Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[AMAI]

Carbon dioxide sequestration already occurs naturally.

Apparently, we are emitting more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered or absorbed. Indeed, that is why we apparently have a problem of global warming.

One problem with a carbon tax is that it does not offer an incentive to capture/sequester CO2 other than when it is emitted. There is no incentive to plant trees that presumably absorb CO2.

I think this one area that requires far more research. We don't understand well how forests sequester CO2.

Whatever global warming is occurring is a result of the Sun's activities. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, that a tax, or changing lightbulbs, or driving hybrid cars is going to do to change the natural processes of our solar system.

The whole global warming issue is completely ridiculous. It's something way beyond our ability to fix, or change in a meaningful way.

Yes, there are some instances of actual pollution, but the hysteria over "greenhouse gases" is without reputable scientific data to support it.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Not all at one time!

Scary enough it seems that not a lot of anything but personal commentary seeps out of some posters. Have you all not read the rules are what.

Why did you break the rules by putting forth such an articulate response such as "we need a carbon-tax like we need a hole in the head"? Was that contributing something to the forum?

I havn't broken any rules. Personal attacks are breaking the rules but keep it up I hear the spring time purge is on.

[BC_chick]

Not all at one time!

Scary enough it seems that not a lot of anything but personal commentary seeps out of some posters. Have you all not read the rules are what.

Why did you break the rules by putting forth such an articulate response such as "we need a carbon-tax like we need a hole in the head"? Was that contributing something to the forum?

I havn't broken any rules. Personal attacks are breaking the rules but keep it up I hear the spring time purge is on.

What personal attack? Saying that your less-than thought-provoking argument is a detriment to the CPC? Are you saying that "we need a carbon-tax like we need a hole in the head" is actually something you think is sound debating?

I'm pointing out the flaw in your ARGUMENT, not you personally.

[AMAI]

What personal attack? Saying that your less-than thought-provoking argument is a detriment to the CPC? Are you saying that "we need a carbon-tax like we need a hole in the head" is actually something you think is sound debating?

I'm pointing out the flaw in your ARGUMENT, not you personally.

Okay. So he should have said, "We need another tax like we need another hole in our heads," thereby taking into account the fact that we already come equipped with several functioning holes in our heads.

We don't need any more taxes. We ought to get rid of all the ones we already have.

[BC_chick]

Okay. So he should have said, "We need another tax like we need another hole in our heads," thereby taking into account the fact that we already come equipped with several functioning holes in our heads.

We don't need any more taxes. We ought to get rid of all the ones we already have.

So if not tax them, what do we do about the polluters? Nothing?

If you're going to put forth an argument, you need to qualify it, substantiate it. "We need a tax like we need a hole in the head" is not sound debating.

[scribblet]

Whatever global warming is occurring is a result of the Sun's activities. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, that a tax, or changing lightbulbs, or driving hybrid cars is going to do to change the natural processes of our solar system.

The whole global warming issue is completely ridiculous. It's something way beyond our ability to fix, or change in a meaningful way.

Yes, there are some instances of actual pollution, but the hysteria over "greenhouse gases" is without reputable scientific data to support it.

I agree for the most part, which is not to say we should carry on polluting or we shouldn't clean up our act. The question is really, how much can man actually do to stop the earth's cycling - if anything. Certainly Kyoto won't do anything, or accomplish anything.

[AMAI]

We don't need any more taxes. We ought to get rid of all the ones we already have.

So if not tax them, what do we do about the polluters? Nothing?

If you're going to put forth an argument, you need to qualify it, substantiate it. "We need a tax like we need a hole in the head" is not sound debating.

Advocating another tax is not proposing a solution, either.

What we need is more laissez-faire and less intervention.

Real pollution is not the same as the trumped up global warming claims. The solutions they're coming up with here are ridiculous. What difference is making the average temperature in a building 2 or 3 degrees warmer inside in summertime going to do, other than make people uncomfortable? The politicians already acknowledge that their light bulb proposal isn't going to make a significant difference in the level of emissions.

If volcanoes put as much pollutant into the air in one week that we do in a year, then what's the point of changing our behavior in order to combat global warming?

It's the kind of natural process that is caused primarily by the Sun, both on us directly and on us indirectly via its effect on the oceans. So changing our behavior isn't going to alter the PRIMARY contributor.

