Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

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.  

And we wouldn't want that, would we?  It does occur to me though, that if we start from different definitions there's not much point in arguing.  I suppose we're both right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

And we wouldn't want that, would we?  It does occur to me though, that if we start from different definitions there's not much point in arguing.  I suppose we're both right.

That's probably what the good folks in the Tower of Babel told themselves, as they reached for their shovels.

I know I'm right, I don't just suppose it, not anymore.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 11:43 AM, 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.

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.

If the left cared about AGW, they wouldn't be so dead set against hydro and nuclear, the two technologies we've had for decades that could have realistically replaced vast amounts of coal burning power stations. Yes, hydro alters rivers/lakes, may drown some historical lands, and affect fish populations, and yes nuclear has the issue of dealing with radioactive waste, but these issues are tiny and manageable in comparison to the predicted effects of AGW, so anyone who believes in the dire consequences of AGW and is rational would have no intellectually honest option but to support these technologies. But they don't. The left has spent decades railing against any possible solutions to reduce CO2 emissions other than forcing people to change their behaviors. For the left, just as for the right, it's all a matter of ideology, and the debate over AGW and what to do about it is just one aspect of that clash of ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bonam said:

If the left cared about AGW, they wouldn't be so dead set against hydro and nuclear, the two technologies we've had for decades that could have realistically replaced vast amounts of coal burning power stations. Yes, hydro alters rivers/lakes, may drown some historical lands, and affect fish populations, and yes nuclear has the issue of dealing with radioactive waste, but these issues are tiny and manageable in comparison to the predicted effects of AGW, so anyone who believes in the dire consequences of AGW and is rational would have no intellectually honest option but to support these technologies. But they don't. The left has spent decades railing against any possible solutions to reduce CO2 emissions other than forcing people to change their behaviors. For the left, just as for the right, it's all a matter of ideology, and the debate over AGW and what to do about it is just one aspect of that clash of ideologies.

All coal power generation was ended in Ontario, 40% of Canada’s economy. Liberals achieved this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

All coal power generation was ended in Ontario, 40% of Canada’s economy. Liberals achieved this. 

Yes, Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that embraces a large % of nuclear energy in its energy mix, making eliminating dirty fossil fuels quite easy. France is another great example. Unfortunately, very few other places on Earth use nuclear to that degree. Nuclear had finally been gaining ground in the 2000s, but worldwide overreaction to the Fukushima incident has caused many areas to cease construction of new nuclear plants or shut down existing plants, reverting to more fossil fuel use. A single incident, which killed not a single person, has caused idiotic world leaders to condemn tens of millions to early deaths through additional fossil fuel burning (3 million people die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution caused by fossil fuel - mainly coal - power plants). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 11:55 AM, 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.

Allow? Try "required"... To maintain the quality of life we've grown used to requires many extremely dirty processes. Mankind has always been driven to exploit resources for our purposes, enjoyment and profit, in the process we also need dumping grounds for our waste. As environmental and labour laws are tightened up and squeezing profits individuals and companies are driven to exploit the resources of regions with more lax or no rules. It appears we will always need these resources because if you look around countries we "helped" develop are returning to disarray and can be exploited once again. I wouldn't be surprised in a thousand years every nation on earth will cycle through destruction to third world status and rebuild to "developed". 

If AI is developed as predicted, maintains logic and becomes our master the cycle may be broken. Of course on the other hand if it becomes our enemy things could get real messy. 

On 11/27/2018 at 11:55 AM, eyeball said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 5:27 PM, Bonam said:

Yes, Ontario is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that embraces a large % of nuclear energy in its energy mix, making eliminating dirty fossil fuels quite easy. France is another great example. Unfortunately, very few other places on Earth use nuclear to that degree. Nuclear had finally been gaining ground in the 2000s, but worldwide overreaction to the Fukushima incident has caused many areas to cease construction of new nuclear plants or shut down existing plants, reverting to more fossil fuel use. A single incident, which killed not a single person, has caused idiotic world leaders to condemn tens of millions to early deaths through additional fossil fuel burning (3 million people die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution caused by fossil fuel - mainly coal - power plants). 

