Carbon tax whining??

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
Jason Jiménez
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:49 am

Gerry wrote:
Jason Jiménez wrote:
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.
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.
My suggestion then is to become a Canadian citizen. Your point is totally beside the issue you raise. As much as any other country in the world, we in Canada do have representation, and our representatives levy the taxes.
I'm not rescinding my American citizenship over a tax -- a tax that will continue to rise over the years. That's also beside the point.

It's true that you hold more referendums in the US than we do here, but that is a difference in the way the two countries view their politicians. We seem to hold more to the idea that our representatives represent us rather than that they consult us on every issue and then vote accordingly.

Our MPs and MLAs have more time and access to information than we do on some issues and are in many cases better able to reach an informed opinion on a given subject. It's the same idea with our judges and law enforcement. We don't elect them, they are appointed.
Better able to reach an informed opinion? How about no. "What luck for rulers that men do not think" is what your argument seems to come across as. A free people are never supposed to acquiese power to those that govern. Power is a two way street. It doesn't matter if it's a Westminster System or a constitutional republic.

Even as you suggest, MP's and MLA's have more time and access to information than the general public, that does not mean that the public's voice should be quieted. Did you not read what I wrote in my previous post? Over 70% of people polled believe the carbon tax to be a sham! Why didn't you address that point?

The point on taxation however is that we do have representation. it's just that we vote for or against the representatives, not the tax, and it works for us.
Well then I guess you all need to go ahead and have the opposition parties at the behest of the constiuents file a no-confidence motion against the BC Liberals for fiscal malfeasance. If having bureaucrats and politicians levy yet another tax is considered representation, than I'll keep my mouth shut on this point.
Jason Jiménez
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:49 am

Gerry wrote:
Jason Jiménez wrote:
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.
There's where we differ in opinion. I think most people would be happy to be less dependent on oil. Certainly many Americans would prefer to depend less on something that has to be imported from a volatile region of the world. The question is not that we want to be less dependent, but how to get there.

You're still not getting the point. Nobody is saying that we want to continue down the road of high gas prices w/o a new system to replace it. What is being clearly said is that a tax on carbon emissions to curtail "global warming" is a farce since it is PROVEN that it will not cut down on emissions, and is a knock on our economy since it's a tax on what is arguably the life-blood of our economy, which will continue to increase IN ADDITION TO increased market volatility. It will cost both of us more to heat our homes and fill our tanks. And for what -- because a liberal despot found the purrfect guise to promote a misguided agenda? That's really all it is.
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 tax oil consumption already, even before the carbon tax. Relative to recent price increases, the carbon tax is nothing. I'd hardly call that "shooting ourselves in the foot". To me the carbon tax is more an admission by society that we need to do something about air pollution, global warming or not. I like the idea of a tax shift from income (work) to consumption of something that is not good for us, especially our children and grandchildren.
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.
Idealistic? Is that bad?

When it comes to politics and our wallets - yes it is and you know that.

Isn't taking a small step toward an ideal a way of making it happen, even if it happens slowly, over time? I don't think that anyone thinks we'll get rid of oil completely any time soon, if ever. But the less we use now, and the more cleanly we use it, will leave more for future generations and a cleaner world as well. I hardly think that we're the most efficient at our use of oil right now, do you?

To answer your question: no, we're not efficient at our use of oil, however, please spare us the Suzuki mission statement. It's a bunk argument.
Use less energy is not the answer unless you want economic growth to halt as well.
Bull. We could all use less energy without ANY drop in economic output. Easily. Each of us could.

Economic growth is tied to resource usage. Do the math. One essentially relies on the other.
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.
I don't feel that governments "dictate" to us. We elect them. We are responsible for them and they are responsible to us. We expect that government plans for the future and the welfare of the individual and society as a whole. How else do we plan for the future? Not everything can be totally based on supply and demand. Through government we plan and build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, defence systems etc. We give up some individual freedom for our overall benefit. Different countries draw the line between individual freedom to do what ever we want and the collective good at different places. We are different than the US. China is different than Norway or Holland. You decide which works best.

I've addressed this in my previous post. To reply to your "we plan and build roads and bridges" which isn't based on supply and demand: how about the BC Liberals release some of the Coquihalla toll money to fund those projects? Come to think of it...where does that money go?? :hypno:

A lot of these public projects are based on supply and demand. They're not going to build a state of the art hospital in Greenwood, BC since there isn't a need for it. The same goes for bridges and roads; therefore, it is to a large extent based on supply and demand. Schools are built for a 'supply' of school children that need education.

We now realize that some problems require global action. More and more countries are conversing and agreeing on issues. The EU is only one example of this. Not all will agree on every issue, but at least we are realizing that we have to give and take on some things if we want to accomplish something worthwhile.

Who is "we" and what's "something?"

The issue of global warming is the first issue that has got the entire world agreeing and acting (to this degree) on a common problem that has major implications for all of us. It's not purrfect and there is controversy, but it's a tentative baby step toward living more sustain ably and working to ensure the health of future generations.

IMO.
No, it's not the first problem that has solicited the world's attention, and it won't be the last. I ask that you go back to my previous post -- the passage where I posted the article --the one that was written in the Financial Post. These were written by Canadians with scientific backgrounds.

