Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

Recommended Posts

32 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.

Canada reduced emissions just about everywhere but Alberta, which is the big dark cloud — of opportunity!  We need pipelines ASAP: TransMountain and Energy East. Boost the resource sector and reduce the number of diesel trucks and trains carrying bitumen.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Canada reduced emissions just about everywhere but Alberta, which is the big dark cloud — of opportunity!  We need pipelines ASAP: TransMountain and Energy East. Boost the resource sector and reduce the number of diesel trucks and trains carrying bitumen.  

 

My bad...I forgot that Canada thinks of itself as a confederation of individual provinces as it makes in-fighting and finger pointing much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

My bad...I forgot that Canada thinks of itself as a confederation of individual provinces as it makes in-fighting and finger pointing much easier.

If that was the case why would I care about Alberta oil?  I’m from Ontario.  

Share this post


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

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.

Someone has to show leadership.  If we refuse to do our part, the "really bad polluters" will simply point to us and say 'Why should we?  They aren't,  even though they are among the worst in per capita emissions."

Canada per capita emissions: 20.3 tonnes

China per capita emissions: 7.2 tonnes

India per capita emissions: 1.8 tonnes.

US per capita emissions:  16.5 tonnes

Let's see some of that much ballyhooed "taking responsibility" from conservatives, instead of trying to avoid it by pointing fingers at countries where individuals use less energy than individuals in Canada.

Share this post


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

Someone has to show leadership.  If we refuse to do our part, the "really bad polluters" will simply point to us and say 'Why should we?  They aren't,  even though they are among the worst in per capita emissions."

This bit about us nobly showing the way would have more sense if there weren't already a dozen other countries who have done far, far more than we have to limit CO2s.

And whose influence on the developing world is essentially NIL.

The developing world wants energy. The cheapest energy comes from coal. Coal is also the most widespread of fossil fuels, one many can find within their own borders.

Comparing our emissions per capita with developing countries is apples and oranges, especially since most are way warmer. Likewise comparing a country with a tenth the US population and NO sun belt spread across a bigger land mass also lacks fairness. It is way colder here and we have longer distances to travel.

Share this post


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

The major factor was Britain cut the "coal burning" :lol:

That was one factor. It will be interesting to see if they can sustain their trajectory. 

Share this post


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

Someone has to show leadership.  If we refuse to do our part, the "really bad polluters" will simply point to us and say 'Why should we?  They aren't,  even though they are among the worst in per capita emissions."

Canada per capita emissions: 20.3 tonnes

China per capita emissions: 7.2 tonnes

India per capita emissions: 1.8 tonnes.

US per capita emissions:  16.5 tonnes

Let's see some of that much ballyhooed "taking responsibility" from conservatives, instead of trying to avoid it by pointing fingers at countries where individuals use less energy than individuals in Canada.

The last data I could find quickly for these two was 2016, but it gives you an idea of how little "per capita" matters in the general fight against AGW. 

United Arab Emirates per capita emissions  23.6 metric tons

Qatar per capita emissions 38.52 metric tons

You could take them both out of the equation and China would make up for it with one year's power plant sales. <-I guessed at that, but I bet I'm not far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dialamah said:

I think it's also got value in reminding people that use of fossil fuels has consequence beyond how much it costs.  

We can no longer fight climate change.  Perhaps we can still mitigate it to some extent, and carbon taxes support that.  

Yes, we must do much more.  But doing nothing because what we can do will not solve the entire problem is not a reasonable stance.  If the anti-carbon tax people have an alternative that was equal to or more effective than a carbon tax in reducing the use of fossil fuels, then they should present it.  Otherwise they just come across as cranks who care more about a few dollars a year in their pockets than about the wellbeing of the next couple of generations.

Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said, but I just got in and three pages or so have gone by.  I can't read them all.

There's anti carbon tax and there's anti carbon tax.  As I said, I don't care about paying more.  It won't make a difference to what I do, as I use very little gasoline recreationally.  That said, do you not worry that the impression we are doing something when we are not might instill a false sense of security in some?  Speaking on a purely practical basis, the carbon tax is useless.  Why let people think we might be achieving something when we are not?

