Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour 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.  

They are.  You may not like it, but you should probably go vegetarian or eat crickets for protein, as the lungs of the Earth, the Amazon rainforest and too many other carbon sinks are being removed to create pasture for cows for your fast food. Cow farts are a massive contributor of the GG methane to the atmosphere. 

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

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. 

 

Really ?   Do you mean that neither should follow Canada's former, FAILED approach ?  

Edited October 27, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

They are.  You may not like it, but you should probably go vegetarian or eat crickets for protein, as the lungs of the Earth, the Amazon rainforest and too many other carbon sinks are being removed to create pasture for cows for your fast food. Cow farts are a massive contributor of the GG methane to the atmosphere. 

 

No worries....as 98% of all species who have ever lived on earth went extinct long before "anthropogenic" warming.

 

[Zeitgeist]

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No worries....as 98% of all species who have ever lived on earth went extinct long before "anthropogenic" warming.

 

We’re in the Sixth Extinction.  Humans may become extinct under anthropogenic warming. 

[scribblet]

I'm more worried about an ice age - damn it,    I hate being cold...  and have to stay home this winter. 

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We’re in the Sixth Extinction.  Humans may become extinct under anthropogenic warming. 

 

Humans are just a short speck in the earth's history, which will end with something much hotter than global warming.

Don't forget to bring some marshmallows !

 

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Humans are just a short speck in the earth's history, which will end with something much hotter than global warming.

Don't forget to bring some marshmallows !

 

 

A shame we aren't a hot K star...much longer lifespan w/o the issues of convection currents present in M dwarfs, etc.

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

I'm more worried about an ice age - damn it,    I hate being cold...  and have to stay home this winter. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

Best chop some firewood!

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

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

Yes, well, but we don't have it. Which means heavily taxing a company to manufacture here just gets them to move to China or Brazil, where they produce just as much emissions.

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yes, well, but we don't have it. Which means heavily taxing a company to manufacture here just gets them to move to China or Brazil, where they produce just as much emissions.

Which is another great reason to not ship energy to China. Alberta should be using it's advantage to draw manufacturing industries to it. Cheap energy has to be at least as important as cheap human beings.

[eyeball]

Here's an even better reason for eschewing China as a trading partner. OTOH this could also be a good reason for the West to apologize for having been so bellicose the last few years.

A million Muslims are held in detention camps that China now portrays as 'humane'

Perhaps they'd like to buy some LAV's?

[taxme]

On 10/27/2018 at 1:25 PM, Zeitgeist said:

They are.  You may not like it, but you should probably go vegetarian or eat crickets for protein, as the lungs of the Earth, the Amazon rainforest and too many other carbon sinks are being removed to create pasture for cows for your fast food. Cow farts are a massive contributor of the GG methane to the atmosphere. 

So, just how the heck would you know if cow farts are a serious threat to the environment anyway? Have you done your own personal research or are you an expert on this subject or are you just going by what some, maybe paid off, scientist/s say on the effects that cow farts have on the environment? I must admit though that I do really do love my cheeseburgers. The more cows around the better for me. 

[Hates politicians]

On 10/26/2018 at 11:15 PM, 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.  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.

Well if you believe its revenue neutral, I've got some beachfront propety in antartica for sale. I wont sell to anyone before I give you first option.

[cannuck]

Any single large forest fire, and any single large volcanic eruption spew out far more GG than any anthropomorphic contribution.  I suppose the tree huggers are now going to blame people for causing forest fires (no kidding, they don't realize that coniferous forests HAVE to burn to survive) and hydraulic frac'ing of hydrocarbon reservoirs are causing volcanic activity - and they will no doubt get some moron  bureaucrat to fund a study that says so).

[Wilber]

13 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

Well if you believe its revenue neutral, I've got some beachfront propety in antartica for sale. I wont sell to anyone before I give you first option.

It may start that way but future governments won't be able to keep their hands off that money. BC's carbon tax was revenue neutral with carbon tax increases being matched by reductions in provincial income tax, but our new government said the hell with that and it now just goes into the big pot.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

It may start that way but future governments won't be able to keep their hands off that money. BC's carbon tax was revenue neutral with carbon tax increases being matched by reductions in provincial income tax, but our new government said the hell with that and it now just goes into the big pot.

Not to mention that according to the report quoted from the IPCC it's not nearly enough to have significant impact on our CO2 usage. According to the IPCC the figure has to be at least $130US, which is about C$165. You think Trudeau wants to tell that to anyone, much less campaign on it? You think it's a coincidence it doesn't rise to $50 until AFTER the election?

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Carbon tax LOL. Anybody do a study on bow much CO2 is produced just implementing this scheme? How many trees harvested? How many people hired?

Revenue neutral? How many people are even going to bother doing the paperwork to get their hundred dollars a year back? How many people are even aware they can get it back and who is actually going to spend it on actually reducing CO2 output? 

"There is now going to be a price on pollution, it is no longer going to be free to pollute". This coming from an individual that jets around the world to exotic locations to climate change conferences. Apparently this doesn't apply to him. Then the next sentence is we need to increase trade around the world (apparently transportation doesn't generate greenhouse gases) and increase petroleum exports (apparently releasing CO2 overseas doesn't count). 

