TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Liberal Stephane Dions Carbon Tax
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ...

Jay, it's not nearly enough of a level playing field to "beat China at its own game". China's labour laws are non-existent. It's environmental policy is non-existent. Those two factors alone make it rather difficult to compete.

we're trying to shut down coal burning plants here while China builds a new one about EVERY WEEK. Inefficient, dirty, whatever...it's readily available fuel and experts say China has enough coal to keep this up well beyond our lifetime. So while it's clear China needs to be brought on board to fight climate change...the question is how do we get China on board? If China's intention is growth at whatever cost, and they have a steady stream of fuel (coal), what incentive is there to change? Why should they even rely on oil and gas, nevermind "cleaner" nuclear power or any other costly "green" alternatives when they can just burn coal?

I think we need to move forward with the assumption that China may not buy in. If the answer is "do nothing" until they're in, we could be waiting 75+ years.

Like I said...I don't know enough about the carbon tax to say it's the "right thing to do", but I favour it over doing with the CPC has done, which is jack shit.

I'm all for wind farms, solar fields, etc. I just don't see that as a politically or economically viable option right now and (unfortunately) to get elected, you need a politically palatable solution.

Raising taxes to pay for more costly alternatives isn't going to fly with people already crying about gas prices, electricity costs, etc.

I can only assume that the tax will incent industry to reduce emissions instead of simply paying to pollute. While some cost will be passed along to consumers, I don't think it's possible to pass along anything close to the full cost...?

Again...I don't know enough about it...but suggesting that we do nothing until countries like China are on board is ridiculously naive and quite simply NOT going to happen anytime soon. If China, with the world watching as the Olympics draw near, is still refusing to change their ways (as opposed to betting public image), when will it be prepared to enact REAL change?

Life in china is getting expensive quickly. They have very high inflation and salaries are rising in concert. Pretty soon it wont be very cheap to do business in china. Add rising fuel costs to this (by the will of the free market i might add) and the cost of shipping will exceed any cost benefits. This means that pretty soon, china will have to face the real cost of energy and will need to find a solution.

Now you and i both know that if we dont invent it, they will. So the time is now for everyone involved to start a simple and effective way to retrofit buildings and create a new system of energy. Then we should sell this model to everyone and become rich. The revenue existing taxation would bring in on this new wealth would far exceed any carbon tax.

Explain something to me. If we can build cars and sell them for as little as $10,000 why they hell would it cost almost the same amount to put sheets of plastic and crystals on a roof and install a windmill? Surely there would be a massive price adjustment if they became more mainstream. I remember a 1.5 megapixal digital camera went for $1200 in 1998. Technology is a curious thing in this way.

How can we pay for this? The government can use some of the $6 billion they plan to spend on nuclear reactors to help start up businesses that would supply this technology. They could also offer incentives just as they do now for people to install newer more efficient ac and heaters.

But i dont think this idea is a simple and as catchy as taxing big bad business in the name of saving the world! Also it would be a long and tedious process that would surely last longer than one political term.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut LOL that you actually just said that. Daily Kos is thattaway, man.

Cause that was a bad idea?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Do you buy food, any sort of products, travel either by car or transit or heat your home? Do you use electricity? Do you cook food? If the answer is yes then this will cost you money. The magic smoke screen here is that this tax is hidden and will be built into the costs of most things long before it gets to you. Those costs have to go somewhere. And thats the sham of this whole excersize.

Clearly you didn't read my post (or the actual policy document). I fully accept that the cost of consumer goods and home heating fuel will rise... I don't have a problem with that at all since it will be offset by the reduction in my income tax. With regard to transportation fuels and lubricants... I don't care since both are free for me anyway... and finally, I've put a great deal of money into reducing my carbon foot-print so I'm quite confident that on the whole my tax burden will decrease under this plan.

I know that you're really just a schill for the conservatives... and I know that they really don't have any good matterial upon which to fight this plan because it's a well thought out and costed out policy document. In truth, it's a fantastic idea that has worked well in a number of jurisdictions already. So, I invite you to show me the flaw in the numbers, bring me some case studies that show why and how this has proven to be a bad move in other jurisdictions, or give me something other then one sided rhetoric based on a partial understading of the policy. Thus far you've done nothing but try to scare people by giving partial facts and conjecture.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut They point to skeptics and industry researchers as naysayers, knuckle-draggers, callous assholes who don't care about the future of the planet, when all we're asking for is a rational debate and cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, when it comes to the environmental impact of carbon and petro products, we don't know the cost, because we still don't fully understand the impact. Some studies say we might raise the temperature a few degrees in the next hundred years, other studies say we've already hit the Earth's cyclical peak and it's downhill for the next 1500 years. Some studies say a small climate change will bring about major catastrophes, other studies say that it'll bring about fuck-all.