Again, I've got no problem with recycling and living "green", sustainable, -- kumbaya. I only ask that no person or persons, government or movement, social or otherwise attempt to push, manipulate, inculcate, steer, drive, [insert any synonomous verb here] me or anyone else into something because a number of people profoundly believe otherwise.

I'll leave you to ponder this: IF humans are the cause of global warming which you believe and I do not, then the only real solution is to get purge the planet of the human species. Afterall, the earth could never possibly go through cycles of hot/cold, fires, hurricanes, tornados, windstorms, pressure change, ice cap recession if humans weren't around...
User avatar
Soundy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Watching on TSNHD.
Contact:

Don't forget all the volcanoes and earthquakes, I'm certain Global Warming<tm> must be responsible for them too!
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
User avatar
LFITQ
Team Captain
Posts: 10263
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 1:36 pm
Location: Prince George, BC
Contact:

You tend to throw out these "scientists" and how much you believe in them. So how about this scientist who is a member of the IPCC which got this Nobel Award and he has now come out against the IPCC and talks about why it is flawed.

John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and a member of the IPCC states his opinion in the Wall Street Journal that not only is it not a proven fact that global warming is human caused, but he is refusing his "share" of the Nobel prize because it is based on a misunderstanding of science.
I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC
participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my
resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al
Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But
that's another story.Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica.
Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.
I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I
say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking
gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we
see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never
"proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global
temperatures have loose similarity over time.
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those
who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over
the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to
accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see
jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who
see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming
apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human
action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent
considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not
note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record
maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local
climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year
drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this
drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record
for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long
droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The
inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in
the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate
would present huge challenges for urban planners.
What I don't like is when those that buy in to Global Warming accuse those that are not buying into the hype of not being "green". That is a complete and utter wimp out of disucssing the facts. Try and belittle the person rather than discussing the facts. I can be "green" and want to do what i can to not pollute and be more environmentally without having bought into the the Global Warming farce. In fact I would say that by focussing so much on Global Warming we are really missing the real issue of overall pollution. I can support Clean up the lakes day, or earthday garbage clean up days; and I can make sure I put my pop cans into recycle bins and put my newspapers into the proper boxes and still not believe in Global Warming. If I compost and recycle and try and to reduce the amount of disposable items I purchase, but do not agree with Al Gore and the global Warming pundits, does that mean I am wanting to destroy the earth? Sorry but to say a naysayer to Global Warming is trying to trash the earth is a complete and utter cop out. Much like dismissing evidence that is contrary to what the hype of Global warming is saying. The basic tenets of the Scientific Method state that if there are discrepencies in the original theory, then the original theory is flawed. Just dismissing them because they do not fit within a belief system is akin to not seeing the forest for the trees.
Now that I don't live in Quesnel do I need to change my handle??
User avatar
Soundy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Watching on TSNHD.
Contact:

LFITQ wrote:The basic tenets of the Scientific Method state that if there are discrepencies in the original theory, then the original theory is flawed. Just dismissing them because they do not fit within a belief system is akin to not seeing the forest for the trees.
<insert rimshot>
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
Jason Jiménez
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:49 am

Since the 'science' behind the carbon tax is flawed and it's based more on groupthink, could we at least be given the chance to opt-out of this?

Afterall, a majority of Canadians believe the carbon tax is bunk, which leads me to conclude that there is a growing consensus that the reasons behind the tax is bunk as well.

I'd gladly return my $100 'dividend' or donate it to a good cause. I'll plant a few trees in my backyard, how about that?

For those that are proponents of 'the-sky-is-falling' school of thinking, when you go see the Festival of Lights this weekend in Horseshoe Bay, think about the amount of CO2 that is being released into the atmosphere to entertain the masses. The next time you're waiting for 2 hours + at the border to capitalize on a sale in the States, remember that you and fellow countrymen are idling while contributing to the very factor that is causing the government to levy a tax on your standard of living. Also, remember that much of the pollution that we visibly see in BC is an amgalmated mix of Chinese and American pollutants converging on BC, yet, we are being punished for the actions of others with more taxes.
User avatar
Soundy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Watching on TSNHD.
Contact:

Jason Jiménez wrote:I'd gladly return my $100 'dividend' or donate it to a good cause.
The NDP wants you to donate it to them :lol:
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
Solar Max
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6820
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:15 pm

