fine but otherwise the country is getting sick of it. Learn to adapt, we can't fix anything ourselves.