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. [/quote]
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?[/quote]
I never said it was dangerous to pollute less. You misinterpreted what I said.[/quote]
Okay. You said it would be disastrous. You suggest all kinds of doom and gloom if we start to cut back on carbon emissions. And I say that we can cut back a very large amount without significant pain at all and as the economics dictate cleaner use of oil, technologies will be developed to meet the need. But without a financial carrot/stick, the status quo continues, and it is unsustainable.
No, I never said it would be disatrous to polute less, I said GROUPTHINK could prove disatrous. On a local and national level, the entire idea touted by the BC Liberal party and charlatans Suzuki and Dion is a demonstration of a flawed syllogism. Their argument, while delivered with gravitas, is deceptive and flawed. Furthermore, I have not suggested any doom and gloom if we start to cut back on carbon emmissions. That is what carbon tax proponents are suggesting by hitting us up with another tax. On a global level, this business of going green and carbon caps is an attempt to shape human behavior and consolidate power.
"Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance." - Jacque Chirac, former French President
What I am suggesting here as an amateur economist, is that by introducing a tax to stymie carbon emissions on an economy that is already strained with relation to oil prices - prices that are dictated by the free market - is asinine. There is no alternative yet to curtail our usage of oil. It would be totally different if we had the choice between something viable for all to use and oil. Then, and only then, would it be well conceived and warmly welcome by consumers everywhere if there was a tax on oil. That's the bottom line.
You're right. Most of the push is social, although recycling is sort of enforced by not be able to dispose of recyclables in regular waste. In general though, if people can be persuaded to do the right thing by giving them information, that would be ideal. Usually though, it takes dollars and cents through penalties and incentives as well as regulation to make changes.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.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.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.
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.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.
This point here is debatable as well. Majority in this sense may not rule - at least not in the sense that you see it as. I'll direct your attention to an article found in the Financial Post dated April 6, 2006:You are in the minority. Most Canadians disagree with you. Most world governments do as well. Majority rules.
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy
formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"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. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
Furthermore, 71% of Canadians (I'll admit that I don't know the sampling pool here, I'm only basing it on the 24Hrs July 15 article by Bill Tieleman) disagree with the carbon tax. If they don't agree with the tax, then they don't necessarily believe in the global warming myth, yes or no? If they did, then they would concede to the myth and acquiesce to the carbon tax knowing that the ends justify the means. The tax, if you recall, applies to not only gasoline, but to diesel, heating, oil, natural gas and propane. I guess I'll have to get the chimney cleaned out before winter arrives in 8 weeks...
There are two interesting FACTS that I think should be entertained: the first is that Statistics Norway reports that country's carbon tax - the highest in the world and 5x higher than BC's starting tax has only reduced CO2 emissions by a whopping 2%...since 1991.
The other nugget of useful information is that if the Kyoto Protocol were to be implemented and executed to a T, it would only advert 0.06C of global warming by 2050.
For further reading by a credible source, go to this site. [web]http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... c808e8809e[/web]
Since the world leaders at the recent G8 Summit can’t even agree on the five W’s with relation to global warming,
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.That's more politics than science, and you know it. It all boils down to who pays, not whether someone should.
why should you and I be taxed on what essentially boils down to a hunch? [/quote]
Because the majority of people accept the theory of global warming and want something to be done about it. That's why.
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. [/quote]It is much more than a hunch, and you know that too.
Yeah. That's how it works. Like evolution and a bunch more I suppose. You likely won't get your conclusive evidence.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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. .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.
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]
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.[/quote]That's funny. I remember being able to vote for the current government, or against them. Did you miss the election?
I look foward to reading your thoughts.I'll respond to the rest later. I'm at work and I have to get back at it.
