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

Liberal Stephane Dions Carbon Tax

Your thoughts?

I think you can predict how i feel about this haha

I think he should be shot, as any other politician that wants to put any form of new taxation.

Hahhahhaahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhaah

"Revenue neutral"

So question is do you think canadians will fall for this BS.. um sorry i mean ontarians?

This new tax will undoubtably raise the price of virtually everything we buy.

1) everyone heats their home either directly or through rent cost.

2) everyone uses electricy (this will be levied on electricity producers) so those rates will go up as well

3) Everyone uses gasoline to travel whether its a car or transit. Either way expect to pay more. And yes i know dion says he wont put the tax on gasoline but what hes not telling you is that he will tax the production of oil and gasoline. A sneaky way to bury the tax into the cost of your gas!

4) Virtually any product you buy takes energy to create. Therefor anything you buy will increase in price from plastic toys to organically grown carrots.

5) these so called tax breaks will go to low income canadians while it will be mostly middle class canadians that pay it. Sounds like a mini version of the kyoto wealth re-distribution protocal to me!

If pratical thinking and common sensed ruled this country, dion would have as much chance as the NDP of forming the next government! Im really hoping canadians arent this dumb!!

quote:

Originally posted by VERTiG0 Hahhahhaahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhaah "Revenue neutral"

Revenue neutral for those who heat and light their homes by candlelight and grow their own food in the backyard perhaps. Oh wait, you still need to buy fertilizer for that food. And that takes energy to make... hmmm maybe not then..

Sorry dion! I tried!

Socialists...

I really don't know enough about it yet to comment in depth.

clearly some people don't understand what "revenue neutral" means. revenue neutral = the gov't doesn't "profit" from the initiative.

Dion has been up front that it's going to cost Canadians' money. He's simply said that it's revenue neutral in that all tax revenue will be 'given back' in the form of tax cuts as opposed to going into gov't coffers.

IIRC, the cuts would be geared more heavily toward lower income earners, while those whose tax payable is already low or nil (i.e. the lowest income earners) will receive additional tax credits.

say what you will about it...it's a LOT better than anything the lame-duck CPC has done (re: nothing but scrap Kyoto). Environment minister John Baird is probably the only guy I'd rather throat-punch than Harper himself...what a douchebag.

Environmental groups hail the move (hell, the Green Party is calling for a HIGHER carbon tax) and industry heads have expressed support, depending upon the details/application of the tax.

I need to read the plan in detail yet; however, based on what I have read to date I'm leaning toward supporting it. I just spent a boat-load of money making my home more efficient, I don't pay for fuel, all the maintenance on my vehicle is tax deductible so extra tax on oil based lubricants is just more to deduct... so I'll essentially be looking at paying a bit more for consumer goods but in exchange I get a decent income tax cut... works for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I need to read the plan in detail yet; however, based on what I have read to date I'm leaning toward supporting it. I just spent a boat-load of money making my home more efficient, I don't pay for fuel, all the maintenance on my vehicle is tax deductible so extra tax on oil based lubricants is just more to deduct... so I'll essentially be looking at paying a bit more for consumer goods but in exchange I get a decent income tax cut... works for me.

Works for you is all well. How about : does this work for the majority of people in the province?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So question is do you think canadians will fall for this BS.. um sorry i mean ontarians? This new tax will undoubtably raise the price of virtually everything we buy. 1) everyone heats their home either directly or through rent cost. 2) everyone uses electricy (this will be levied on electricity producers) so those rates will go up as well 3) Everyone uses gasoline to travel whether its a car or transit. Either way expect to pay more. And yes i know dion says he wont put the tax on gasoline but what hes not telling you is that he will tax the production of oil and gasoline. A sneaky way to bury the tax into the cost of your gas! 4) Virtually any product you buy takes energy to create. Therefor anything you buy will increase in price from plastic toys to organically grown carrots. 5) these so called tax breaks will go to low income canadians while it will be mostly middle class canadians that pay it. Sounds like a mini version of the kyoto wealth re-distribution protocal to me! If pratical thinking and common sensed ruled this country, dion would have as much chance as the NDP of forming the next government! Im really hoping canadians arent this dumb!!

Why dont you try reducing your carbon footprint?

Like, fuck man... its right-wing cynics like you that are the reason people still claim there is a debate over global warming.

Somehow I feel like he's doing this NOT to get elected!


lol!

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Socialists...

Hello welcome to Canada, enjoy your stay

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I really don't know enough about it yet to comment in depth. clearly some people don't understand what "revenue neutral" means. revenue neutral = the gov't doesn't "profit" from the initiative. Dion has been up front that it's going to cost Canadians' money. He's simply said that it's revenue neutral in that all tax revenue will be 'given back' in the form of tax cuts as opposed to going into gov't coffers. IIRC, the cuts would be geared more heavily toward lower income earners, while those whose tax payable is already low or nil (i.e. the lowest income earners) will receive additional tax credits. say what you will about it...it's a LOT better than anything the lame-duck CPC has done (re: nothing but scrap Kyoto). Environment minister John Baird is probably the only guy I'd rather throat-punch than Harper himself...what a douchebag. Environmental groups hail the move (hell, the Green Party is calling for a HIGHER carbon tax) and industry heads have expressed support, depending upon the details/application of the tax.

ill support initiatives that help the environment while also hurting our economy as long as nations like china and india who are the faster growing polluters and fastest growing economies (interesting how that works!) are also part of it.

I will not support environment plans of any nature that are nothing more than disguised attempts to transfer money from one hand to another.

I have read alot of the green shift and i dont like what i see. Taxing carbon will not curb its use. Finding ALTERNTIVES will. What i dont get is why we dont encourage new homes to be built with mini windmills and solar panels to at least assist in the production of electricity. Also Look at how many rooftops there are in the city that could be used for energy production and fed right into the grid.

Ah but that would cost money, it wouldnt profit the government and it would take years to implement. Nothing like a quick fix tax that wags the dog a little right? More liberal smoke screens, thats all i see coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis Why dont you try reducing your carbon footprint? Like, fuck man... its right-wing cynics like you that are the reason people still claim there is a debate over global warming.

Read above

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I need to read the plan in detail yet; however, based on what I have read to date I'm leaning toward supporting it. I just spent a boat-load of money making my home more efficient, I don't pay for fuel, all the maintenance on my vehicle is tax deductible so extra tax on oil based lubricants is just more to deduct... so I'll essentially be looking at paying a bit more for consumer goods but in exchange I get a decent income tax cut... works for me.

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.

Also where we can see it I can the headlines now. Headline reads "TRANSIT FARE AND ELECTRICITY RATES TO INCREASE DUE TO CARBON TAX"

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ill support initiatives that help the environment while also hurting our economy as long as nations like china and india who are the faster growing polluters and fastest growing economies (interesting how that works!) are also part of it.

that's fine, but China can continue to give the rset of the world a big "fuck you" and there's little that can be done about it. So we can proceed with or without them, while exerting whatever pressures we can to get them on board.

They have the entire world looking at their pathetic failure to deal with their abysmal air quality, thanks to the Olympic Games, yet 250,000 NET NEW CARS are on their road EVERY MONTH. China is a disaster.

the whole "if everyone isn't in, I'm not in either" is a Bush-like attitude that Harper seems to have subscribed to...and it just means nothing will ever get done.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I will not support environment plans of any nature that are nothing more than disguised attempts to transfer money from one hand to another. I have read alot of the green shift and i dont like what i see. Taxing carbon will not curb its use. Finding ALTERNTIVES will. What i dont get is why we dont encourage new homes to be built with mini windmills and solar panels to at least assist in the production of electricity. Also Look at how many rooftops there are in the city that could be used for energy production and fed right into the grid. Ah but that would cost money, it wouldnt profit the government and it would take years to implement. Nothing like a quick fix tax that wags the dog a little right? More liberal smoke screens, thats all i see coming.

smoke screens? years to implement? are you sure you're not talking about the current CPC gov't track record on the environment? LOL

of course alternatives need to be implemented...but who's going to foot the bill? Who's going to pay for the "green roofs"? Solar panels are still very expensive and the 'pay back' horizon from feeding the surplus power into the grid is about 7-10 years (I have a client who is a part of a community initiative to install panels on their roofs and feed into the grid and that is their *conservative* figure, assuming no major maintenance costs during that time period).

wind power remains unreliable (there has to be wind!) and prohibitively expensive. It will take a major capital expenditure to build a viable, profitable "wind farm" and the assessments alone will take years. The private sector is already on top of that (a big German co. is looking at a site off Lake Ontario as it's first N.Amer. location, IIRC?).

These are also eletricity generation options that are still not viable on a large scale or ready for imminent implementation...and have nothing to do with industry emissions. All of these initiatives also require MASSIVE capital expenditure and there's no tax revenue to offset it...so taxes will simply go up to pay for it and EVENTUALLY we'll have lower electricity prices?

So what gov't is going to be elected on a platform of "higher taxes now...payoff TBD, date TBD...maybe"???

There's little incentive right now for industry to curb emissions. With the tax, it can't simply pass along *100%* of the cost to consumers because that will result in pricing that is not sustainable. Simple economics...prices rise, demand falls. We're already seeing that with oil and gas prices that are NOT in line with reserves and supply, but inflated due to speculation.

Everyone here needs to realize that the carbon tax is is NOT a smokescreen. The Liberals, and anyone else proposing a carbon tax initiative, ARE QUITE AWARE AND UP FRONT that it means higher costs to consumers. There is no illusion that this tax will be shouldered by industry alone. Dion is at least pledging that ALL tax revenue will flow back in the form of tax cuts.

What needs to be understood is that EVERYONE is going to have to 'pay' in some way to enact chance. Industry has balked at shouldering the full load and consumers certainly won't shoulder it while oil companies rake in record profits.

Again...what's the VIABLE alternative?

MarkT, I thoroughly enjoy the complete raping you give to jayx1 in almost all of his threads.

*thumbs up* dude.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT that's fine, but China can continue to give the rset of the world a big "fuck you" and there's little that can be done about it. So we can proceed with or without them, while exerting whatever pressures we can to get them on board. They have the entire world looking at their pathetic failure to deal with their abysmal air quality, thanks to the Olympic Games, yet 250,000 NET NEW CARS are on their road EVERY MONTH. China is a disaster. the whole "if everyone isn't in, I'm not in either" is a Bush-like attitude that Harper seems to have subscribed to...and it just means nothing will ever get done. smoke screens? years to implement? are you sure you're not talking about the current CPC gov't track record on the environment? LOL of course alternatives need to be implemented...but who's going to foot the bill? Who's going to pay for the "green roofs"? Solar panels are still very expensive and the 'pay back' horizon from feeding the surplus power into the grid is about 7-10 years (I have a client who is a part of a community initiative to install panels on their roofs and feed into the grid and that is their *conservative* figure, assuming no major maintenance costs during that time period). wind power remains unreliable (there has to be wind!) and prohibitively expensive. It will take a major capital expenditure to build a viable, profitable "wind farm" and the assessments alone will take years. The private sector is already on top of that (a big German co. is looking at a site off Lake Ontario as it's first N.Amer. location, IIRC?). These are also eletricity generation options that are still not viable on a large scale or ready for imminent implementation...and have nothing to do with industry emissions. All of these initiatives also require MASSIVE capital expenditure and there's no tax revenue to offset it...so taxes will simply go up to pay for it and EVENTUALLY we'll have lower electricity prices? So what gov't is going to be elected on a platform of "higher taxes now...payoff TBD, date TBD...maybe"??? There's little incentive right now for industry to curb emissions. With the tax, it can't simply pass along *100%* of the cost to consumers because that will result in pricing that is not sustainable. Simple economics...prices rise, demand falls. We're already seeing that with oil and gas prices that are NOT in line with reserves and supply, but inflated due to speculation. Everyone here needs to realize that the carbon tax is is NOT a smokescreen. The Liberals, and anyone else proposing a carbon tax initiative, ARE QUITE AWARE AND UP FRONT that it means higher costs to consumers. There is no illusion that this tax will be shouldered by industry alone. Dion is at least pledging that ALL tax revenue will flow back in the form of tax cuts. What needs to be understood is that EVERYONE is going to have to 'pay' in some way to enact chance. Industry has balked at shouldering the full load and consumers certainly won't shoulder it while oil companies rake in record profits. Again...what's the VIABLE alternative?

Cost is relative. Im sure that if there is more demand and competition, solar panels and mini backyard windmill prices would drop substantially. I remember when a Tandy 100 radio shack computer was $1000 in 1985. Of course there will be some cost but i thought this was about the environment, not money? I thought this was about green planning not revenue?

So what you basically just said is that we cant find decent alternatives because they are costly. So instead we should implement costly taxes to reduce use of what we do have even though in your own words there is no alternative. Kind of puts a new spin on "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark"!

This is just like the whole car vs public transit debate. Punish car owners to get them into transit that doesnt exist in the first place. The result is same number of drivers who pay higher taxes. No different here except on a much bigger scale.

As far as China goes, China may be a disaster, but they are a disaster that is about to become the first world while we whittle our way into the third. If we cant come to an agreement globally then we are all in trouble. What Canada emits on a normal day doesnt come close to most countries just based on our population alone! I think the figure was one half of one percent of total global output. So we are now expected to suffer in the cold in a northern climate with no money so that countries like china can get away with it? Im picking on china but insert almost any country with a huge population that is a developing nation.

Im not buying it. Show me a plan that will make us ultra efficient, not a smoke and mirrors mini kyoto tax scheme.

PS i dont think the conservatives are doing much either on this file but at least they arent planning a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme both of which are income redistribution schemes which of course are a socialist's wet dream.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur MarkT, I thoroughly enjoy the complete raping you give to jayx1 in almost all of his threads. *thumbs up* dude.

Anything useful to add?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Cost is relative. Im sure that if there is more demand and competition, solar panels and mini backyard windmill prices would drop substantially. Of course there will be cost but i thought this was about the environment, not money?

you're the one making it about money by complaining that it's a tax on Canadians! If it's about the environment, shouldn't we all be willing to pony up our share to help out? (devil's advocate)

you can't ignore political ramifications. if the CPC does nothing...it costs nothing. how does another party win an election if they are going to tax Canadians with not payback (tax cuts from carbon tax revenue) Dion is at least pledging revenue nearality with the carbon tax. With the expenditure requried for large-scale alternative power, there is cost with no return for quite some time. The carbon tax is more than the CPC is doing with their laugable long-term targets that far off enough that they don't need to really do much now (no immediate political or real costs).

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So what you basically just said is that we cant find decent alternatives because they are costly. So instead we should implement costly taxes to reduce use of what we do have even though in your own words there is no alternative. Kind of puts a new spin on "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark"!

no. what I'm saying is that wind and solar technology is in the early stages of being viable on a large-scale level and requires MASSIVE investment and time...much of which is going to HAVE to come from the private sector. It also doesn't solve emissions problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 As far as China goes, China may be a disaster, but they are a disaster that is about to become the first world while we whittle our way into the third. If we cant come to an agreement globally then we are all in trouble. What Canada emits on a normal day doesnt come close to most countries just based on our population alone! I think the figure was one half of one percent of total global output. So we are now expected to suffer in the cold in a northern climate with no money so that countries like china can get away with it? Im picking on china but insert almost any country with a huge population that is a developing nation. Im not buying it. Show me ultra efficiency, not a smoke and mirrors mini kyoto tax scheme.

yes, China is going to suprass the U.S. in consumption in the not-too-distant future, IIRC. That simply underscores my point that there is little the rest of the world can do to FORCE China to participate in any environmental plan. China and India are becoming MASSIVE markets and as they grow, their power grows. China can't be 'told' to do anything. It has an abysmal record with regard to human rights, the environment, etc. and has for quite some time.

so what does the world do, withhold natural resource exports so they can't grow? We're incapable of derailing Iran's nuclear agenda, but we're going to somehow force the hand of a powerhouse like China?

so, I'm curious Jay...what do we do to persude or force China, India, etc. to change their current ways? How do you tell developing nations "fuck your growing middle class, where people all want cars, appliances, computers...you came to the table late and now we allhave to worry about the environment!"

Those countries perceive it as their right to have what we have...and they'll be damned to halt growth or suddenly worry about the environment when we haven't done so for years and enjoy a wildly higher standard of living.

so do we do nothing on our own in the meantime? That screams "stalemate" to me.

your idealism is great...just completely out of touch with reality, especially when you factor in political barriers.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis Why dont you try reducing your carbon footprint?

LOL that you actually just said that.

Daily Kos is thattaway, man.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT of course alternatives need to be implemented...but who's going to foot the bill? Who's going to pay for the "green roofs"? Solar panels are still very expensive and the 'pay back' horizon from feeding the surplus power into the grid is about 7-10 years (I have a client who is a part of a community initiative to install panels on their roofs and feed into the grid and that is their *conservative* figure, assuming no major maintenance costs during that time period). ... What needs to be understood is that EVERYONE is going to have to 'pay' in some way to enact chance. Industry has balked at shouldering the full load and consumers certainly won't shoulder it while oil companies rake in record profits. Again...what's the VIABLE alternative?

The viable alternative is to let the market take care of it when the market is ready to take care of it.

Energy costs are rising as is. Industry doesn't want to invest now, because in spite of going up, the cost is still cheap.

As hydro and petro costs go up, alternatives will become more attractive investments, and the industry (and some consumers) will foot the bill, willingly and happily.

The cycle has already occurred with methane, ethylene, and coal. Why is it so hard to believe that the exact same thing will happen with current "carbon"-based production?

We do not need the government to raise costs artificially, and "revenue neutral" is a term that could technically apply to almost any government tax-and-spend program. I know that patience in voters and especially environmentalists is scarce, but seriously, it will work itself out like it always does.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT you're the one making it about money by complaining that it's a tax on Canadians! If it's about the environment, shouldn't we all be willing to pony up our share to help out? (devil's advocate)

What will this tax actually achieve? Do you really think that it will reduce carbon dioxide? You can tax all you want, without alternatives they will just lead to people paying more for less resulting in a lower standard of living.

quote:

you can't ignore political ramifications. if the CPC does nothing...it costs nothing.

This isnt a conservative vs liberal debate. I agree that the CPC isnt doing much. But that doesnt mean we should all run to the first half baked schme just because it appears that someone else is "doing something". That is exactly what this is designed to do. Its called wagging the dog.

[qoute]how does another party win an election if they are going to tax Canadians with not payback (tax cuts from carbon tax revenue) Dion is at least pledging revenue nearality with the carbon tax.[/quote] Neutral eh? First since when is any new tax scheme neutral? Do you really believe that this wont raise a single cent in revenue? The GST was supposed to be revenue neutral too remember? We all know what happened there. No matter what party, i dont trust a government who says something is revenue neutral.

quote:

With the expenditure requried for large-scale alternative power, there is cost with no return for quite some time.

What does that have to do with a "carbon neutral" tax? Seems to me you dont believe it actually is based on this statement.

quote:

The carbon tax is more than the CPC is doing with their laugable long-term targets that far off enough that they don't need to really do much now (no immediate political or real costs).

Again, you shouldnt support this because its "doing something" vs someone who isnt. This "doing something" is a very wrong approach and will result in a damaged economy with very little if any environmental payoff.

quote:

no. what I'm saying is that wind and solar technology is in the early stages of being viable on a large-scale level and requires MASSIVE investment and time...much of which is going to HAVE to come from the private sector. It also doesn't solve emissions problems.

Great, so lets start investing now! Lets start schemes to encourage this sort of growth! Private public partnerships are a very good idea for everything from resuable power to transit. That would be really forward thinking. Sadly though, the liberal socialists hate this sort of partnership. Theyd rather just tax and spend as usual.

quote:

yes, China is going to suprass the U.S. in consumption in the not-too-distant future, IIRC. That simply underscores my point that there is little the rest of the world can do to FORCE China to participate in any environmental plan. China and India are becoming MASSIVE markets and as they grow, their power grows. China can't be 'told' to do anything. It has an abysmal record with regard to human rights, the environment, etc. and has for quite some time.

so lets roll over and play dead and while we are at it, lets hand whats left of our economic clout to them with silly schemes like this. I know how to beat china at its own game. Become more efficient with energy and produce goods at a lower price then they can with their inifficient energy.

quote:

so, I'm curious Jay...what do we do to persude or force China, India, etc. to change their current ways? How do you tell developing nations "fuck your growing middle class, where people all want cars, appliances, computers...you came to the table late and now we allhave to worry about the environment!"

You make efficient energy products and sell it to them for one.

quote:

Those countries perceive it as their right to have what we have...and they'll be damned to halt growth or suddenly worry about the environment when we haven't done so for years and enjoy a wildly higher standard of living.

so instead of taxing and taking away what we have, lets make what we have better.

quote:

your idealism is great...just completely out of touch with reality, especially when you factor in political barriers.

i honestly feel the same way about you. We both have the same goals but vastly different ideas on how to achieve them.

Governments never change their tune. It used to be taxes and fines to "save the children". Then it was "for your health and safety" and the latest is to "save the environment". The cause is different but the effect is always the same. tax tax tax and spend spend spend.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The viable alternative is to let the market take care of it when the market is ready to take care of it. Energy costs are rising as is. Industry doesn't want to invest now, because in spite of going up, the cost is still cheap. As hydro and petro costs go up, alternatives will become more attractive investments, and the industry (and some consumers) will foot the bill, willingly and happily. The cycle has already occurred with methane, ethylene, and coal. Why is it so hard to believe that the exact same thing will happen with current "carbon"-based production? We do not need the government to raise costs artificially, and "revenue neutral" is a term that could technically apply to almost any government tax-and-spend program. I know that patience in voters and especially environmentalists is scarce, but seriously, it will work itself out like it always does.

true, but a laissez-faire market doesn't help the environment. the environment doesn't factor into any cost-benefit analysis...unless there is a price put on environmental impact.

Canada's oilsands were seen as far too costly to be a viable option...until oil prices rose about a certain level. now it's a cash cow. Yet this is a "dirtier" process than more conventional oil extraction, in terms of greenhouse gases, so not exactly a move in the "green" direction, is it?

now Bush is begging congress to approve offshore drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or drilling in remote areas like the Arctic. again...no consideration to environmental impact.

I think what people are avoiding or unwilling to accept is that it's not going to be "cheaper" or "easier" to be environmentally responsible

It flat out COSTS MORE to be "green" and there is little (if any) incentive in a free market to be so.

I'm not saying the carbon tax is a solution. I really don't know enough about it. I just don't sympathize with the cries of it "costing money" because ANY initiatives are going to cost money.

let's evaluate the initiative WITHOUT dismissing it as a cost...and evaluate it as a step. I'd love to see wind farms and solar panel fields all over the place. bring it on. that will take time and it's starting to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT true, but a laissez-faire market doesn't help the environment.

That's actually not true if you look at the historical evidence. Environmental conditions have been getting consistently better over the past several centuries and the last hundred years especially. We produce less waste per capita and each generation gets better at preserving our natural resources (just look at the forestry industry - in spite of all that crazy clear-cutting we have as many forests in North America today as we did 40 years ago).

True, we consume a lot more energy than our forefathers did but... so what? Most of it ends up as harmless carbon dioxide anyway. (Oh, sorry, I meant to say cataclysmic, not harmless, my mistake. )

quote:

the environment doesn't factor into any cost-benefit analysis...unless there is a price put on environmental impact.

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? No rational price tag has been put on environmental impact. According to environmentalists today, the price tag is infinity, and we have to do everything in our power to pay off the debt, no matter how silly it sounds.

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.

So at this point it's simply irrational to put a price tag on environmental impact. Most non-alarmists today believe that market forces will reduce dependency on carbon before it can have any negative repercussions on the environment - assuming there would be any repercussions at all.

And I know that a lot of people will stomp in here and say that that's all wrong, that the debate is over and we already know that carbon emissions will wreck this planet within 50 years if we don't do something RIGHT NOW, but it's just not true, and that's exactly the mentality that politicians depend on to push their class-warfare agendas like Kyoto.

I ask for more research and rational debate. That is all. And like so many other gray areas in life, the impulse that we must do something right now without even knowing how bad the problem is can only hurt us.

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