Gerry wrote:Jason Jiménez wrote:Read my lips: No more taxes!!! :no:
For the entire lot of crackpot ‘experts’ that weigh in on global warming, there are opinions on both sides that believe in it, and those that do not. Sure, the planet may have warmed in the past 100 years, but it’s a scientific fact that planet goes through heating and cooling periods. All of the numbers crunched have only covered the last century. What is 100 years in relative terms? Nothing! It’s a blink of an eye. Global warming is only a theory. Unfortunately, this theory is being put into practice by the BC government in the form of yet another tax – another hand in our pocket. This theory is being inculcated ad nauseaum to the masses by bleeding heart liberal propagandists who have abstruse agendas to get people to change their behavior. Groupthink, in this case, could prove to be disastrous.
How is it dangerous to pollute less? If you are correct that global warming is an incorrect theory, how does it hurt us to reduce smog by driving less or driving more fuel efficient or cleaner vehicles?
I never said it was dangerous to pollute less. You misinterpreted what I said.
Green and sustainable living is a great way to reduce waste and conserve resources. I go along with it because of the economic benefits, not because I believe the world is in peril. It’s a person’s prerogative whether they choose to live that way.
Is it really? Do we not have many laws on our books requiring certain behaviours as to how we treat our common environment? May be blindly deposit anything we want into our waterways? Of course not.
I stand by what I said. It is a person's prerogative to buy compact flurorescent lights, ride a bike to work, recycle, etc. There are currently no laws that I'm aware of that states that we have to live 'green.' You're talking about blatant disregard for the environment. Of course there are laws that prohibit total disregard for the environment; laws that protect wildlife and habitats. I'm talking about the paradigm shift from our conventional ways of living to what is being promoted now. It's a social push, not a law.
Very little of what most people accept has irrefutable evidence to back it up. But most people will accept reasonable evidence, and that is what most people have done in this case. Most Canadians have, most world governments have, and even the US is well on the way to accepting that something needs to be done.
There is not a preponderance of evidence in favor of either argument -- it depends on who you ask. My opinion is that it's inconclusive - yet the those in favor of trying to change our behavior have a special agenda and stand to benefit from it by way of status, power and wealth.
Since the world leaders at the recent G8 Summit can’t even agree on the five W’s with relation to global warming,
That's more politics than science, and you know it. It all boils down to who pays, not whether someone should.
I disagree. The scientist's conclusions are as sketchy as the politicians. Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." Some people believe in it, some people don't.
why should you and I be taxed on what essentially boils down to a hunch?
It is much more than a hunch, and you know that too.
Ok, show me proof that Global Warming is indeed real. Show me conclusive evidence. There isn't any. What you will find are theories that are supported by other theories.
The idea behind this carbon tax is asinine. In today’s 24 hours, the provincial government took out two, full-page ads to describe how this is a good thing. (Let the inculcation commence) The ad alleges that 36% of all greenhouse gas emissions in BC comes from transportation. We’re being punished for using resources and the government hopes that prices will get so high, we’ll not consume as much. As an incentive, tax breaks will be offered. Tax breaks are wonderful, but it doesn’t help out the family of four struggling to make ends meet that have to commute long distances when gas continues to go up - by market fluctuation, or by carbon taxes.
Are you a family of four struggling to make ends meet? I love how people are always so worried about other people when they bring up an issue, but don't consider that other people also means future generations who will have to live with the pollutants we are adding to our air right now even though we could easily pollute much less than we do.
I'm glad you love it. No, I'm a family of three now and I try to put myself in other people's shoes. I don't presume to think that my sitation is the same as everyone elses. Every generation adapts to the problems of the day. My children and your children will find ways to deal with the challenges of their day. Taxing carbon usage and consumption is not going to provide any answer for you and me today or our kids tomorrow.
The ad in 24 hours highlights that “If you drive 5% less a year, you can typically save twice what you will pay in carbon tax over the next two years.” What if you can’t drive 5% less a year? What if you have to move further out because housing is so outrageously high, you have to drive longer distances where there isn’t public transit? Does the government plan on putting in a provincial Skytrain system?
Good points here. That's where economics comes in. It's all supply and demand and that will shape where and how we live. Pollution costs. There is a price to be paid, somehow, and by someone, at some time. A carbon tax means that we will be paying some of the true cost now, right away. No more free lunch. No more putting it off until some future date.
The problem is that taxing consumption on carbon usage is essentially a knock against our oil based economy. As forward thinking as many see it as, it’s really too far ahead of where we are and where we need to be. Here’s what I mean: until a system is put in place where we don’t have to rely on oil, taxing our consumption of our lifelines is basically shooting ourselves in the foot. We need our feet to walk, run, move and live. The same goes for oil. We need oil (right now) to live. Essentially everything that we use is petroleum based. The keyboard that we are using to exchange ideas on this forum is oil based. Some of the foods that we eat are processed in some form or fashion with oil products. Medicines, plastics, and whole host of goods are oil based. The ‘green machine’ message, while noble, is simply idealistic.
Use less energy is not the answer unless you want economic growth to halt as well. The alternatives? Yes, solar, geothermal, wind, etc. – the renewables. The problem that I see here is the same problem attributed with marijuana. These forms of energy occur naturally – the same way that marijuana grows naturally. As it stands now, since it can’t be taxed because it’s a naturally occurring substance/energy, how will ‘they’ make a profit on it? Anybody could set up shop and produce energy the same way anybody can grow marijuana for a personal profit. The problem again lies in government(s) trying to dictate to us how and when things should be done. It’s wrong with imposing more taxes, it’s wrong with attempting to market to the masses in the form of fear and propaganda blitzes and it’s wrong to try and tell us how to lead our lives.
No one "planned" the city of Vancouver. It evolved. It is still evolving, to some degree by planners and governments, and to some degree by economics.
Au contraire, confrere. The establishment in 1926 of the Vancouver Town Planning Commission marked the beginning of formal planning efforts in the city. Harland Bartholomew, town planning consultant from St. Louis, Missouri, was retained to provide planning services for Vancouver. Over the next decade Bartholomew and his team were assisted by Horace Seymour, a Canadian town planner who served as the resident engineer for the planning commission. The team surveyed the city, prepared detailed reports on zoning regulations, street design, transportation and transit, public recreation and civic art and conducted meetings with the town planning commission in order to develop a comprehensive plan. It was published in 1928. The following year, when South Vancouver and Point Grey amalgamated with the City of Vancouver, Bartholomew was hired to plan these communities and amend his previous report. In 1944 he returned to Vancouver to assist with new planning initiatives; a 1946 Bartholomew plan for the Lower Fraser River Valley--stretching 4,600 square kilometres from the U.S. border to West Vancouver and Hope--emphasized his interest in regional planning and a “scheme for control of decentralization.” It's been over 60 years. That's a long time to go w/o updating a city’s growing needs. .
Call me American…but I was always taught and firmly believe “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENATION.” Did we vote on this? I didn’t. This tax is non-representative of my views on this issue and non-representative of concrete, irrefutable facts. The theories of Henry Hazlitt are sure to be proven with this ill-conceived tax and the behavioral changes that will ensue.[/quote]
That's funny. I remember being able to vote for the current government, or against them. Did you miss the election?
It’s not that funny. I’m not a Canadian citizen; therefore, I can’t vote in Canada. ( See the above passage.) Voting for the current government is beside the point. Something as important as more taxes (in my experience) has always been put up to a vote. I don’t think anybody in their right mind would allow for such a thing to happen w/o weighing the issue at hand first.