Jason Jiménez wrote:Since the 'science' behind the carbon tax is flawed and it's based more on groupthink, could we at least be given the chance to opt-out of this?
Nossir. You see, if one tries to discuss the subject, the answer is simply that the debate is closed. The Global Warmers have decided, and it is now written in stone, just ask them.
Jason Jiménez wrote:Afterall, a majority of Canadians believe the carbon tax is bunk, which leads me to conclude that there is a growing consensus that the reasons behind the tax is bunk as well.
Somebody is trying to re-invent himself as a born again environmentalist, and that same someone actually thinks it's working. It's worked so well that I won't vote for him any more. Too bad there's no other option for voters like me though.
Jason Jiménez wrote:I'd gladly return my $100 'dividend' or donate it to a good cause. I'll plant a few trees in my backyard, how about that?
Now that would make sense, helping the lungs of the planet breathe just a little better. But..uh...one problem. You can't create any public hysteria doing that, as the Faithful want. Better not.
Jason Jiménez wrote:For those that are proponents of 'the-sky-is-falling' school of thinking, when you go see the Festival of Lights this weekend in Horseshoe Bay, think about the amount of CO2 that is being released into the atmosphere to entertain the masses. The next time you're waiting for 2 hours + at the border to capitalize on a sale in the States, remember that you and fellow countrymen are idling while contributing to the very factor that is causing the government to levy a tax on your standard of living. Also, remember that much of the pollution that we visibly see in BC is an amgalmated mix of Chinese and American pollutants converging on BC, yet, we are being punished for the actions of others with more taxes.

True. But lest we forget, North America BAD, emerging Asian super economy GOOD. So no slowing down coal plants being opened at a rate of one per week in China (or trying greener energy sources, albeit more expensive ones), but you had better pay your 2 and a half pennies per litre, you nasty North American, you.

8)
User avatar
LFITQ
Team Captain
Posts: 10263
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 1:36 pm
Location: Prince George, BC
Contact:

Solar Max wrote:
Jason Jiménez wrote:Since the 'science' behind the carbon tax is flawed and it's based more on groupthink, could we at least be given the chance to opt-out of this?
Nossir. You see, if one tries to discuss the subject, the answer is simply that the debate is closed. The Global Warmers have decided, and it is now written in stone, just ask them.
More scientist information on Global Warming...
To date, over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition to cease and desist from aggressive carbon-focused policies and treaties like Kyoto, which they say will damage our economy and impede our efforts to curb real pollution.
But lemme guess, these scientists don't count because the BUREAUCRATS that signed off on the IPCC report hold more weight...

That last part is what I, personally, would be and am more concerned about.

Oh and Solar, there are other candidates out there to vote for other than the mainstream 2 parties, here in BC. Look into it and I bet you will find more than one you can send your vote to. If enough British Columbians did just that, then we would get real political reform. Think about what would happen if we sent a bunch of independents or minor party members to Victoria instead!

I can't remember the last time I didn't vote for the independent in a Provincial election...
Now that I don't live in Quesnel do I need to change my handle??
User avatar
PigSkin_53
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3926
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:47 am

MacNews wrote:I find the carbon tax is an unnecessary inflaming of already high gas prices.

Ken, the worst Ministry when it comes to name changes is the Ministry of Children and Families. Its name has gotten changed at least once per administration over the past 18+ years.

I read that Harper has saved taxpayers over 30 million a year by reducing the amount of Cabinet Ministers. I never realized how much even a junior Minister costs the public, with his own staff, office and budget.

As for China overtaking the US, that was predicted to occur in the 1970s...but so far it is 38 years late.
http://warhammersforge.blogspot.com/
"Just Win Baby" ~ Al Davis
User avatar
Soundy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Watching on TSNHD.
Contact:

Just saw that abominable carbon-tax TV ad again, and something struck me right from the opening sentence: "Ever wonder what's causing Global Warming<tm>?"

Well... no, actually... because we've already been told repeatedly for the past two years (egads, has it only been two years since Uncomfortable Truth came out? It feels like forever...) that "it's people". That little "fact" has been an integral part of beating us over the head with Global Warming<tm> ever since. Anyone who's ever heard of Global Warming<tm> already knows very well that "it's people" and nothing but. :roll:
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
User avatar
PigSkin_53
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3926
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:47 am

Jason Jiménez wrote:
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational.
Recanted his views

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... 28f14da388




http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 55066.html


http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm


http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... ?id=332289

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/c ... 46aeb5&p=1

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... 32fcd49870
Last edited by PigSkin_53 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Just Win Baby" ~ Al Davis
Solar Max
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6820
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:15 pm

I'm sorry Soundy, but since Global Warming <tm> has been upstaged by some cooler temps in various places on the planet, the politically correct term is now "Climate Change (Registered Trademark Al Gore Carbon Trading, Inc.) "

Gotta make those Polar Bears look disadvantaged.
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Thanks for those interesting reads there Pigskin . But we shouldn't let a little skepticism stop is from shutting our country down though should we ? After all what could it hurt to shut down our economy just in case politcos like Gore and Suzuki are right? And BTW , aren't even ice-ages caused by global warming? It does cause every other peril known ya know .
Jason Jiménez
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:49 am

Soundy wrote:Just saw that abominable carbon-tax TV ad again, and something struck me right from the opening sentence: "Ever wonder what's causing Global Warming<tm>?"

Well... no, actually... because we've already been told repeatedly for the past two years (egads, has it only been two years since Uncomfortable Truth came out? It feels like forever...) that "it's people". That little "fact" has been an integral part of beating us over the head with Global Warming<tm> ever since. Anyone who's ever heard of Global Warming<tm> already knows very well that "it's people" and nothing but. :roll:
I think this quote best applies to what you've said:

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." - Adolf Hitler
Post Reply