You are a complete and utter moron if you believe there is even the slightest bit of scientific doubt when it comes to the whole climate change issue.

The whole notion that the scientific community has not come to an agreement about the FACT that climate change will destroy our planet is entirely fabricated by the same right-wing assholes you praise for their insistance that we must for some reason wait for china to change its environmental policies before changing ours.

Someone should collect all of you callous assoles (you said it not me), put you in a fucking rocket, and shoot you off into space. Find your own planet to destroy...

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis The whole notion that the scientific community has not come to an agreement about the FACT that climate change will destroy our planet is entirely fabricated by the same right-wing assholes you praise for their insistance that we must for some reason wait for china to change its environmental policies before changing ours.

There is no doubt that climate change will eventually make the earth uninhabitable for huimans....the question is....will humans be the direct cause for the climate change that ultimately leads to our extinction. The scientific community is not in agreement on this.

in truth I think the entire climate change debate is pointless. The real issue here is that we continue to use fosil fuels, non-renuable resorces, when there are renewable and cleaner energy sources available and/or the technology to reduce our use of fosil fuels is available. Why continue to use up a limited resource at ever increasing rates and pollute our environment when it simply isn't necessary? If this plan adds a disinsentive to continuing with the status quo then all the better.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced There is no doubt that climate change will eventually make the earth uninhabitable for huimans....the question is....will humans be the direct cause for the climate change that ultimately leads to our extinction. The scientific community is not in agreement on this.

CO2 emissions are caused by humans, there is a direct relationship between greenhouse gases and the rise in temperature observed on earth. How can you possibly postulate that humans are not responsible?

there has to be incentive for industry to stop polluting in all it's forms, worst of all greenhouse gases. Any 1st year econ student will tell you that taxes are an effective way of doing that. But I just really don't trust that the government will be putting that money back in our pockets when we pay for higher products and services. For some reason, I just don't think that receiving a 4 cent g'ment refund cheq is gonna cover the cost of the price of EVERYTHING GOING UP.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard in truth I think the entire climate change debate is pointless. The real issue here is that we continue to use fosil fuels, non-renuable resorces, when there are renewable and cleaner energy sources available and/or the technology to reduce our use of fosil fuels is available. Why continue to use up a limited resource at ever increasing rates and pollute our environment when it simply isn't necessary? If this plan adds a disinsentive to continuing with the status quo then all the better.

because it's cost prohibitive.
because it doesn't generate enough energy for our requirements.


Nukular all the way people, the energy of the future, a fraction of the waste! Just send all that shit up the space elevator and launch it in any direction, never to be seen again! [ok, launching it down might create problems]

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis CO2 emissions are caused by humans, there is a direct relationship between greenhouse gases and the rise in temperature observed on earth. How can you possibly postulate that humans are not responsible?

once again....will humans be the direct cause for the climate change that ultimately kills us?

The pretty graphs don't suggest that the CO2 increase will kill us....and looking at 100 years of temperature change is like looking at one grain of sand on a beach.

I am not suggesting humans are not having an affect on the climate...I am just stating that scientist are not unified on humans will cause enough climate change to kill us off.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy because it's cost prohibitive. because it doesn't generate enough energy for our requirements. Nukular all the way people, the energy of the future, a fraction of the waste! Just send all that shit up the space elevator and launch it in any direction, never to be seen again! [ok, launching it down might create problems]

It's only cost prohibitive based on a very narrow view... the cost for fosil fuels is only going to rise as demand increases and supply stays finite. It would be a far better long term strategy to employ alternates where they are available thus protecting the resources for uses for which there are not presently alternates rather then face truly prohibitive costs when the fosil fuels (particularly oil) reach scarcity. Besides, investing in new technologies creates wealth in the long run as new technologies = new industries = new jobs. I won't even bother to get into the potential social costs that continued abuse of fosil fuels may cause.

Alternate sorces of energy aren't enough to satisfy our need now; however, that can be corrected with adequate investment in research and development, implementation and conservation. Let's face it... we waste way too much energy, thus our demand is beyond what our real requirement is.

Nuk power would fall into the catagory of an alternative to fosil fuels... and I'm in full support of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It's only cost prohibitive based on a very narrow view... the cost for fosil fuels is only going to rise as demand increases and supply stays finite. It would be a far better long term strategy to employ alternates where they are available thus protecting the resources for uses for which there are not presently alternates rather then face truly prohibitive costs when the fosil fuels (particularly oil) reach scarcity. Besides, investing in new technologies creates wealth in the long run as new technologies = new industries = new jobs. I won't even bother to get into the potential social costs that continued abuse of fosil fuels may cause. Alternate sorces of energy aren't enough to satisfy our need now; however, that can be corrected with adequate investment in research and development, implementation and conservation. Let's face it... we waste way too much energy, thus our demand is beyond what our real requirement is. Nuk power would fall into the catagory of an alternative to fosil fuels... and I'm in full support of it.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but with big business, they usually are remarkably short sighted when it comes to long term sustainability. There is still profit to be had in fossil fuel, so it's the avenue to persue. In their eyes, they have all the infrastructure up and running, working fine from an economic perspective, so why take on an additional cost? This is where responsible government's role is to step in an force industry's hand at changing. To represent the people in the greater economy, but I think it's becoming very apparent that the government is failing us in doing so.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy are remarkably short sighted when it comes to long term sustainability.

And therein lies the problem. Governments are too.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy I don't disagree with your assessment, but with big business, they usually are remarkably short sighted when it comes to long term sustainability. There is still profit to be had in fossil fuel, so it's the avenue to persue. In their eyes, they have all the infrastructure up and running, working fine from an economic perspective, so why take on an additional cost? This is where responsible government's role is to step in an force industry's hand at changing. To represent the people in the greater economy, but I think it's becoming very apparent that the government is failing us in doing so.

Indeed; however, it's measures like this that help to force industry to make changes.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis And therein lies the problem. Voters are too.

Fixed... since governments only do what will allow them to remain in government. Truth is we have too many short sighted people that are too concerned with their immediate finacial situation/tax burden to allow anyone with vision to incur the up front costs associated with trying to bring that vision into reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Fixed... since governments only do what will allow them to remain in government. Truth is we have too many short sighted people that are too concerned with their immediate finacial situation/tax burden to allow anyone with vision to incur the up front costs associated with trying to bring that vision into reality.

the strength of a society is found in the size and strength of it's middle class. Measures like this are more often than not going to be shouldered by the everyday consumer, who is already strained harder than it should. The only ways to solve that is by taxing industry and either setting costs from the government level [making us commies and therefore bumbling economic fools], or tax cuts for the paying populace, which none of us have faith will happen at 'revenue neutral'.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis You are a complete and utter moron if you believe there is even the slightest bit of scientific doubt when it comes to the whole climate change issue.

Thank you for proving my point. It's impossible to have a rational debate with a person who takes this attitude.

quote:

To address your point and your charts - the first chart is about atmospheric CO2 levels, and yes, it's quite clear that they've gone up and almost certainly as a result of human action. Although I'd like to note for the record the scale of those graphs, which exaggerate the difference a great deal.

In any event, carbon dioxide levels are not what scientists debate about, and not what I'm debating about, so that chart is essentially a red herring. Moving on...

quote:

The second chart is just a more colourful version of the infamous "hockey stick" which has been so thoroughly debunked and admitted as misleading by even the most dedicated environmental scientists (except perhaps for David Suzuki). Some food for thought:

1. Once again, the scale exaggerates the magnitude, which is actually not statistically significant (the margin of error on modeled vs. real is almost as large as the actual temperature difference from year to year).

2. The chart begins at 1900 in spite of the fact that we actually have some temperature data dating back much farther. In particular, it ignores the well-documented Medieval Warm period which ended in the 15th century, followed by the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850. It's therefore no surprise that temperatures have gone up drastically because they had already gone down drastically. We're now in the warming part of the cycle. It's also worth pointing out that there was a transient period around the 1970s where temperatures were starting to drop heavily (remember scientists freaking out about a new ice age back then?), so again, it makes sense that in the past 30 years specifically, temperatures would have increased more than usual.

3. The chart ends at 1990. Which is very convenient, because the warming trend has not continued at all during the past 5-10 years.

4. The apparent correlation with CO2 emissions (which again, does not correlate so well during the past 5-10 years) is of course interesting and worth looking into - which we have been doing - but does not in and of itself prove causation. If it can be proven that the current warming is part of a natural cycle (and it has been - the current scientific debate focuses on the extent of the cycle and whether or not it fully accounts for the rise), then the correlation is effectively meaningless.

5. The average global temperature is in and of itself a questionable figure. Claiming that the average "global" temperature is rising faster than it should be is very much akin to claiming that the average length of people's first names is increasing too fast. Temperature and climate by their very nature aren't global, they are extremely localized, and if you're going to aggregate them into a single number then you have to be damn sure you're accounting for local phenomena (such as the heat island effect, which the hockey stick totally ignores), as well as the statistical uncertainty that results from aggregating data from many statistically-variant sources.

I could go on of course, but I don't think there's any point. I'll just end with this: you claim that one would have to be a moron to doubt that there's a scientific consensus, so I present you this petition, signed by 31,072 scientists, urging reconsideration of Kyoto citing a lack of scientific evidence.

But I'm sure they're all just right-wing industry shills. Anyone can get a Ph.D nowadays!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It would be a far better long term strategy to employ alternates where they are available thus protecting the resources for uses for which there are not presently alternates rather then face truly prohibitive costs when the fosil fuels (particularly oil) reach scarcity.

This is a much more reasonable argument, but as I stated before, on what evidence do you and others contend that we're just going to wake up one day and see fossil fuel prices skyrocket?

There's every reason to believe that prices will climb slowly and gradually and that alternatives will be put into place slowly and gradually. It's a natural equilibrium with economics and technological progress that we've seen demonstrated hundreds of times in the past. Hybrid cars have already become more popular and gone down in price. Electrical distribution and metering allow much finer control of demand and per-use billing. People are buying Compact Fluorescents left and right. Half of what you buy today is made out of recycled material.

People never seem to notice that society is improving itself with respect to the environment, and all without the government's help. The CPC hasn't done much because the CPC doesn't need to do much. There are enough incentives other than taxation to improve efficiency and reduce waste (as well as foreign oil dependency of course).

Hippies should concentrate on preventing the destruction of forest and biomasses that liberate much more Carbon gas than burning fuel gazes.

But oh no, its much easier to annoy the honest citizen who's already strangled with all the taxes, fees and what not he has to endure.

quote:

Originally posted by malek Hippies should concentrate on preventing the destruction of forest and biomasses that liberate much more Carbon gas than burning fuel gazes. But oh no, its much easier to annoy the honest citizen who's already strangled with all the taxes, fees and what not he has to endure.

fuck you people are ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis fuck you people are ignorant.

Do you even have any argument, other than to say that people who disagree with you are ignorant and/or stupid and/or wingnuts?

In almost every remotely controversial thread you post your little 15-words-or-less pearls of wisdom and start firing off insults at anybody who dares to say differently. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's common sense not to go around trumpeting it when you're unable to back it up with logic and reason (not to mention facts).

There are plenty on this forum whom I disagree with, but I can usually count on getting something that's at least interesting or thought-provoking from them. With you it's just empty rhetoric and personal insults, sprinkled liberally with enviro-socialist buzzphrases like "carbon footprint".

You're constantly berating others as stupid and ignorant, but I'm starting to think you base most of your opinions on Star editorials and Rick Mercer rants. If you want to persuade people that you're right, then by all means, show us what you've got, but if your only defense is complete and utter contempt for your peers then maybe you should just keep your mouth shut and your hands off the keyboard.

Or don't. Continue your mudslinging unabated and see how many people are still listening to you in a few weeks.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis fuck you people are ignorant.

omg, you really hurt my feelings, i'll go drive my V6 3.0 for an hour or so to get my senses together

Its funny how after i illustrated that im not happy with conservative action on the the environment and go on to list ways to help the environment (instead of taxing people) i get called a conservative schill by moral hazard.

Funny because my proposals are practically the same as what he suggested.

Interesting.....

I think ill go light up the propane BBQ to grill a burger while i think about that. Also while its still legal and/or propane is not taxed into the stratosphere

Haha, this debate again.

Please Digi, set them straight.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.