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will continue to rise, because we can't, as a species, cooperate.  (broken record, I know)

Unless there is a technological breakthrough in batteries, or carbon capture, or the holy grail, nuclear fusion, no-one is going to want to suffer enough to make a difference.  Look at France, and more recently, Norway.  And us, of course.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Unless there is a technological breakthrough in batteries, or carbon capture, or the holy grail, nuclear fusion, no-one is going to want to suffer enough to make a difference.  Look at France, and more recently, Norway.  And us, of course.

Hey, we're willing to suffer! I mean, a little bit anyway, or at least, as long as we get our big rebates so it's someone ELSE suffering.

Then it's all good! Jesus God but we're a noble people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ottawa did not take away jobs in Alberta. The Alberta economy grew strong because of the petroleum industry but there are no guarantees. The gold ran out in the Klondike. The cod left the Maritimes. US tariffs and environmental concerns cut the BC forest industry in half.  Free trade knocked the booming garment industry in Montreal to its knees. The "bread basket" of Canada has not been able to feed the world for over thirty years. Things change. Adapt or die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trees tax incoming :rolleyes:

Quote

Planting a TRILLION trees to build a new forest the size of the United States could trap enough emissions to beat climate crisis, study suggests


•Scientists found Earth could support an additional 1.6 billion hectares more trees
•Adding 1-1.5 trillion trees would store estimated 205 billion tonnes of carbon
•The researchers say planting trees would be cheapest, most effective solution

15646596-7214433-image-m-2_1562273419479
 In a first of its kind study, a team in Switzerland has calculated the potential area and impact of a new forest large enough to slash roughly two-thirds off the atmospheric carbon pool. File photo

15646602-7214433-image-a-10_156227394288
 According to the researchers’ calculations, Earth could support an additional 1.6 billion hectares more trees than it currently has, to make for a total forest area equaling 4.4 billion hectares of continuous tree cover. The total land available that can support trees is mapped

15646604-7214433-image-a-11_156227394425
The map above shows the land available for forest restoration (excluding deserts, agricultural and urban areas)

source:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7214433/Best-way-fight-climate-change-Plant-trillion-trees.html

 

Share this post


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

 carbon tax is all a scam proven buy fake data

 

This is silly.  Losing a libel case means nothing for the science, despite what your fake news sites say.   

If there was any kind of hoax behind this then why would Scheer even have a climate change plan ?  Move on, man... you are arguing conspiracy theories from the 90s here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flaws in the carbon tax are glaring, first of all,  the practical flaws of governance, the government is blatantly corrupt, incompetent and dysfunctional, everything it touches turns to shit.

They have no credibility, they are literally committing crimes and not being held accountable, so you can't trust them to administer these sorts of things anymore in Canada, governance itself is fundamentally broken.

Second, it's not actually a market force, it's central planning, so it won't actually acheive the stated intent to harness the market. It's like the policy stimulus, ostensibly a good which is actually harm by government overreach.

Third, the cure is worse than the disease, it's not going to be effective, but it will further exacerbate the actual crisis in Canada, which is a cost of living crisis for the masses, incited by the elites who float above it all, to include operating above the law.

But whatever, I see it as an own goal, the left is going to incite a populist revolt against themselves by those means, this is how you get to Trump's and Brexits and vive le Quebec libre.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am disappointing that CO2 appears to be a bigger threat than overall pollution in our environment that is degraded it to the point where planting more trees is not going to help.

Microplastics were recently discovered in the Arctic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would actually be willing to take collective action against actual pollution like garbage, but carbon is not pollution, it's a fools errand to tilt at carbon windmills.

None the less, the Church of Carbon Doomsday sucks up all the oxygen and props up the elitist authoritarian left, so I just focus on cleaning up garbage in the my immediate environs, there's no middle ground for cooperation.

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...