Jump to content

Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Call me crazy...but the only reason we have millions coming here is to pay-off an ever growing pension requirement....which keeps growing...and needing more to pay into it. So bring in even more...that should fix it. It surely can't be the lucrative taxi driver jobs we offer...well until robots take over the work...which we've all been promised WILL HAPPEN. Soon, even...

People driving taxis don't pay taxes, so they're not going to be paying off any sort of pension requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I haven't heard anything to contradict that, so I'm open to it.  If the correlation is changing that's a good thing.  What is your cite from ?

Here's one cite:

Quote

 

This cooler phase of the planet's natural variability is responsible for what is often referred to as a global warming "pause" or "hiatus." While the planet continued to warm, it seemed to plateau. 

But that had to end sometime.

John Fyfe, senior research scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at Environment and Climate Change Canada, says that multiple issues were at play but mainly the natural variability of the planet.

"I'm not at all surprised by the results," Fyfe said of the new study, in which he was not involved. "And the reason for that is that we have gone down this long slowdown period primarily due to internal variability, and the expectation was that we'd come out of it."

Though CO2 levels were still increasing in Earth's atmosphere, natural cycles like the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific Ocean were cooler than normal and offset rising global temperatures. 

Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/warm-2018-2022-1.4784746

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may not like using taxation or some other monetary penalty to curb emissions, but it seems to be about the only way to curb behavior.  As long as such means are pretty much revenue neutral (the taxes paid are rebated to taxpayers in some way).  My biggest issue with Trudeau's plan is that it gives a free pass to some of the biggest emitters.  Business isn't giving back or reinvesting in tech to boost productivity, and it's always private citizens bearing the brunt of the costs.  Cap and trade is a better plan than carbon tax.  Ontario, Quebec, and California had the best plan in the continent.  So much for that.  It's more live for today America First (and now Ontario First) bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just wanted to point out that the climate change debate has cooled here on MLW as well as all the schemes have failed or collapsed.  

But raising people's taxes for carbon emissions gets them all excited again !

Its kind of a last gasp I figure.  Knock this one down and you'll probably win the day.  This is how it ends, with a whimper.  I think the spectacle of the Kashoggi affair pretty unequivocally underscores just how much determination there is to establish that economics trumps virtue.  Its a done deal. Congratulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumption is the only goal now.  Burn the furniture and live for today.  Don't bother trying to make the world a better place, which is leftist, globalist code for higher taxes and imprisonment in FEMA camps.  Old timey conspiracy theory has gone mainstream.  Learning and outward thinking are out.  Paranoia and exclusion are in.  Rig the system against any opposition and repeat your mantra, however ill-informed or untrue, until you have enough agreement to get you reelected, at which point you can do as you like, because "I'm the president and you're not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Its kind of a last gasp I figure.  Knock this one down and you'll probably win the day.  This is how it ends, with a whimper.  I think the spectacle of the Kashoggi affair pretty unequivocally underscores just how much determination there is to establish that economics trumps virtue.  Its a done deal. Congratulations.

 

Thanks...but if it makes you feel any better, most of the emissions reductions obtained to date were also driven by economics, which will ultimately determine the end game over all other considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Thanks...but if it makes you feel any better, most of the emissions reductions obtained to date were also driven by economics, which will ultimately determine the end game over all other considerations.

Are you a Marxist?  It's only about the material conditions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Some is.  The change that we influence isn't. 

Unless it can be claimed that we are perfectly natural, therefore so is what we do.

But, we ARE nature, as you point out.  We are just another animal that does what our brain works out for us to do to survive in a way that same brain has evolved to picture as survival.   I we had some sort of collective intelligence that was objective, we never would have allowed population growth to the point where those "survivalistic" behaviours could be come threatening to our survival.  The natural evolution is that the short sighted, conscious things we do will ultimately correct the population of this species to a sustainable level, or just wipe us out.   The bacteria and many insects will survive, and the whole thing will start over again.

Further: we choose to ignore Mamma N's own contribution to where we are in the ebb and flow of the carbon cycle.   One single large forest fire, or one major volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses that YEARS of anthropomorphic contributions.   Even further from our myopic view is the celestial contribution to our energy balance - that is reflected in very long term climatic (not climactic!) cycles.  We are moving out of an arm of the Milky Way and those subtle emissions play into our little chunk of the Universe.

