The Environment Thread

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you're in favour of higher taxes?

For oil companies... yes.

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

For oil companies... yes.

We're not talking about taxing oil companies.  We're talking about taxing average Canadians.  For something the PM admits wont make a difference.  So, we all agree we should be kind to the planet and move away from fossil fuels.  Clearly, we're in no rush.  Why tax us?  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

We're not talking about taxing oil companies.  We're talking about taxing average Canadians.  For something the PM admits wont make a difference.  So, we all agree we should be kind to the planet and move away from fossil fuels.  Clearly, we're in no rush.  Why tax us?  

Because we should take care of our own mess. If everyone did their own part - we wouldn't have an issue here. And it is a pressing issue with real ramifications. 

If not a Carbon tax, then what would you suggest? It's always good to solicit new ideas. 

[Wideleft]

51 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you're in favour of higher taxes?

Taxes are the cost of a civilized society, so I don't reflexively oppose increases in taxes.  I am not in favour of corporations polluting for free, or even worse, getting subsidized to do so.

[Wideleft]

30 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

We're not talking about taxing oil companies.  We're talking about taxing average Canadians.  For something the PM admits wont make a difference.  So, we all agree we should be kind to the planet and move away from fossil fuels.  Clearly, we're in no rush.  Why tax us?  

You may think we're in no rush as you are fortunate enough to currently sit in a less effected latitude.  I'm not sure the residents of Tuvalu feel the same way.  

https://www.ecowatch.com/meet-the-worlds-first-climate-refugees-1882143026.html

Or maybe a Syrian refugee:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html

Or even in North Carolina:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-north-carolina-hurricanes-do-what-scientists-could-not-persuade-republicans-that-climate-change-is-real/2018/10/17/45136c56-d0ac-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html?utm_term=.bfc787535313

So tell me - what will it take for you to realize it's here and it's happening?  

[Mark F]

 The hotter the ocean is, the more energy and force the hurricane has. And higher moisture, more rainfall.

"Earth's strongest storm of 2018, Super Typhoon Yutu, was pounding the U.S. Northern Mariana Islands late Wednesday morning (U.S. EDT) with sustained winds of 180 mph, according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC). At 10 am EDT, the northern eyewall of Yutu was over Tinian Island, which will likely experience catastrophic damage. Yutu is Earth’s tenth Category 5 storm of 2018, an astonishing total that has only been exceeded only once on record (twelve, in 1997). Yutu is tied with Super Typhoon Mangkhut, which also had 180 mph winds, as the strongest storm of 2018."

Carbon brief:

"Ocean heat content (OHC) set a new record in the first half of 2018, with more warmth in the oceans than at any time since OHC records began in 1940.

Global surface temperatures in 2018 are on track to be the fourth warmest since records began in the mid-1800s, behind only 2015, 2016 and 2017. Temperatures in 2018 were near record highs despite a moderate cooling La Niña event during the first half of the year.

Moderate El Niño conditions are expected to develop during November, which will contribute to a slightly warmer finish to 2018. However, as El Niño’s warming impact on surface temperatures tends to lag by a few months this event will mostly affect 2019.

The latest data shows that the level of the world’s oceans continued to rise in 2018, with sea levels around 8 centimeters (cm) higher than in the early 1990s. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) also reached record high levels in 2018."

 

sustained winds of 180 mph.

Amazing things.

photos from hurricane michael that destroyed parts of the Florida panhandle last week.  

https://truthout.org/articles/hurricane-michael-survivor-calls-out-climate-denier-politicians/

Edited October 24, 2018 by Mark F

[Wideleft]

So if there was any doubt that the Deniers aren't in this for the cold hard cash and couldn't give a lick about science:

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/climate-change-doubters-are-finalists-environmental-protection-agency-science-advisory

"James Enstrom, who has served as a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute and is a retired professor from UCLA, has received funding from the tobacco industry to produce research that downplays the risks of secondhand smoke...A description of his qualifications for the appointment said that Enstrom's research, which has vastly different conclusions from those of the majority of scientists, justifies rolling back EPA regulations on air pollution, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)."