Very true.  Our biggest problem as it relates to energy (other than unsustainable development due to overpopulation) is that we expect CHEAP energy and by lack of regulating and enforcing full life cycle costs up front, we end up with the need to clean up the mess on the taxpayers' backs.  Coal for instance is viable - IF we simply insist on full scale Clean Coal Technology that becomes nearly zero emission.  CCT is BTW more expensive than nuke, but until one of two things happens that is in limbo.  While storage of nuclear waste is critical, reality is by going to thorium fuel (still evolving technology, but demonstrated and somewhat commercialized) and sub-critical mass inert gas cooled reactors it is viable.  This makes fision reactors viable until sustainable fusion is achieved.

The other big technological hurdle to ANYTHING is the realization that many cultures don't exactly embrace the truth.  Fuck-up-ushima is a perfect example.  Virtually NO Asian culture actually follows the rules, but puts up a great face claiming they do - something Western politicians seem to embrace without any questioning.  

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 11:31 AM, eyeball said:

 

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.

 

 

That's up to the consumer. Asia will quit using those when it sees fit,  not when Horgan and Weaver tell them to. Meanwhile, Horgan, Weaver and Co want to force British Columbians to go electric while they flog LNG and coal to Asia as fast as they can. Not Alberta's fossil fuels mind you, they aren't allowed.

I'm about to do my bit for BC's carbon footprint. After Christmas I will hook up my diesel truck to my fifth wheel and head south for three months. My High E furnace will be set back to15 degrees, water heater on pilot and one LED light on a timer. It will do wonders for BC's carbon footprint but not so much for the world's. What's the difference between that and the NDP/Green climate strategy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Wilber said:

That's up to the consumer. Asia will quit using those when it sees fit,  not when Horgan and Weaver tell them to. Meanwhile, Horgan, Weaver and Co want to force British Columbians to go electric while they flog LNG and coal to Asia as fast as they can. Not Alberta's fossil fuels mind you, they aren't allowed.

I'm about to do my bit for BC's carbon footprint. After Christmas I will hook up my diesel truck to my fifth wheel and head south for three months. My High E furnace will be set back to15 degrees, water heater on pilot and one LED light on a timer. It will do wonders for BC's carbon footprint but not so much for the world's. What's the difference between that and the NDP/Green climate strategy?

Your efforts on carbon reduction should help by about .0000001%. Good job, fella. You just helped save the world from a world disaster for one more day. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilber said:

That's up to the consumer. Asia will quit using those when it sees fit,  not when Horgan and Weaver tell them to.

Just leaving that up to Asia was not part of the Kyoto deal, like us they were expected to meet certain deadlines too.

Quote

Meanwhile, Horgan, Weaver and Co want to force British Columbians to go electric while they flog LNG and coal to Asia as fast as they can. Not Alberta's fossil fuels mind you, they aren't allowed.

I know, its a joke.  We're accelerating towards the cliff and putting the car on autopilot.

Quote

I'm about to do my bit for BC's carbon footprint. After Christmas I will hook up my diesel truck to my fifth wheel and head south for three months. My High E furnace will be set back to15 degrees, water heater on pilot and one LED light on a timer. It will do wonders for BC's carbon footprint but not so much for the world's. What's the difference between that and the NDP/Green climate strategy?

There's no real difference in any approach that I can see at the moment.  I'm installing an energy efficient wood-stove, screw Horgan, Weaver and Co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way to make substantial reductions in emissions in the short term that we've been told is required - and that's closing coal-fired generating plants. That's the low-hanging fruit and you can attribute most of any "progress" to that. Ontario is a good example. It took us 10 years longer than planned but it's where most of our reductions came from. As the West tries to find tiny, incremental ways to squeeze out more reductions, China and India alone will replace those emissions 10 times over. And where are we? the world has not come close to meeting ANY targets and now the high-brows want us to double down? Oh - and we're in for another long, cold winter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to change now is to force ourselves.  And for us that means forcing ourselves to stop shipping fossil fuels, starting with coal from Northern BC. We can project our force abroad as well by applying economic sanctions against any deadbeats that try to pick up that slack.

