Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[August1991]

On 3/19/2017 at 1:12 AM, Wilber said:

Gasoline is only one source of CO2 emissions.

True, but retail gasoline is a major source of CO2 emissions.

If I were an opponent of this federal Liberal government and its carbon tax (CO2 tax), I would mention the existing federal excise tax on gasoline.

Heck, it's pasted on every gasoline pump in Canada.

[blackbird]

On 2017-03-18 at 10:12 PM, Wilber said:

Gasoline is only one source of CO2 emissions.

There are about 200 active volcanoes, which emit CO2.  Forest fires emit CO2.  I don't believe in man-made global warming.  It is a known fact the radiation output from the sun varies.  This obviously effects climate change.  There are other causes as well.  Man-made climate change theory suits the UN perfectly because it is made up of third world countries who will stand to benefit.  Trudeau promised to give them 2.65 billion dollars to help them fight the effects of climate change.  He never asked Canadians if they want to give that much money.  We are treated like serfs and used for his own agenda.

 

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There are about 200 active volcanoes, which emit CO2.  Forest fires emit CO2.  I don't believe in man-made global warming.  It is a known fact the radiation output from the sun varies.  This obviously effects climate change.  There are other causes as well.  Man-made climate change theory suits the UN perfectly because it is made up of third world countries who will stand to benefit.  Trudeau promised to give them 2.65 billion dollars to help them fight the effects of climate change.  He never asked Canadians if they want to give that much money.  We are treated like serfs and used for his own agenda.

 

Has volcanic activity increased significantly in the last 50 years? There have always been forest fires so why all of a sudden are they starting to make the earth warmer? As I already posted, the sun has been in a cooling trend for the past 35 years, so why is the earth getting warmer?

Edited March 29, 2017 by Wilber

[-1=e^ipi]

On 3/18/2017 at 11:43 PM, Wilber said:

Who cares.

They are attempting to internalize externalities due to air pollution. But if they have no intention to internalize the externalities of CO2 emissions then that is of concern.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There are about 200 active volcanoes, which emit CO2.  Forest fires emit CO2.  I don't believe in man-made global warming.

 

Conservation of mass calculations can easily demonstrate that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are overwhelmingly due to humans. We know roughly how much fossil fuels are being burned, so we know roughly how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere. We also know how much air is in the atmosphere. The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing is only about half the rate at which we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, because the oceans and biosphere are absorbing a fair amount of the CO2 emitted.

[August1991]

45 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Conservation of mass calculations can easily demonstrate that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are overwhelmingly due to humans.

....

 

I hate such claims/arguments: "...increases in wife-beating are overwhelmingly due to husbands."  

Is that claim even accurate? - Helpful?

And even if atmospheric CO2 is rising, does it change anything?

=====

So, -1=e^ipi, when exactly did you stop beating your wife? Last week or last month?

Edited March 29, 2017 by August1991

[-1=e^ipi]

52 minutes ago, August1991 said:

I hate such claims/arguments: "...increases in wife-beating are overwhelmingly due to husbands."  

Is that claim even accurate? - Helpful?

You want me to do some conservation of mass calculations in this thread? I've done them in previous threads on climate change.

 

52 minutes ago, August1991 said:

So, -1=e^ipi, when exactly did you stop beating your wife? Last week or last month?

I don't have a wife, and don't intend to. I'm an asexual virgin and I don't want to get screwed over by the sexist court system, so I intend to remain that way.

Edited March 29, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Conservation of mass calculations can easily demonstrate that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are overwhelmingly due to humans. We know roughly how much fossil fuels are being burned, so we know roughly how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere. We also know how much air is in the atmosphere. The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing is only about half the rate at which we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, because the oceans and biosphere are absorbing a fair amount of the CO2 emitted.