To be clear, deniers are throwing their hats in with people who don't think second hand smoke is bad.

"Richard Belzer is an independent consultant on regulatory economics who has worked for a number of conservative think tanks, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute and R Street Institute. His recent clients include Exxon Mobil, the American Chemistry Council and Fitzgerald Glider Kits, which is pushing EPA to roll back air pollution protections on heavy trucks."

Hey diesel exhaust is totally cool too!  You know what - we actually should have more because air pollution is ok. 

Do you really want to associate yourself with this kind of thinking?

 

 

[Eternal optimist]

On 2018-10-22 at 2:03 PM, Mark F said:

Appears that the various political and business leaders are unwilling to wade into this and do what's necessary.

This is no surprise, most politicians are older in terms of age... this rift isn't helped at all by my apathetic millennial generation, the majority in office are less eager to do so because imposing taxes generally is political suicide.

On 2018-10-23 at 11:51 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

You missed the part where he said it wont make a difference.  So he's rich and he's forcing yet another tax on Canadians to fix a problem he admits cant be fixed, at least not this way.  Totally irresponsible.  

If you want to pay higher taxes, be my guest.  Maybe they can make the carbon tax voluntary.  Since it's so right and so scientifically sound, Im sure an enormous amount of people will be happy to select "pay carbon tax" when making purchases.

His proposal is a consumption tax, you know what's the best part about that? It's avoidable, similar to tobacco tax (which adds about 50% to the cost of cigarettes) and taxes on alcohol... if you don't like it, don't buy stuff subject to carbon tax. A carbon tax would nudge people's tendencies and actions in the right direction, you'd see less SUVs and shiny new trucks on the road. As for not making a difference, his point is that it needs to be a collaborative global effort - someone has to take the first step. Might as well be us.

[pigseye]

9 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

This is no surprise, most politicians are older in terms of age... this rift isn't helped at all by my apathetic millennial generation, the majority in office are less eager to do so because imposing taxes generally is political suicide.

His proposal is a consumption tax, you know what's the best part about that? It's avoidable, similar to tobacco tax (which adds about 50% to the cost of cigarettes) and taxes on alcohol... if you don't like it, don't buy stuff subject to carbon tax. A carbon tax would nudge people's tendencies and actions in the right direction, you'd see less SUVs and shiny new trucks on the road. As for not making a difference, his point is that it needs to be a collaborative global effort - someone has to take the first step. Might as well be us.

You're comparing a luxury tax on things you don't need like likes smokes and booze to the cost of heating your home in winter, not even remotely close to the same standard. 

[Eternal optimist]

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

You're comparing a luxury tax on things you don't need like likes smokes and booze to the cost of heating your home in winter, not even remotely close to the same standard. 

According to Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, extreme estimates state a carbon tax would increase costs for Canadian households that use the most carbon (that is, those that are the most wasteful) by $1,141 for your average Canadian household. For starters' that's less than $100 a month... for the upper-class... and secondly, the people you're referring to (the poor that wouldn't be able to afford it) wouldn't be in this realm, since if they're that poor they wouldn't be consuming carbon (or other items) at such a high rate to begin with.

(source https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/carbon-tax-canadians-cost-prices-1.4753664)

As for it being a tax on essential services, they already implement environment levies on all sorts of items to encourage responsible behavior. The best example I can think of is the environmental levy on car batteries - you pay the levy up front, then when you return the old car battery (for recycling) you get your money back. If you didn't have that tax, there would be a lot car batteries in landfills. Lastly - aren't all taxes taxes for essential services? Isn't that the whole idea?

[pigseye]

50 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

According to Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, extreme estimates state a carbon tax would increase costs for Canadian households that use the most carbon (that is, those that are the most wasteful) by $1,141 for your average Canadian household. For starters' that's less than $100 a month... for the upper-class... and secondly, the people you're referring to (the poor that wouldn't be able to afford it) wouldn't be in this realm, since if they're that poor they wouldn't be consuming carbon (or other items) at such a high rate to begin with.

(source https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/carbon-tax-canadians-cost-prices-1.4753664)

As for it being a tax on essential services, they already implement environment levies on all sorts of items to encourage responsible behavior. The best example I can think of is the environmental levy on car batteries - you pay the levy up front, then when you return the old car battery (for recycling) you get your money back. If you didn't have that tax, there would be a lot car batteries in landfills. Lastly - aren't all taxes taxes for essential services? Isn't that the whole idea?

The wealthy don't care, they have too much money to know what to do with anyways.

Basic groceries, rent, medical and dental, prescriptions, legal aid, day care those are just a few of the things zero rated for tax unlike smokes and booze and now the cost to heat your home in the winter. 

Quote

 

The impact of carbon pricing on Canadian households depends on whether a household uses electricity, natural gas or heating oil for home heating and on the emissions intensity of electricity in each province, the Ecofiscal Commission report noted.

 

In Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia for example, where most electricity is produced with coal-fired plants, there would be higher carbon costs 

Such significant price increases would not occur in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, however, because electricity in these provinces is generated with far lower greenhouse-gas emissions, mostly from large-scale hydro facilities, the report found.

 

The actual cost will depend on which province you live in not on what your economic class is. 

[pigseye]

[pigseye]

Pretty clear from the graph above who the real culprits are. 

[Eternal optimist]

4 hours ago, pigseye said:

The actual cost will depend on which province you live in not on what your economic class is. 

Let me see if I understand you here - you're against a carbon tax because it will disproportionately affect citizens living in colder or remote climates due to the increased costs associated with transportation and basic necessities. Can I posit this question to you - if the government were to offset the costs for those citizens, thereby only curbing excessive pollution only by those that could afford it (without putting the same burden on the poor) - would you still be opposed to the carbon tax?

[pigseye]

27 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Let me see if I understand you here - you're against a carbon tax because it will disproportionately affect citizens living in colder or remote climates due to the increased costs associated with transportation and basic necessities. Can I posit this question to you - if the government were to offset the costs for those citizens, thereby only curbing excessive pollution only by those that could afford it (without putting the same burden on the poor) - would you still be opposed to the carbon tax?

You hit the nail right on the head, it's the redistribution of wealth. 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-climate-policies-are-about-wealth-redistribution

Quote

 

Absent the political will to do this, carbon taxation simply becomes an annual, multi-billion dollar government cash grab and wealth redistribution mechanism that has nothing to do with “saving the planet.”

Rather, it becomes exactly what one of the UN’s top climate officials, German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, acknowledged in 2011, that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

That is the only real purpose carbon taxation has in Canada today, given the massive failure of our governments to achieve the emission reductions they’ve been promising and failing to deliver, for three decades.

 

I am opposed to the carbon tax and there is nothing I can do about it, except vote the Liberals out next election and hope the next government scraps it. 

[Eternal optimist]

 

Just now, pigseye said:

You hit the nail right on the head, it's the redistribution of wealth.

Oh good then, glad that's settled! The government already has this tax break specifically for people living in remote areas of the north, it is called the Northern Residence Deduction:

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-255-northern-residents-deductions.html

Also, the carbon tax implementation is supposed to have a rebate portion, specifically so the poor that would be paying carbon tax on necessities, get a corresponding tax break on those necessities.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-carbon-tax-plan-trudeau-1.4874258

[pigseye]

Right from your link,

Quote

 

While Trudeau insisted that the carbon tax and the payment program will be revenue-neutral for the federal government, a government official at a technical briefing for journalists acknowledged that some Canadians — about 30 per cent of them — will pay more a year in carbon taxes than they stand to gain from the new backstop program. The official said these people are more likely to be wealthier Canadians who have to heat bigger homes or fuel larger vehicles.

On the other hand, a sizeable majority of Canadians receiving the federal payments — the other 70 per cent in those provinces without carbon pricing plans of their own — will receive more in climate payments than they'll pay each year through the new carbon tax.

 

The wealthy 30% pay for the bottom 70% and this will someone reduce emissions? Like I said, the rich have more money than they know what to do with so I don't expect them to complain too loud. Do you really think the rich are going to change their spending habits because of this? If you do, you're just fooling yourself. And what are the other 70% going to do with those $300 yearly rebates? Buy a Tesla? lol.

This is a horseshit plan so let's just call it what it is, rob from the rich to give to the poor, might make a few bleeding hearts sleep better at night but does nothing in the big picture. 

[Eternal optimist]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Right from your link,

The wealthy 30% pay for the bottom 70% and this will someone reduce emissions? Like I said, the rich have more money than they know what to do with so I don't expect them to complain too loud. Do you really think the rich are going to change their spending habits because of this? If you do, you're just fooling yourself. And what are the other 70% going to do with those $300 yearly rebates? Buy a Tesla? lol.

This is a horseshit plan so let's just call it what it is, rob from the rich to give to the poor, might make a few bleeding hearts sleep better at night but does nothing in the big picture. 

Either such a tax leaves the poor out in the cold (by hurting them on essential services), or the tax is levied more on the rich, it can't be both. As I mentioned before it is still an avoidable tax, as even with essential services (groceries, for example) if the carbon tax weight were so substantial alternatives would emerge or become more viable - such as buying groceries locally, instead of mandarins shipped from China.

[pigseye]

16 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

Either such a tax leaves the poor out in the cold (by hurting them on essential services), or the tax is levied more on the rich, it can't be both. As I mentioned before it is still an avoidable tax, as even with essential services (groceries, for example) if the carbon tax weight were so substantial alternatives would emerge or become more viable - such as buying groceries locally, instead of mandarins shipped from China.

You haven't factored in any of the costs that business will pass along to the consumer to offset the carbon tax on them. It's estimated that once you factor in those costs that families with $40,000 household income will pay an extra $124.00/year above their rebates. So yes it is going to cost the poor more to live even if they are robbing from the rich. Horseshit plan like I said. 

[pigseye]

And it just keeps getting better and better, what an bunch incompetent twats.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/coal-fired-power-plants-carbon-tax-1.4882669

In a climate-policy retreat over the treatment of coal, federal Liberals are proposing to loosen emission standards for power plants that burn the fuel, effectively lowering carbon taxes on each tonne of greenhouse gas released from coal-burning stations, like NB Power's Belledune, next year to less than $1.

[Eternal optimist]

 

23 hours ago, pigseye said:

You haven't factored in any of the costs that business will pass along to the consumer to offset the carbon tax on them. It's estimated that once you factor in those costs that families with $40,000 household income will pay an extra $124.00/year above their rebates. So yes it is going to cost the poor more to live even if they are robbing from the rich. Horseshit plan like I said. 

Are you seriously arguing over $12 a month?

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

 

Are you seriously arguing over $12 a month?

Well it is what it is, we argue over 12 ppm, which is the human contribution of CO2/year, so why not $12/month for the lowest household incomes, I'm sure it matters to some, even if the elitists can't see it.   

[pigseye]

Poor Mike Mann, forgot to check the science (observational data), just keep digging that hole Mike.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/05/dr-mann-says-man-made-weather-change-isnt-rocket-science-observations-show-its-not-even-science/

 

[JCon]

6 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Please stop using that site as proof of anything... that site is for denier nutters and it just lies...

Ignore the troll. This thread is so much better when it's just the adults talking. 

[pigseye]

The thread title asks why so many science deniers?

If you choose to disregard a scientific study or observational data, you should at least be able to counter it with facts to back your position unless you are just too lazy to bother, in which case don't bother replying please.