We're approaching the point where force will likely be the only option available.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, eyeball said:

The only way to change now is to force ourselves.  And for us that means forcing ourselves to stop shipping fossil fuels, starting with coal from Northern BC. We can project our force abroad as well by applying economic sanctions against any deadbeats that try to pick up that slack.

We're approaching the point where force will likely be the only option available.

Except we are not the only ones with fossil fuels to ship. People will just buy them elsewhere. Junkies don't quit just because you put their dealer in jail, they find another dealer.  Economic sanctions can work both ways. You don't think countries will retaliate if you impose them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Except we are not the only ones with fossil fuels to ship. People will just buy them elsewhere. Junkies don't quit just because you put their dealer in jail, they find another dealer.  Economic sanctions can work both ways. You don't think countries will retaliate if you impose them?

This is no different than the apologies and excuses we make for justifying our wheeling and dealing with dictators. Its pathetic.

BTW when did you give up on busting dealers for peddling their junk? 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This is no different than the apologies and excuses we make for justifying our wheeling and dealing with dictators. Its pathetic.

BTW when did you give up on busting dealers for peddling their junk? 

When did you start busting junkies? The fact is, there is little other countries can get from us that they can't get elsewhere, so sanction away and see where it gets you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 5:15 PM, Centerpiece said:

There's only one way to make substantial reductions in emissions in the short term that we've been told is required - and that's closing coal-fired generating plants. That's the low-hanging fruit and you can attribute most of any "progress" to that. Ontario is a good example. It took us 10 years longer than planned but it's where most of our reductions came from. As the West tries to find tiny, incremental ways to squeeze out more reductions, China and India alone will replace those emissions 10 times over. And where are we? the world has not come close to meeting ANY targets and now the high-brows want us to double down? Oh - and we're in for another long, cold winter!

We painstakingly and at great cost close a coal plant and Asia opens fifty more than next day. That's how this CO2 reduction business is working so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Argus said:

We painstakingly and at great cost close a coal plant and Asia opens fifty more than next day. That's how this CO2 reduction business is working so far.

In fairness, the pollution in parts of China has become so bad that the central government is now requiring all new plants to go natural gas.  I thought this meant they will convert existing coal, but not the case.   I assume they will retire the coal plants, but since the infrastructure to receive LNG and distribute CNG is simply not there, it will take a while for this to show results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Wilber said:

When did you start busting junkies?

When did anyone in this business?  That's precisely the problem, there is no cop...no law...no order, none whatsoever.  There's nothing to bust or be busted for.  

Quote

 

The fact is, there is little other countries can get from us that they can't get elsewhere, so sanction away and see where it gets you.

 

Just a bunch of lols, more populist governments and even more disdain for virtue I suspect. The pattern seems clear but I think it would be an interesting exercise in any case, just to underscore the true nature of the sentiments we're committing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we boycot some Asian or Middle Eastern country. What do they get from us that they can’t get from somewhere like Australia or Indonesia or each other? Trade is competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon tax as it is now defined makes no cents or sense. Its just another tax by a desperate bankrupt government trying to deal with its addiction that is out of control. Its just a couched scheme to  get heroin for a heroin addict by making it sound like  heroin for a heroin addict is for their health.

A true scheme would provide incentives and subsidies to clean alternative energy sources and consumer users of such sources. 