Therefore, we need to prepare for a climate change in a different way - by building more nuclear energy plants for example, capable of sustaining more people in climate controlled buildings, so they don't have to spend as much time outside and can survive a warming of the planet, or an ice age equally well.

We need to continue building and making the planet habitable for ourselves and the future generations those environmentalists are so fond of citing as the reason for it all.

We already have enough evidence that this planet has withstood ice ages and droughts in the past. Way back before man had built engines that worked on steam, coal or oil, there were ice ages and droughts. So if that is true, which we know it is, then it means the cause of the climate change is something outside of Earth.

Ergo, it is the Sun.

No, you don't want to pollute your environment. But the global warming issue is not the same as dumping toxic amounts of chemical into the vat of drinking water. The atmosphere is already full of all kinds of chemicals - they disperse naturally, and find their way into the soil and become trace elements that plants actually use and need to grow and flourish. We do need plants - they eat our waste - our carbon dioxide and make us oxygen.

We don't need to cut back on industrialization. We need to speed it up. We should not be making ourselves rely on low levels of energy production. We need more nuclear plants. We need to figure out how to use nuclear waste, as a raw material for energy production. We're into the Electronic Age. We need more energy, more electricity, than ever before.

Whether the globe is about to go thru a warm period or a cold one, it's our ability to build and remake the earth's resources into structures that help us thrive that will see us through, not shrinking back from technology and blaming it. We're not making the globe warmer. The Sun is.

[ScottSA]

Given that both Mars and Venus are "suffering" from Global Warming as well, I suspect you're right. The only issue I have is with the idea that Global Warming is going to be bad. As far as I can tell, outside of a few unlucky places, GW will be a net benefit to humanity.

[gc1765]

As far as I can tell, outside of a few unlucky places, GW will be a net benefit to humanity.

Yeah, who cares about Africa anyways Who cares if thousands...probably millions of them die

[ScottSA]

As far as I can tell, outside of a few unlucky places, GW will be a net benefit to humanity.

Yeah, who cares about Africa anyways Who cares if thousands...probably millions of them die

Link please? Is this like the 600,000 Iraqi children who were killed by sanctions, or the bodyless Jenin massacre or the 20,000 American casualties who didn't get casualated in GWI?

See, you can't just claim nonsense like this and expect to get away with it unchallenged. Desertification by goats is far more of a danger to Africans than some incredibly moderate increase in temperature.

[gc1765]

Link please?

Here's a few to get you started:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 6

[ScottSA]

Link please?

Here's a few to get you started:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 6

I had in mind something a little less..well...UNish, if you take my meaning. I meant something with some meat to it...not predicated by Global Warming "could" and "may" and "if" and "might." And I say the UN, because it has a huge interest in perpetuating this nonsense.

[gc1765]

I had in mind something a little less..well...UNish, if you take my meaning.

If you had actually read all the links that I provided, you would see that they are from a variety of sources.

I meant something with some meat to it...not predicated by Global Warming "could" and "may" and "if" and "might."

In that case, perhaps we should ask a psychic what is going to happen for certain. I wonder if Michelle Muntean is available?

[Michael Bluth]

In that case, perhaps we should ask a psychic was is going to happen for certain. I wonder if Michelle Muntean is available?

Sooooooooo witty.

Did Scott Feschuk provide you with that line?

[AMAI]

What is NOT going to help any developing nation is to continue exporting fear-mongering and cries to return to primitive methods of life.

A slightly warmer planet may well benefit much of the land mass, when you view the planet taken as a whole. A few degrees warmer, or a longer growing season, has a positive impact on Canada and the vast ex-Soviet land mass. Being able to inhabit more of our available interiors of continents would be of huge impact.

Africa needs the same things we all need - more nuclear energy. We should be working on that and improving it.

But we must recognize that the climate changes take place over centuries. This is why we need Individual Rights, and why "Force" won't get the job done. People must see for themselves and value their own lives such that they care about having children so there are some future f'ing generations. The more force that is applied to make people do what some other people SAY is good for them, the more unhappiness you breed in people right now.

I'm going to be selfish on this one. I want to know what is in it for me now. Not just what is in store for the future, but for me, now.