 

It's no wonder there is an opioid crisis in this country, people are turning to drugs to escape the mixed messages and confusion our leaders are churning out every moment. Anybody think to study that? 

 

[turningrite]

On 10/27/2018 at 12:06 PM, 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.

And this is the crux of the issue. Trump is correct when he notes that adherence to global climate change strategies like the one hatched in Paris in 2015 has differential and often unfair economic impacts depending on whether other countries are required to or agree to comply. These differential impacts shouldn't be dismissed, particularly given that developing economies are more likely to use coal as their primary source of electrical energy, thus rendering the goods they produce more environmentally harmful. I think this aspect of the current global climate strategy has been afforded far too little attention. Also, even within countries environmental policies can have differential and unfair impacts. It was interesting to see the protests in Paris last week organized by mainly rural French residents who complained about new fuel taxes in that country negatively impacting their lives and livelihoods and exacerbating inequality. Climate change policy is often portrayed as warm and cuddly and progressive but in the cold light of day this isn't always the case. There are winners and losers and the losers shouldn't be expected to quietly accept their fate, should they?

Edited November 27, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, turningrite said:

There are winners and losers and the losers shouldn't be expected to quietly accept their fate, should they?

No. And that's why developed countries agreed decades ago to allow developing nations to burn fossil fuels, so they wouldn't be left in the dust.

Quote

Climate change policy is often portrayed as warm and cuddly and progressive but in the cold light of day this isn't always the case.

I guess the cost of being good sports so everyone wins is just to warm and cuddly for people who prefer a cold hard edge to everything.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No. And that's why developed countries agreed decades ago to allow developing nations to burn fossil fuels, so they wouldn't be left in the dust.

I guess the cost of being good sports so everyone wins is just to warm and cuddly for people who prefer a cold hard edge to everything.

I think that's where the species made its big mistake.  Trying to be nice when the planet is heading for the dustbin.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think that's where the species made its big mistake.  Trying to be nice when the planet is heading for the dustbin.

No the only mistake was trying to be nice to right-wingers.  They insist on being dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way....okay...lets just get on with it.

We're only heading towards the dust-bin because we've chosen to.

Edited November 27, 2018 by eyeball

[Guest]

Just now, eyeball said:

No the only mistake was trying to be nice to right-wingers.  They insist on being dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way....okay...lets just get on with it.

I don't think wings entered into it.  I can't think of a government of any stripe that has had any balls at all when it comes to AGW.  Even the NDP/Greens in BC applaud a new LNG terminal in Kitimat and maintain the largest coal exporting terminal in North America.

[eyeball]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I don't think wings entered into it..

Of course it did. The right-wing has been nothing but a millstone around the world's neck since day one on this issue.

 

Quote

Even the NDP/Greens in BC applaud a new LNG terminal in Kitimat and maintain the largest coal exporting terminal in North America.

The NDP/Greens don't wan't the weight of that millstone rolling over them anymore than anyone else I guess.  I'd take them more seriously if they proposed phasing in the LNG while phasing out the coal.   We should have been at the point by now where developing economies could be weaned off the worst fossil fuels in their drive to catch-up.

 

Quote

I can't think of a government of any stripe that has had any balls at all when it comes to AGW.

Unfortunately no one factored in the effect of allowing so many corrupt oligarchies to emerge out of the developing economies and more importantly how implicated developed economies would be in facilitating this.  This is an issue of governance and I think its also fair to lay most of the blundering foot dragging against changing how we govern ourselves at the feet of conservative thinking as well.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course it did. The right-wing has been nothing but a millstone around the world's neck since day one on this issue.

 

The NDP/Greens don't wan't the weight of that millstone rolling over them anymore than anyone else I guess.  I'd take them more seriously if they proposed phasing in the LNG while phasing out the coal.   We should have been at the point by now where developing economies could be weaned off the worst fossil fuels in their drive to catch-up.

 

Unfortunately no one factored in the effect of allowing so many corrupt oligarchies to emerge out of the developing economies and more importantly how implicated developed economies would be in facilitating this.  This is an issue of governance and I think its also fair to lay most of the blundering foot dragging against changing how we govern ourselves at the feet of conservative thinking as well.

I guess you'd have to define right wing then.  I probably have a different definition.  I think it just means anyone you don't like.

The world has been paying lip service to AGW since the eighties, without ever taking a concrete step to address it.  Allowing everyone to set their own goals and then fail to meet them in order to placate those (left wingers?) who want a worldwide level playing field before anything actually effective is considered.  Your second paragraph there is the only one that makes any sense to me and it does so with a "should".  Nothing of consequence was ever achieved with a "should". The left is perhaps worse than the right because of their hypocrisy, but in the end it's not going to get done regardless of who is in charge, so it doesn't matter.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I guess you'd have to define right wing then.  I probably have a different definition.  I think it just means anyone you don't like.

I've defined it many times and also pointed out that yes you do live according to a different definition. And no I'm not going to waste my time explaining this again, because having to do so just makes me like you less.