This government has no concept as to what a tax threshold is. None. It thinks taxes can be charged on an unlimited basis. Also the device of claiming you are giving the tax back to people is a lie....it is a bold faced manipulative lie and everyone knows it. It didn't work with Wynne it won't work with Trudeau. In fact he is destroying proper efforts to reduce carbon emissions with this idiotic idea if he taxes people it stops them from being dirty. What horse crap. It is actually the same horseshit reasoning we use for tobacco tax rates. This government knows addicts will pay a tax due to their addiction even when it gets too high. Its the same with gasoline. Its called taxing an addiction knowing the addiction is not being treated but in fact causing the behaviour that will  generate the tax. Hey why not. We legalized gambling and couch it as being charitable, now this latest con. McKenna better stay away from me. I hate millionaire commie silver spoons. Have her walk the streets of Paris praising carbon tax. Please.

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wilber said:

So we boycot some Asian or Middle Eastern country. What do they get from us that they can’t get from somewhere like Australia or Indonesia or each other? Trade is competitive.

We boycott Australia and Indonesia. You have to be really tough to trump economics with virtue...it'll take nerves of steel. Our grandparents sacrificed some 25% of their GDP in the struggle  against tyranny. 

Its not that the dark side of the force is more powerful its just easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We boycott Australia and Indonesia. You have to be really tough to trump economics with virtue...it'll take nerves of steel. Our grandparents sacrificed some 25% of their GDP in the struggle  against tyranny. 

Its not that the dark side of the force is more powerful its just easier.

Do you really think they would care? Asia is their market, not us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Do you really think they would care? Asia is their market, not us.

And that's how easy it is.

Do you think our grandparents would care? What about our grand-kids? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 10:58 AM, Rue said:

Carbon tax as it is now defined makes no cents or sense. Its just another tax by a desperate bankrupt government trying to deal with its addiction that is out of control. Its just a couched scheme to  get heroin for a heroin addict by making it sound like  heroin for a heroin addict is for their health.

A true scheme would provide incentives and subsidies to clean alternative energy sources and consumer users of such sources. 

This government has no concept as to what a tax threshold is. None. It thinks taxes can be charged on an unlimited basis. Also the device of claiming you are giving the tax back to people is a lie....it is a bold faced manipulative lie and everyone knows it. It didn't work with Wynne it won't work with Trudeau. In fact he is destroying proper efforts to reduce carbon emissions with this idiotic idea if he taxes people it stops them from being dirty. What horse crap. It is actually the same horseshit reasoning we use for tobacco tax rates. This government knows addicts will pay a tax due to their addiction even when it gets too high. Its the same with gasoline. Its called taxing an addiction knowing the addiction is not being treated but in fact causing the behaviour that will  generate the tax. Hey why not. We legalized gambling and couch it as being charitable, now this latest con. McKenna better stay away from me. I hate millionaire commie silver spoons. Have her walk the streets of Paris praising carbon tax. Please.

All true. And today there's an article in the G&M noting that Quebecers, too, while wanting to address global warming, oppose carbon taxes that could increase their cost of living. So maybe those in the rest of Canada who are attacked for being backward troglodytes for opposing carbon taxation aren't as deplorable as the Libs want to make them out to be. Carbon taxation is regressive, as are all consumption taxes, and Trudeau's offer to buy off (some) voters with subsidies to compensate for increased taxation makes no sense. It's just another social engineering scheme disguised as climate policy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-quebeckers-dont-want-to-pay-for-the-carbon-tax/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 7:22 AM, cannuck said:

In fairness, the pollution in parts of China has become so bad that the central government is now requiring all new plants to go natural gas.  I thought this meant they will convert existing coal, but not the case.   I assume they will retire the coal plants, but since the infrastructure to receive LNG and distribute CNG is simply not there, it will take a while for this to show results.

China's carbon emissions situation is certainly problematic but India's is perhaps more so. India, too, is addicted to coal-generated energy and has large coal reserves to burn, thus ensuring that its C02 emissions are likely to keep increasing for decades. And its population is set to surpass China's in the not too distant future. Despite being a major energy producer, Canada is responsible for less than 2 percent of global C02 emissions. Even if we reach our 30% reduction target, the global impact will be negligible and will likely be more than offset by increasing emissions in the developing world.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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...