Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[egghead]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Ok @Rue and @egghead

British Columbia, economy grew, emissions decreased.

Sweden - highest carbon tax, economy grew by 60%, emissions decreased by 25%.

The last source is in PDF form so I can't link to it.  Search for OECDEffective Carbon Rates 2018. 

"Carbon prices increase resource efficiency, boost investment in clean energy and low-emission goods and 
services, and facilitate a gradual low-carbon transition."

"To illustrate effectiveness, consider the effect of the carbon price support in the United Kingdom. The policy increased 
carbon prices in the electricity sector from EUR 7/tCO2 to more than EUR 30/tCO between 2012 and 2016. Emissions from the electricity sector decreased by 58% in the same 
period. Overall UK emissions from energy use fell by 25%, of which 19 percentage points are due to cleaner electricity 
generation." 

 

First of all, your first one is dated 2016; do you know what was BC doing at the period? BC was busy with money laundering (carbon neutral industry ). Then, you better read this "Why is carbon pricing in some countries more successful than in others?" .  In fact, without knowing how the emissions decreased, that is he said she said.

Quote

It is hard to say exactly how much of the emission reduction is due to the tax. The
actual emissions are also affected by other policy instruments (such as subsidies for
electric cars, energy efficiency legislation, certificates for renewable electricity) aimed at
reducing CO2 emission. Furthermore, it is hard to know what would have been the
emission level if there were no policy instruments. It is, for example, possible that some
relocation of domestic industrial production to other countries would have taken place
regardless of the CO2 tax. The fact that business cycles and weather (e.g. extreme cold
winters increase energy use) also have an impact on carbon emissions makes it difficult
to determine the effect of the tax.

The Swedish CO2 tax – an overview

http://www.enveco.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Anthesis-Enveco-rapport-2018-3.-The-Swedish-CO2-tax-an-overview.pdf#page=11&zoom=100,0,246

 

 

haha, just google "carbon tax does not reduce emissions"

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=2RwBXdfbAcLU0gLmmb7QDA&q=carbon+tax+does+not+reduce+emissions&oq=&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.35i39l6.0.0..2384...1.0..0.89.89.1......0......gws-wiz.....6.eIjkF8rqBnw

Carbon taxes do not curb emissions or help battle climate change

The carbon tax fallacy - The Washington Post

Look to B.C. for evidence carbon tax doesn't work | The Seattle Times

Edited June 12, 2019 by egghead

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This post assumes your assumptions from above:

1. Not a problem with leftists.  I want to control people who endanger MY existence.  Rightists want to stop people from wearing religious garb, dressing like the gender they like, or going nude etc.  They get offended by people who express themselves, for some reason.  They also want the right to spread hate.  The leftists just want to live and let live.  
2. I don't want people to have the 'freedom' to extinct the species.  Go find your own planet.

When someone says something offensive from the Left there's very little response other than mockery from the right. When someone from the Right offends the Left they pursue them on social media and mainstream media, drive them off, contact employers, try to get them fired, contact anyone associated with them, trying to get them shunned and removed from board, agencies and even groups they volunteer with. We saw it with those kids who did a native inspired dance before a hockey game and received furious death threats from leftists. We saw it with those kids in the US who dared to look at a native guy who walked into their midst pounding a drum. They too were threatened with death, their school threatened with bombing. Make the slightest comment that offends the Left and they want your life destroyed. There are so many examples of this behaviour from the Left.

How often are Left of centre speakers inundated with threats and how often do Right wing groups try to block them from speaking vs Right wing speakers being shut down by the Left? It isn't even in the same postal code/zip code. The Left is extraordinarily intolerant of different views on ANY subject and becoming less tolerant by the month. And with the assistance of social media companies which admit their bias, is trying to bar all views but their own by redefining anything which contradicts them as 'hateful'.

It is clear that the Left has little commitment to individual freedoms, and are assuming an almost religious mania for a substitute set of 'rights' which require trampling the traditional ones.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Its been demonstrated that carbon taxes succeeds in its goal to reduce the use of fossil fuels.  Reducing the use of fossil fuels is part of mitigating climate change. 