Why do some articles report that the observations in the 20th century have contradicted the theory then?  It is a very difficult theory to support because computer modeling depends on a host of assumptions.  If incorrect assumptions are made and bad data is fed into the computer modeling, then bad data will come out.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Has volcanic activity increased significantly in the last 50 years? There have always been forest fires so why all of a sudden are they starting to make the earth warmer? As I already posted, the sun has been in a cooling trend for the past 35 years, so why is the earth getting warmer?

I never said the earth was getting warmer.  I don't know that.  I mentioned the volcanic activity and forest fires to show there are other large emitters of CO2 besides man.  If there is any climate change, it likely has nothing to do with man.  There are lots of other reasons that could cause it if it is indeed warming up.

[-1=e^ipi]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Why do some articles report that the observations in the 20th century have contradicted the theory then?  It is a very difficult theory to support because computer modeling depends on a host of assumptions.  If incorrect assumptions are made and bad data is fed into the computer modeling, then bad data will come out.

Which theory? The hypothesis that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily human caused? Or are you referring to predictions of temperature changes? Are you confused?

 

My comment was with respect to the causes of changes in CO2. I said nothing about how much warming is due to CO2 changes. Simple conservation of mass calculations can demonstrate easily that the changes in atmospheric CO2 is human caused, but such calculations say nothing about how much warming that change in CO2 causes.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Why do some articles report that the observations in the 20th century have contradicted the theory then?  It is a very difficult theory to support because computer modeling depends on a host of assumptions.  If incorrect assumptions are made and bad data is fed into the computer modeling, then bad data will come out.

Computer modelling is used for future predictions, not observations of the past.

No serious research contradicts the findings of temperature increase correlated to CO2 increase.

Any controversy is based on people pushing bad data and bad theories, picked up by people who simply don't like environmentalism.

And again - the question that is actually unresolved is the economics of all of this: carbon taxes vs adapting vs mitigating vs credits

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

  If there is any climate change, it likely has nothing to do with man.  There are lots of other reasons that could cause it if it is indeed warming up.

We have compelling evidence:

The greenhouse gas effect

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from human-created sources

The correlated increase in temperature

Any other potential causes have been largely eliminated and those who state otherwise are not being objective.  

[Michael Hardner]

Also, we're drifting here.  As I said the economics of all of this is the most interesting and needs discussion.  -1=e^ipi is actually very knowledgable on this topic, why not engage with him on the details of taxes vs credits ?  You would learn a lot about that topic.

There are other threads that deny climate change - let's post on those if that's the subject you want to discuss. 

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Computer modelling is used for future predictions, not observations of the past.

That's not true. You can use models to try to reproduce historical temperature data. GCMs have a tendency to overestimate warming over the historical period, which could be an indication that they are a bit too sensitive to greenhouse gases.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'll also add that if you look at paleoclimate data, such as over the Pleistocene or the Holocene, historically the correlation between CO2 and temperature has been ~25 ppm per degree Celcius. Yet since ~1850, global temperature has increased by ~1C, yet atmospheric CO2 has increased by ~120 ppm, so we are well outside the historical correlation between temperature and CO2, which is another reason we know humans are the primary cause of increasing atmospheric CO2. Of course the conservation of mass calculation is an even more convincing argument.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

That's not true. You can use models to try to reproduce historical temperature data. GCMs have a tendency to overestimate warming over the historical period, which could be an indication that they are a bit too sensitive to greenhouse gases.

Sorry - I stand corrected and in fact this is a point of contention but 'models' aren't always the same thing.

Ice core samples and tree ring measurements are blended together and 'modeled' to a degree, but not the same as future projections.  And of course we have actual temperatures more recently.

[August1991]

On 3/29/2017 at 7:19 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Computer modelling is used for future predictions, not observations of the past.

No serious research contradicts the findings of temperature increase correlated to CO2 increase.

Any controversy is based on people pushing bad data and bad theories, picked up by people who simply don't like environmentalism.

And again - the question that is actually unresolved is the economics of all of this: carbon taxes vs adapting vs mitigating vs credits

Michael, have you ever heard of Dennis Meadows and The Limits to Growth?