What I want is more energy, cheaper energy. I want more value of living for my dollar now. If I look after me properly, there'll be a better world for tomorrow. Making sacrifices won't get the job done either.

[gc1765]

Africa needs the same things we all need - more nuclear energy. We should be working on that and improving it.

And how will nuclear energy help with famine in Africa?

[AMAI]

Africa needs the same things we all need - more nuclear energy. We should be working on that and improving it.

And how will nuclear energy help with famine in Africa?

Hello, famine still means lack of food, right? What the hell is wrong with them they can't grow their own food, working all that sunshine?

Dayum.

You need energy to run the equipment. If you could run a solar powered water generator, you could use the Sun's energy to make water in a vat. Growing ops in Africa, taking advantage of all that Sun they get. It's goddamned hot there, I thought you or someone said. A prime producer of Sun-generated energy is not being developed because Africa is still working some primitive f'ed-up system of their own, handed down thru generations of somebodys who lived there before and raised your ancestors.

Working out how to work with the resources we actually have on the planet, right now, is first of all a matter of identifying what they are.

Laissez-nous faire.

[gc1765]

What the hell is wrong with them they can't grow their own food, working all that sunshine?

Oh, I don't know, maybe a little something called "drought"?

[AMAI]

What the hell is wrong with them they can't grow their own food, working all that sunshine?

Oh, I don't know, maybe a little something called "drought"?

Like there isn't drought in some parts of America. Doesn't the thought occur to anyone else that it might be worthwhile to build a water desalination plant or two? There are solutions to drought that don't involve praying for rain.

[ScottSA]

In that case, perhaps we should ask a psychic was is going to happen for certain. I wonder if Michelle Muntean is available?

Sooooooooo witty.

Did Scott Feschuk provide you with that line?

Well, asking a psychic would likely be more profitable than asking the IPCC, who revises their predictions every chance it gets, in between inflating the alleged authorship of their reports.

[gc1765]

Like there isn't drought in some parts of America.

Yes, but America, being rich, will be much more capable of dealing with drought.

Doesn't the thought occur to anyone else that it might be worthwhile to build a water desalination plant or two? There are solutions to drought that don't involve praying for rain.

Sounds good to me. A carbon tax should be used for purposes such as this, to help Africa (and other nations) deal with global warming.

[scribblet]

They are talking about putting production cap on crude production so that alone would drive prices up as the supply would go down. A direct carbon tax would only drive the costupf more, I bet at least by another $1.00 a litre - this would not be revenue neutral. It could cripple the economy.

[Mad_Michael]

Can anyone explain to me the logic of a carbon tax?

If that means added revenues to the Government, you are just giving the Government a vested interest in maintaining high levels of carbon emissions and a disencentive to reduce carbon emissions.

If any carbon tax isn't revenue neutral to the government, it will do more damage than good in the long term. The government can never be trusted to 'do the right thing' - their track record shows they never do 'the right thing' unless it is in thier material interest to do so.

[stevoh]

Can anyone explain to me the logic of a carbon tax?

If that means added revenues to the Government, you are just giving the Government a vested interest in maintaining high levels of carbon emissions and a disencentive to reduce carbon emissions.

If any carbon tax isn't revenue neutral to the government, it will do more damage than good in the long term. The government can never be trusted to 'do the right thing' - their track record shows they never do 'the right thing' unless it is in thier material interest to do so.

Wouldn't the government therefore have a vested interest in increasing tobacco sales? I don't see any evidence of them attempting to lure new smokers into the fold in order to increase their revenue.

The effect of a carbon tax, even if we completely ignore how the revenue is spent, is also positive. It increases the cost of one specific source of energy. This means that other energy sources become relatively cheaper, more competative. Right now, the money invested in a hybrid car is done for political or social reasons, you won't end up saving significant funds at the pump due to the high initial investment. However, as gas prices go up, the investment starts to make monitary, as well as political and/or social sense.

[gc1765]

The latest...

"OTTAWA — An internal report prepared for the Conservative government reveals a carbon tax as high as $50 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions would cause little economic damage and would actually provide a small boost down the road"

"The Green Party is focusing on the impact of a $50 tax as that is the key part of the party's platform – which also calls for the tax revenue to fund separate tax cuts."

Link