Except it hardly matters when most of the world is expanding its production of CO2 and intends to go on doing so for decades. Add in the 40 year delay between an action and noticeable impact and it's pointless for Canada to damage its own economy for it will accomplish nothing. We'd be better off planning for and doing what we can to mitigate the consequences.

[dialamah]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

Except it hardly matters when most of the world is expanding its production of CO2 and intends to go on doing so for decades

No doubt when you tried to instil good behavior in your kids, you were swayed by their argument that "nobody else/everybody else was doing it" and immediately dropped your standards for your kids and yourself.

[Zeitgeist]

Why don’t we just set a price on the use of items that produce greenhouse gas emissions?  It’s great because if you reduce use, you pay less.  We can call it a cost.  For example, if you want to buy gas you’ll have to pay for it.  Want to save money?  Buy less gas.  It’s also great for reducing emissions because if I want to increase emissions I have to pay more money.  

Edited June 12, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why don’t we just set a price on the use of items that produce greenhouse gas emissions?  It’s great because if you reduce use, you pay less.  We can call it a cost.  For example, if you want to buy gas you’ll have to pay for it.  Want to save money?  Buy less gas.  It’s also great for reducing emissions because if I want to increase emissions I have to pay more money.  

 

Maybe because the largest GHG component in the atmosphere is....water vapor.   

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why don’t we just set a price on the use of items that produce greenhouse gas emissions?  It’s great because if you reduce use, you pay less.  We can call it a cost.  For example, if you want to buy gas you’ll have to pay for it.  Want to save money?  Buy less gas.  It’s also great for reducing emissions because if I want to increase emissions I have to pay more money.  

Isn't that what the tax is ?  The money goes back to consumers and companies that reduce emissions.

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You could cut subsidies to fossil fuels too, 

Anyone who has suggested cutting subsidies is the past is usually asked what subsidies? Often in the same sneering tone of voice used for the question, what climate change?

Right wingers are and always have been completely filled with shit about every aspect of the issue.

Edited June 13, 2019 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Maybe because the largest GHG component in the atmosphere is....water vapor.   

Right, so tax water?  This is the problem.  Carbon taxes are taxes on existence and the cost of living is already high.  We end up paying more, even when the money is rebated to us because about 10%-15% is lost in administration costs.  Also there are unintended consequences, such as giving rich urban dwellers who don’t have a vehicle and use subways a fat $400-$600 cheque.  The carbon tax will hurt people who can’t afford city housing and have to commute by vehicle from outside the urban centre because there are lousy commuter rail options.  

If the technology exists, we should set policies that incorporate and incentivize affordable green tech in construction and energy use.  Building code should include efficient materials and systems (for example, solar power shingles, geothermal heating, and deep water cooling) and urban planning should be required to include carbon sinks (forest/wetlands), catchment basins to prevent flooding (these can be great parkland features that look like natural lakes/rivers), and find optimum densities to make transit viable and provide flexible zoning that includes workplaces, commercial, and even light industrial uses within complete communities.  

Perhaps most importantly, governments should invest heavily in mass transportation.  That’s one area where government spending should increase.  You can’t set policies that add expenses on driving personal vehicles, such as fuel carbon taxes, unless commuters have viable transit options.  Most of these policies don’t involve increasing taxes or public spending. 

       

Edited June 12, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Right, so tax water?  This is the problem.  Carbon taxes are taxes on existence and the cost of living is already high.  We end up paying more, even when the money is rebated to us because about 10%-15% is lost in administration costs.  Also there are unintended consequences, such as giving rich urban dwellers who don’t have a vehicle and use subways a fat $400-$600 cheque.  The carbon tax will hurt people who can’t afford city housing and have to commute by vehicle from outside the urban centre because there are lousy commuter rail options. 

