Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[PIK]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

So why is the world getting hotter?

What caused it 1300 years ago that wipe out the race of people referred to the little people? Why is green land called green land. Why do they find fossils of palm trees in the arctic? I have no clue ,and neither do you or anyone else for that matter. The burning of the rain forests produces alot more carbon then all the cars in the world. Maybe saddam and the burning of his wells did it, even the burning of the rainforest causes more carbon then all the cars in the world . Nobody really knows.

Edited March 16, 2017 by PIK

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, PIK said:

Nobody really knows.

Well we know greenhouse gases raise temperatures, and that CO2 has increased correlated to temperatures.

 

It's sad to me that people can't accept facts.  It's a failing actually.

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, PIK said:

What caused it 1300 years ago that wipe out the race of people referred to the little people? Why is green land called green land. Why do they find fossils of palm trees in the arctic? I have no clue ,and neither do you or anyone else for that matter. The burning of the rain forests produces alot more carbon then all the cars in the world. Maybe saddam and the burning of his wells did it, even the burning of the rainforest causes more carbon then all the cars in the world . Nobody really knows.

What did cause it? The thing is, now we have the ability to measure different things, accumulate and analyze data. Like measuring the suns temperature and sunspot activity, variations in the earth's orbit, quantities of different gasses in our atmosphere and their effects etc. We don't ignore this just beacuse our ancestors didn't have them. Or at least a lot of us don't. Trump still doesn't understand that clorofourocarbons destroy the ozone layer, something we have known for decades and why they were banned nearly 40 years ago.

 

Deforestation is a problem but only if the trees aren't replaced. Burn a tree and it is carbon neutral as long as you plant a new one to absorb the carbon. Burn a ton of coal or barrel of oil, the carbon doesn't go back into the ground to become coal and oil again, it sticks around.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

35 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 Or at least a lot of us don't. Trump still doesn't understand that clorofourocarbons destroy the ozone layer, something we have known for decades and why they were banned nearly 40 years ago.

 

Not Trump's responsibility in Canada....Canada has done very little on the climate change "file" going back decades.   Kyoto FAIL.

[cannuck]

16 hours ago, Wilber said:

Deforestation is a problem but only if the trees aren't replaced. Burn a tree and it is carbon neutral as long as you plant a new one to absorb the carbon. Burn a ton of coal or barrel of oil, the carbon doesn't go back into the ground to become coal and oil again, it sticks around.

Not at all true.  Plants use CO2, turning it into carbon based organic matter that eventually returns to the soil and re-incorporates into the Earth as carbonaceous rock.  Similarly, oceans are a massive carbon sink.   Life on this planet is carbon based, and carbon di-oxide production from energy use (mechanical or biological) is how it is moved through the essential carbon cycle.

The fact that we are producing too much CO2 to maintain balance within the ecosystem is a function of letting the population increase 700% over the last century.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Not at all true.  Plants use CO2, turning it into carbon based organic matter that eventually returns to the soil and re-incorporates into the Earth as carbonaceous rock.  Similarly, oceans are a massive carbon sink.   Life on this planet is carbon based, and carbon di-oxide production from energy use (mechanical or biological) is how it is moved through the essential carbon cycle.

The fact that we are producing too much CO2 to maintain balance within the ecosystem is a function of letting the population increase 700% over the last century.

A plant cannot create carbon, it just recycles it. No plants, no recycling. 

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Not at all true.  Plants use CO2, turning it into carbon based organic matter that eventually returns to the soil and re-incorporates into the Earth as carbonaceous rock.

Not sure what process you are talking about.

Plants take C02 out of he atmosphere and combine it with water to form carbohydrates.  If you burn the plant then the carbohydrates will break down into water and carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide). A decomposing plan will do the same thing. Here we are talking about a cycle that lasts between a few months and a few centuries. Another product of this process is energy.

What is not completely understood is the process that creates fossil fuels, which yes includes coal. The carbohydrates are converted into hydrocarbons and water, but this process uses energy (heat and high pressure). Here the cycle is a few hundred million years. The problem is we are burning the fossil fuels that accumulated over many hundreds of millions of years in a couple of centuries.

[Army Guy]

On 3/16/2017 at 6:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Well we know greenhouse gases raise temperatures, and that CO2 has increased correlated to temperatures.

 

It's sad to me that people can't accept facts.  It's a failing actually.

Until the entire world gets this wrapped around their minds , nothing is going to stop climate change....and if we think that a Canadian carbon tax will start or stop anything that is sad really......

[herples]

China is implementing a carbon tax and India already has one in which Modi increased the price for. 

[cannuck]

22 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Not sure what process you are talking about.

Plants take C02 out of he atmosphere and combine it with water to form carbohydrates.  If you burn the plant then the carbohydrates will break down into water and carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide). A decomposing plan will do the same thing. Here we are talking about a cycle that lasts between a few months and a few centuries. Another product of this process is energy.

What is not completely understood is the process that creates fossil fuels, which yes includes coal. The carbohydrates are converted into hydrocarbons and water, but this process uses energy (heat and high pressure). Here the cycle is a few hundred million years. The problem is we are burning the fossil fuels that accumulated over many hundreds of millions of years in a couple of centuries.

the carbon cycle sees CO2 used in plants, when the plants degrade, the don't turn into energy and gas, there is considerable biomass left behind, and that biomass ends up within the soil.  Eventually, it will return to state of a carbonaceous mineral deposit, exactly as you point out.    The oceans absorb even  more CO2 than the forests, I believe.  