So, what I am saying is that "climate science" such as it is seems to have a very short veiwpoint more tied to the next paycheque, publication or funding campaign than any purely objective exercise in scientific pursuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

But, we ARE nature, as you point out.  We are just another animal that does what our brain works out for us to do to survive in a way that same brain has evolved to picture as survival.   I we had some sort of collective intelligence that was objective, we never would have allowed population growth to the point where those "survivalistic" behaviours could be come threatening to our survival.  The natural evolution is that the short sighted, conscious things we do will ultimately correct the population of this species to a sustainable level, or just wipe us out.   The bacteria and many insects will survive, and the whole thing will start over again.

Further: we choose to ignore Mamma N's own contribution to where we are in the ebb and flow of the carbon cycle.   One single large forest fire, or one major volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses that YEARS of anthropomorphic contributions.   Even further from our myopic view is the celestial contribution to our energy balance - that is reflected in very long term climatic (not climactic!) cycles.  We are moving out of an arm of the Milky Way and those subtle emissions play into our little chunk of the Universe.

So, what I am saying is that "climate science" such as it is seems to have a very short veiwpoint more tied to the next paycheque, publication or funding campaign than any purely objective exercise in scientific pursuit.

The issue is that the feedback loop of climate change is accelerating into a vicious cycle.  Heat begets loss of snow/ice, reflecting less heat back to space and releasing more methane and other GG from the soil into the atmosphere.  Meanwhile water levels rise on the coasts, glaciers disappear, flooding increases, arable lands become deserts. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The issue is that the feedback loop of climate change is accelerating into a vicious cycle.  Heat begets loss of snow/ice, reflecting less heat back to space and releasing more methane and other GG from the soil into the atmosphere.  Meanwhile water levels rise on the coasts, glaciers disappear, flooding increases, arable lands become deserts. 

Still waiting for New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami to experience unusual flooding. How about the Florida Keys? Glaciers have come and gone before. Climate Change has always had cycles within cycles within cycles. As some alpine glaciers retreat, we've found remnants of forests and habitation from Roman times. As for arable lands becoming deserts - how about the more abundant "near-arable" land becoming arable? That's the untold story - billions of acres of new farmland to feed China and Russia - and give Canada something other than its narrow strip of habitable territory. Have a bit more faith in human ingenuity - knowledge is gained in orders of magnitude. Look at what has transpired in the last 50 years......it's difficult to imagine how far we'll go in the next 50. Fusion power is on the horizon. We'll get there quicker if we stop wasting trillions on political schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Still waiting for New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami to experience unusual flooding. How about the Florida Keys? Glaciers have come and gone before. Climate Change has always had cycles within cycles within cycles. As some alpine glaciers retreat, we've found remnants of forests and habitation from Roman times. As for arable lands becoming deserts - how about the more abundant "near-arable" land becoming arable? That's the untold story - billions of acres of new farmland to feed China and Russia - and give Canada something other than its narrow strip of habitable territory. Have a bit more faith in human ingenuity - knowledge is gained in orders of magnitude. Look at what has transpired in the last 50 years......it's difficult to imagine how far we'll go in the next 50. Fusion power is on the horizon. We'll get there quicker if we stop wasting trillions on political schemes.

What?  It’s already happening.  Read about flooding on the Atlantic coast around Miami.  Read about flooding in lower Manhattan after Hurricane Sandy.  Some of the greatest increases in water level are in the US northeast.  What about the recent disaster in the Florida panhandle, one of the worst in US history. We need to move quickly to reduce climate change or the costs of remediation will be exponentially higher or beyond repair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We may not like using taxation or some other monetary penalty to curb emissions, but it seems to be about the only way to curb behavior.  As long as such means are pretty much revenue neutral (the taxes paid are rebated to taxpayers in some way).  My biggest issue with Trudeau's plan is that it gives a free pass to some of the biggest emitters.  Business isn't giving back or reinvesting in tech to boost productivity, and it's always private citizens bearing the brunt of the costs.  

If not everyone is doing it, and almost no one is doing it, all you're doing is increasing the costs of doing business in Canada. That means anything we make or produce, or even services we provide will cost more than businesses in other countries. That makes little difference to a restaurant or dry cleaner but it certainly does to any business which has foreign competitors. You risk having businesses close down in Canada and move elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If not everyone is doing it, and almost no one is doing it, all you're doing is increasing the costs of doing business in Canada. That means anything we make or produce, or even services we provide will cost more than businesses in other countries. That makes little difference to a restaurant or dry cleaner but it certainly does to any business which has foreign competitors. You risk having businesses close down in Canada and move elsewhere.

That’s why we need better international rules and the US has to be on board. China can also do better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

But, we ARE nature, as you point out.  We are just another animal that does what our brain works out for us to do to survive in a way that same brain has evolved to picture as survival.   I we had some sort of collective intelligence that was objective, we never would have allowed population growth to the point where those "survivalistic" behaviours could be come threatening to our survival.  The natural evolution is that the short sighted, conscious things we do will ultimately correct the population of this species to a sustainable level, or just wipe us out.   The bacteria and many insects will survive, and the whole thing will start over again.

Further: we choose to ignore Mamma N's own contribution to where we are in the ebb and flow of the carbon cycle.   One single large forest fire, or one major volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses that YEARS of anthropomorphic contributions.   Even further from our myopic view is the celestial contribution to our energy balance - that is reflected in very long term climatic (not climactic!) cycles.  We are moving out of an arm of the Milky Way and those subtle emissions play into our little chunk of the Universe.

So, what I am saying is that "climate science" such as it is seems to have a very short veiwpoint more tied to the next paycheque, publication or funding campaign than any purely objective exercise in scientific pursuit.

I'm sure a lot of people are making a lot of money out of the issue.  However, that does not in any way negate the fact that the human population has affected the natural cycle of the climate. 

I agree with the correct or wipe out comment. I'm glad I'm not going to be around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2018 at 6:30 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed...but not enough for the rabid climate change alarmists, who are trying to convince us of their dystopian belief in "peoplekind" being wiped out because of climate change.

The impassioned pleas and fear of certain doom for all humans is not only extreme, but most deserving of challenge and ridicule.

Even the polar bears are laughing at them.

A Canadian first. "peoplekind". Even the kid days later had to retract from saying that word and later apologized for pretty much giving chit to the girl for not saying "peoplekind". I am ready to make a trade with you if you would like too. Our prime mistake of Canada for your President. A good deal. LOL. 

It's endless with the fools who will listen to these doom and gloom extremist environmentalist pushers like David Suzuki and Al Gore. Those two have made millions off the fools who have listened too and believed their nonsense. So many people will listen to what others have to say but will never take the time to do their own research and check to see if what they are being told is true. I wonder if there is not someone out there already building his/her own ark and be ready for the great flood. Hey, you never know. LOL.

Apparently we have been told by the "experts" that the polar bears are dying off due to this so called climate change going on but yet another report says that the polar bear population is on the rise. Who does one believe? If the polar bear population is rising than those bears will not only be laughing at them but will no doubt be looking for them to have them all for their dinner. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s why we need better international rules and the US has to be on board. China can also do better. 

 

Sure....please let us know when Canada does better on emissions reductions...the USA is already doing better without "international rules".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2018 at 11:22 AM, bcsapper said:

Some is.  The change that we influence isn't. 

Unless it can be claimed that we are perfectly natural, therefore so is what we do.

Humans are not changing anything. These global warming doom and gloom propagandists even want us to believe that cow farts are a big contributor to global warming. Such stupid and idiotic nonsense for anyone who is ready and willing to believe that ridiculous nonsense. I am surprised not to hear that the billions of human farts that are released on earth every day are even worse for the environment than cow farts even though it is broken down and absorbed into the environment tout suite after their births. LOL. Plenty of people make plenty of money off of fools who will listen too and believe their nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure....please let us know when Canada does better on emissions reductions...the USA is already doing better without "international rules".

The only international thing that the world's people need is international trade only, and nothing more, and for all trade agreements to be permitted and allowed to be done by the world's business leaders for them to be able to create their own wheeling and dealing trade deals and leave the bloody government out of any trade deals. All the rest of the world's international rules and regulations are just a waste of taxpayer's time and effort and tax dollars. The carbon tax is nothing more than theft from the taxpayer's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, taxme said:

Humans are not changing anything. These global warming doom and gloom propagandists even want us to believe that cow farts are a big contributor to global warming. Such stupid and idiotic nonsense for anyone who is ready and willing to believe that ridiculous nonsense. I am surprised not to hear that the billions of human farts that are released on earth every day are even worse for the environment than cow farts even though it is broken down and absorbed into the environment tout suite after their births. LOL. Plenty of people make plenty of money off of fools who will listen too and believe their nonsense.  

Sure, if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure....please let us know when Canada does better on emissions reductions...the USA is already doing better without "international rules".

The international community will do worse following the US’s CURRENT approach, not the former US approach, to which you owe all your progress in reducing GG emissions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...