====

Whatever one thinks of CO2 emissions, we in Canada already have now - by world standards - a tax on CO2 emissions. We have a federal excise tax of 10 cents per litre of gasoline.

Edited April 2, 2017 by August1991

[Centerpiece]

We need facts - we need the truth. We need rational, common sense.

The UN plan to avoid Armageddon is pure folly. Any gains that can by “sucker countries” will be dwarfed by the increase in emissions by so-called “developing” countries. Any rational look at the UN target of cutting global emissions in half by 2030 is not only unachievable – it is outrageously insane – literally the thinking of madmen. In fact, emissions will grow over that period. Globally, they have already grown by 40% since 2000!

It boggles the mind how the UN and our pliant media use such ambiguous terms as pollution, kilotons of carbon emissions – and yes, the term “Climate Change” itself. With Kyoto – and now Paris, many countries have made commitments that extend back to the 2005 Kyoto Agreement. Following below is a summary of statistics that show who the largest emitters are – and how successful they have been at reducing their GHG emissions. To give them an advantage, I’ve started at the year 2000. An important observation/opinion – the vast majority of any reductions are likely related to the shift away from coal – certainly this was the case in the EU – headed up by England/Ireland.

China’s Climate “Plan” alone says that they will not begin to reduce emissions until 2030 including the continued building of coal-fired generation plants. India has massive plans for coal. Russia has no plan. The EU has for the most part, has converted the majority of coal-fired energy – so they are faced with diminishing returns.

What do we do? Well, we’ve already wasted trillions on this scam. The move away from coal was driven more by economics than anything else – perhaps sped up by a few years – and as stated before, most emission reductions came from that transition – mostly to oil and gas. The answer is to seriously look at mitigation plans – plans which can address the troubling aspects of Climate Change but also the positive ones – and make no mistake, there are positive elements to a moderately warmer planet. We will never, ever in our lifetime achieve any meaningful reduction in global emissions – if there is a reduction at all.

Take a look at the real world below, data taken from the link that I’ve provided. Here’s a list of the top emitters, as of 2016. It shows how much their emissions have increased of reduced since 2000 – and what share of the world’s total GHG emissions they emit.

Total Global emissions for 2016 expressed in thousands of kilotons – 35755

Country                     % of Global Emissions            % increase/decrease since 2000

China                                   29%                                                         +286%

US                                        14%                                                          -14%

India                                     7%                                                            +238%

Russia                                   5%                                                            no change

Japan                                    3.5%                                                        -2%

Germany                              2%                                                           -10%

Canada                                 2%                                                           -7%

 

Source: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8  

Edited October 27, 2018 by Charles Anthony
merged; former title " The Folly of “Climate Change Plans” – and Trudeau's Carbon Tax "

[turningrite]

If the world is relying on the already carbon reducing countries of the West to solve the climate change problem we're all toast. Western countries could probably bring their carbon emissions to net zero by 2030 but given unrelenting carbon emission increases in the developing world there would be no improvement. So, the carbon pricing fixation of "progressives" like Trudeau is largely a charade, and a costly one at that as our ability to compete further declines. Oh well, who needs jobs or incomes?

Another big issue for me is that our feckless federal government now appears intent on exploiting climate change to further expand the income redistribution and vote buying scheme it loves to play. According to reports today, it now plans to offer carbon "rebates" next year that will supposedly compensate most for costs incurred as a result of the carbon tax it now plans to levy in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NB. And Alberta may well join that list by sometime next year. Great!  My guess is that taxpaying middle class Canadians will end up getting screwed, as always, even if some get a little break next year - which happens to be an election year. Coincidence? I think not. Hold on to your hats folks and get ready to be pickpocketed again.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-most-families-will-get-rebates-from-new-carbon-tax-trudeau-says/

Edited October 23, 2018 by turningrite

[Centerpiece]

To put an exclamation point on it - China is responsible for 67% of the increase in Global emissions since 2000. India is responsible for 15%. What rationale could ever maintain that Canada's attempt to reduce our emissions by 30% of our measly 2% makes any sense at all? As I - and others have stated many times - Canada could make a bigger difference by building pipelines and helping to replace coal in other parts of the world - although I admit, even that would have a relatively negligible overall effect. At this point in time - I'm sure Canadians would like to shut off buying Saudi oil.......... 

[Spiderfish]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

To put an exclamation point on it - China is responsible for 67% of the increase in Global emissions since 2000. India is responsible for 15%. What rationale could ever maintain that Canada's attempt to reduce our emissions by 30% of our measly 2% makes any sense at all? 

If you believe that this is what is really behind Trudeau's imposition of a carbon tax, then aside from being an average misinformed or gullible Canadian, you would also be incorrect.  Proof??  McKenna announced today that the provinces that are subject to Trudeau's forced carbon tax, not only would they be getting every penny back by way of a government rebate cheque, but many families would get MORE than they pay in.  How can this be?  Simple, the amount you receive back will be tied to your previous year's CRA income tax return.  Wealth redistribution and vote buying, plain and simple.  They're not even trying to hide their actual agenda or their overt hypocrisy.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Spiderfish

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, Spiderfish said:

If you believe that this is what is really behind Trudeau's imposition of a carbon tax, then aside from being an average misinformed or gullible Canadian, you would also be incorrect.  Proof??  McKenna announced today that the provinces that are subject to Trudeau's forced carbon tax, not only would they be getting every penny back by way of a government rebate cheque, but many families would get MORE than they pay in.  How can this be?  Simple, the amount you receive back will be tied to your previous year's CRA income tax return.  Wealth redistribution and vote buying, plain and simple.  They're not even trying to hide their actual agenda or their overt hypocrisy.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Any - and I repeat any attempt to reduce our carbon emissions by a meaningful amount in the next 12 years is pure folly.......and the IPCC "scare the bejesus out of everyone" target of reducing global emissions in half by 2030 is - as I said - insanity from the minds of lunatics. Carbon taxes, Cap & Trace, Carbon dividends - they are all useless in the context of what I presented in the topic.

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, Spiderfish said:

If you believe that this is what is really behind Trudeau's imposition of a carbon tax, then aside from being an average misinformed or gullible Canadian, you would also be incorrect.  Proof??  McKenna announced today that the provinces that are subject to Trudeau's forced carbon tax, not only would they be getting every penny back by way of a government rebate cheque, but many families would get MORE than they pay in.  How can this be?  Simple, the amount you receive back will be tied to your previous year's CRA income tax return.  Wealth redistribution and vote buying, plain and simple.  They're not even trying to hide their actual agenda or their overt hypocrisy.

It's my understanding that the rebate scheme, which will no doubt end up being another redistributive measure (the Trudeau crowd loves those), only intends to return to some taxpayers roughly the amount of the carbon tax they will pay directly - oh, and some will reportedly get more, presumably meaning those who pay the least in taxes in the first place. Yippee! But the tax will also increase the costs of many products and services and these now costs will be passed on to consumers as a form of indirect taxation. In this regard, few taxpayers are likely to recoup their true losses. Were all the revenue generated by this tax to be applied to income tax reduction, perhaps by significantly increasing the basic non-refundable tax credit applicable to actual taxable income, it might be fair. I won't hold my breath waiting, though, as the Lib government's usual approach is to design such programs to achieve political gain. Buying votes with other peoples' money has been a big hit on their playlist so why change things up?

Edited October 24, 2018 by turningrite

[Hates politicians]

No politician is going to take money out of one of your pockets and put the same amount back into your other pocket. If it was true why take it to begin with? Politicians lie, it's that simple. and anyone who believes a politician is as bright as  a bag of hammers

[Spiderfish]

16 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. 

No, I got it.  I wasn't implying that you actually drank the coolaid, but that those who have are delusional.