Both man and nature (we are in fact part of nature) have burned hydrocarbon biomass since hyrdocarbon biomass began to exist.  The only reason we have such a phenomenal rate of resource use right now is the fact we have been stupid enough to overpopulate to the level of unsustainability.   The solution is to reduce population, not to piddle away all of our resources trying to figure out how to have MORE population.

on edit:  I see this is about what I posted just a while ago.   Guess nothing has changed in the last 24 hours.

Edited March 18, 2017 by cannuck

[cannuck]

On 3/17/2017 at 10:47 AM, Wilber said:

A plant cannot create carbon, it just recycles it. No plants, no recycling. 

That's what I said - plants USE CO2 to make other carbon compounds (hydrogenated ones, mostly).   There will always be plants.   We are the component that is very temporary, plants have been around a very long time, and will be around for a very long time in the future (unless we lose our entire atmosphere).

[Wilber]

6 minutes ago, cannuck said:

That's what I said - plants USE CO2 to make other carbon compounds (hydrogenated ones, mostly).   There will always be plants.   We are the component that is very temporary, plants have been around a very long time, and will be around for a very long time in the future (unless we lose our entire atmosphere).

Very few plants that can recycle CO2 in deserts. Global warming you know. If it were even possible, it would take millions of years for nature to recycle the carbon we dig out of the ground and burn.

A recent study said that in 50 years, Vancouver could be the same as present day San Diego. I don't know if that is true but  if so, how hot will San Diego be and where are all the people in Southern California going to go?

[Guest]

Just now, Wilber said:

Very few plants that can recycle CO2 in deserts. Global warming you know. If it were even possible, it would take millions of years for nature to recycle the carbon we dig out of the ground and burn.

A recent study said that in 50 years, Vancouver could be the same as present day San Diego. I don't know if that is true but  if so, how hot will San Diego be and where are all the people in Southern California going to go?

Vancouver, obviously.  Along with all the people from everywhere else that can no longer comfortably sustain life .

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

...A recent study said that in 50 years, Vancouver could be the same as present day San Diego. I don't know if that is true but  if so, how hot will San Diego be and where are all the people in Southern California going to go?

 

Never been to Mexico City ?     San Diego temperatures will always be moderated by ocean layers, as they are today.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Vancouver, obviously.  Along with all the people from everywhere else that can no longer comfortably sustain life .

 

Nope....real estate is too expensive there already !  Can't sustain life....

Edited March 18, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Never been to Mexico City ?     San Diego temperatures will always be moderated by ocean layers, as they are today.

If Mexico warms up 10 degrees, your present illegal immigrant problem will be nothing in comparison.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

If Mexico warms up 10 degrees, your present illegal immigrant problem will be nothing in comparison.

 

No worries...Canada is already panicking over a few hundred new illegals....we have MILLIONS.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope....real estate is too expensive there already !  Can't sustain life....

You know that under JT, real estate will be provided!

[Wilber]

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No worries...Canada is already panicking over a few hundred new illegals....we have MILLIONS.

And we will have millions of Americans. No offence intended.

[cannuck]

the huge flaw in the current leftie tree hugging model is that climate is somehow a static thing.   It is not.   Remember the "ice age"?   It was colder here then.  Remember the comments about "Greenland"?   It was warmer there once.  And on and on it goes.  Climate changes, constantly, and the swings are huge.   Is there an anthropomorphic contribution?   Yes, but how large that is is still questionable.   We may be contributing to a trend (there is considerable debate of the CO2 related data) or not, but that is pretty much inconsequential.   Mamma nature is going to take the climate wherever Mamma nature wants it.    We are just along for the ride and are powerless to do much about it - just as were the dinosaurs who predeceased us.  We are not just waiting around for a comet or whatever to precipitate our extinction, though.  We have figured out how to reproduce to an unsustainable level all by ourselves (well, again with Mamma Nature bestowing insufficient intellect for us to understand and control that factor).

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

And we will have millions of Americans. No offence intended.

 

If any are illegal, deport them, as I would deport all the Canadian illegals in the USA.

Relevance to carbon taxes ?

Edited March 18, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Seriously, anyone who doesn't understand the effects of climate change on migration and conflict hasn't been paying attention to what has been going on in Africa. If they think we are immune, they are living in a fools paradise.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Seriously, anyone who doesn't understand the effects of climate change on migration and conflict hasn't been paying attention to what has been going on in Africa. If they think we are immune, they are living in a fools paradise.

And you think standing on a hilltop and pissing into the wind is going to change that?

[Wilber]

Just now, cannuck said:

And you think standing on a hilltop and pissing into the wind is going to change that?

It seems that you think any attempt to at least slow down the effect humans are having on climate is just pissing in the wind. What's your plan, just stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It seems that you think any attempt to at least slow down the effect humans are having on climate is just pissing in the wind. What's your plan, just stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?

You might as well do that anyway.  Seriously though, if you are going to suffer for nothing, why suffer?  If your attempt to at least slow down the effect humans are having on climate actually doesn't, except in the kind of negligible way that a small meteorite increases the mass of the Earth, then why make the attempt? 

Either AGW is caused by human activity or it isn't.  If it is, there are far too many humans who don't give a toss for those who do to make any noticeable change with the measures they are willing to take.  If it's not, why bother?  Just move to higher ground.

Edited March 18, 2017 by bcsapper