 

I agree that carbon taxes are inherently regressive, regardless of any government rebate shell games.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Britain commits to net zero emissions by 2050. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48596775

[egghead]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why don’t we just set a price on the use of items that produce greenhouse gas emissions?  It’s great because if you reduce use, you pay less.  We can call it a cost.  For example, if you want to buy gas you’ll have to pay for it.  Want to save money?  Buy less gas.  It’s also great for reducing emissions because if I want to increase emissions I have to pay more money.  

That is the problem right now. For the lefties, those items (fuel, meat .....) are bad habits. In fact, they are not. By doing so, we increase the cost of living in canada.

[egghead]

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Britain commits to net zero emissions by 2050. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48596775

Ya, now every man and his dog commit to net zero emission. First, are you ok with nuclear energy? 

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Britain commits to net zero emissions by 2050. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48596775

Yes.  All pigs will grow wings by 2100.  I promise.  By 2100 I'll be dead anyway.  It's an easy promise to make.

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 minutes ago, egghead said:

Ya, now every man and his dog commit to net zero emission. First, are you ok with nuclear energy? 

Yes. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes.  All pigs will grow wings by 2100.  I promise.  By 2100 I'll be dead anyway.  It's an easy promise to make.

2050, not long from now really. They were already committed to an 80% reduction. 

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

2050, not long from now really. They were already committed to an 80% reduction. 

Do we need to cite lists of broken commitments?  France has a similar commitment.  It's working out peachy for Macron:  Yellow Vests...

Edited June 12, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

No doubt when you tried to instil good behavior in your kids, you were swayed by their argument that "nobody else/everybody else was doing it" and immediately dropped your standards for your kids and yourself.

This is not a matter of setting standards. It's an expension proposition designed to accomplish the world-wide reduction of CO2. But that mission is clearly impossible in the face of the rest of the world increasing their emissions.

The oil sands produce roughly .17% of the world's CO2 emissions. World emissions grew by over 3% last year, or the equivilent of 17 new oil sands pumping out CO2. What do you imagine Canada can do to influence world CO2 given those kinds of numbers? You want to eliminate the oil sands? It's insignificant, and what CO2 they put out will be almost instantly replaced.

[Argus]

47 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Britain commits to net zero emissions by 2050. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48596775

We need an emoji showing an index finger waving around in a circle.

A minority government which has no leader commits to a goal to be reached 7 or 8 or 9 mandates into the future.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Argus

[SpankyMcFarland]

54 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Do we need to cite lists of broken commitments?  France has a similar commitment.  It's working out peachy for Macron:  Yellow Vests...

Well, we’ll just have to wait and see how they do. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

We need an emoji showing an index finger waving around in a circle.

A minority government which has no leader commits to a goal to be reached 7 or 8 or 9 mandates into the future.

Britain’s reduction in CO2 emissions goes back quite a while:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I suspect Canada will continue on its current course until the Americans are hit with a series of climatic catastrophes. Once they have to change tack, they’ll make us do the same thing. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[Zeitgeist]

49 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I suspect Canada will continue on its current course until the Americans are hit with a series of climatic catastrophes. One they have to change tack, they’ll make us do the same thing. 

I agree only to an extent.  Toronto is growing at a staggering pace right now, three times faster than second place Phoenix.  77,000 people last year within the city proper, not the Greater Toronto Area, which added a lot more.  The highways and transportation are near or at capacity most of the time and there’s a housing shortage.  The place is booming economically, but where is it all headed?  I really believe the only good answer to the increasing pressure on our land/resources and climate change is really effective urban planning.  If we can feed, house, and transport people efficiently, with a low carbon footprint, and make our cities and towns enjoyable places to be, where people have opportunity and decent living standards, we’ll be fine.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I suspect Canada will continue on its current course until the Americans are hit with a series of climatic catastrophes. One they have to change tack, they’ll make us do the same thing. 

 

???    The Americans have already reduced GHG emissions more than Canada, mostly because of cheap and abundant natural gas from fracking.

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

???    The Americans have already reduced GHG emissions more than Canada, mostly because of cheap and abundant natural gas from fracking.

I don’t think beating Canada in this particular race is something to crow about. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland