|
Liberal Stephane Dions Carbon Tax (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| 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. :p )
| 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 s 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 -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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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 .
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? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
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. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
LOL that you actually just said that.
Daily Kos is thattaway, man. |
Cause that was a bad idea? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
They point to skeptics and industry researchers as naysayers, knuckle-draggers, callous s 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 -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 s 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 ing rocket, and shoot you off into space. Find your own planet to destroy... |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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 s 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| 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?
 |
|
|
| Sly_Guy |
| 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. |
|
|
| Sly_Guy |
| 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 up the space elevator and launch it in any direction, never to be seen again! [ok, launching it down might create problems] |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
