[afransen]

Virtually every economist will agree with the carbon tax idea regardless of nationality.

Yes. This isn't good enough for Hydrogen...

You may disagree with the concept (government using its power to encourage certain types of energy consumption over others), but it does solve the biggest problem with going green: the power of the pocketbook by creating incentive to purchase green energy and to spend less on oil and other carbon fuels.

Yes. Basically, two potential policy tacks:
-subsidies: spend billions encourage people to buy green products, even people who would buy them anyway (without incentives). Massive bureaucracies, and government picks winning technologies. We all know how good government is at picking winners.
-taxes: receive billions. Push more people into a situation where investing in lower energy consumption vehicles, furnaces, appliances, etc. is cost effective versus cost of fuel. Provide a leg-up for renewables and electrical grid load-balancing, rather than via massive price supplements (see Ontario's massively successful, and very expensive feed-in tariff system for solar/wind--met their 10 year target in <2 years, and are now slamming the brakes on the program). If proceeds are used to reduce taxes on investment and income, people/businesses can use increased after tax income/profits to either pay the fuel tax or other, more useful things. Increase the GST rebate for low-income earners to ameliorate regressivity in carbon tax.

a great compromise in place of a carbon tax is to at least implement some cap and trade system where industries get incentive to pollute less.

I've seen very convincing arguments that cap and trade is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. It is especially ridiculous to bequeath to corporations the right to emit carbon in perpetuity simply because they have done so in the past.


Dion has been given a very rough ride, and for no good reason. Harper performed much worse in his first few years as leader. The worst thing Dion has done is that he allowed himself to be tarred right off the bat with the "Not a leader" campaign. His current problems with bringing down the government largely stem from the revolt of some provincial branches of the party.

 

[Hydrogen]

Point taken, but I find it highly interesting that Hydrogen doesn't believe that relieving income taxes and implementing a carbon tax doesn't solve anything.

You are missing the point. First off, what will taxing carbon (fuel) actually do? Will it suddenly make all cars, transportation and travel go away? How much of a percentage drop in consumption will be brought about by such a tax? Probably not much, as there is no alternative to these fuels.

What actual problem will this tax supposedly solve? If you mean carbon dioxide emissions, most of carbon dioxide emissions are natural. Human additions are a tiny fraction of the total carbon dioxide that cycles through ecosystem. And how do you know that this carbon dioxide is so dangerous? Look around you. Anything that is green lives because of carbon dioxide. You are alive because of carbon dioxide. Water vapour is the most prominent infrared absorber in the atmosphere - by far. Maybe we should all stop boiling water, too.

As I have noted earlier, you are supporting a tax that is supposed to provide diminishing returns by supposedly forcing a reduction in consumption. Since the idea of this tax is supposedly to reduce fuel consumption, that means that the tax collected will inevitably be reduced as well. So to promise a reduction in other forms of taxation is counterproductive to maintaining balanced government revenues. That means you won't be seeing reductions in other forms of taxation.

However, if the Liberals are bullshitting you, they know that you are captive to the fuels that are available, and since consumption won't be dropping off any time soon due to the lack of a large-scale alternative, they get you to pay a tax that actually won't do anything appreciable about carbon emissions. You will have to raise taxes very significantly to reduce consumption, but by that point you will be pushing inflation up as well. That'll screw over the economy. Good plan.

You may disagree with the concept (government using its power to encourage certain types of energy consumption over others), but it does solve the biggest problem with going green: the power of the pocketbook by creating incentive to purchase green energy and to spend less on oil and other carbon fuels.

The point is that this tax solves no actual problems. It only makes things more expensive since this tax will be applied to energy usage. That energy use is necessary to things such as the production of goods, the transport of food, getting people to work, and so on. You are neglecting this point. Your life is made good by cheap energy.

And just to note, taxes don't fix problems. Actual measurable solutions fix problems. A tax for general revenues just raises taxes. That's it. As I have noted earlier, consumption taxes such as the GST and the PST were not introduced during bad economic times so as to slow the economy or shrink the tax base. There is no fundamental difference between those taxes and this.

As for government muscle, the gasoline price at the pump is already about 40% tax (varies between provinces). It doesn't seem to have solved the worries of carbon, has it?

If that doesn't solve anything, then someone needs to go back and retake Micro AND Macro econ 101. Creating that kind of incentive in a market economy does more than any government mandate will ever do alone. You can ask a company to do anything, but if there are no buyers in the market the business will always fail. Market incentives are what make everyone go out and buy what they buy.

Uh huh. Interstate highways were courtesy of the government mandate. Nuclear power was courtesy of governments. Turbo jets exist because of massive government funding. That's just to name a few. The markets picked up on these technologies and have used them. Your sudden reliance on the market for all solutions is nice, but free markets have never been big fans of high taxes.

Also, just to note, market incentives alone don't explain all consumer activity. Necessity plays a significant role. You seem to have neglected this obvious fact. Energy is a rather massive necessity.

Taxing doesn't solve problems. Taxing raises revenues. If the only policy strategy that the Liberals can come up with to deal with this issue is to raise taxes, then they are intellectually bankrupt. If you really believe that carbon emissions are an actual problem, then there ought to be a concerted and directed effort to dealing with it, don't you think? Since this is a technology issue, then is must be dealt with in terms of technology. Taxing for general revenue is kind of pointless, vague and gets the government off the hook in actually doing or directing anything with regards to supposed solutions.

 

[Brandon716]

The Liberal party does have a real plan that focuses on several areas.

*Carbon tax to encourage better behavior
*Cap and trade program to create a market for carbon
*Green Investment Account to pay businesses back for investing in green technology
*Government mandates to require carbon caps
*The numbers are competitive with the European Union and programs starting in California and BC

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/whitepaper_EN.pdf


If you actually read the plan, its an entire package and the first major push by any leader of a major Canadian political party. None of Dion's predecessors has went this far and put this much energy into a cohesive program.

You may disagree with the plan Hydrogen, but its a far reaching plan that goes well beyond a carbon tax.

 

[Hydrogen]

It still looks like a nice, big tax grab.

The cap and trade scheme is a market in hot air, and should there be a recession, it'll be particularly onerous. And there are many economists who see it as such. Also, an 80% reduction goal in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 will largely mean that agriculture and forestry can be pretty much the only emitters. That means it probably won't happen.

Up until now, we have been talking about a carbon tax. No such tax is in place presently, so the effects of it or any other carbon reduction scheme are unknown. From this vantage point, it's pretty hard to see how any of the carbon dioxide reduction goals are going to be achieved. And because emissions are increasing in other developing countries, theoretically the reduction effects here will do nothing.

Fears over carbon dioxide emissions have become a kind of religion because irresponsible people have repeatedly stated that the science is supposedly settled. The IPCC has published a report about every five years stating as much, but have managed to miss every natural fluctuation in global temperature. They failed to predict natural changes. There has been no globally averaged temperature increase since 2001 - in fact according to satellite data, global temperatures have dropped slightly.

If the Liberals win and put this scheme into effect, they will support this action on the basis of beliefs, not completed science.

 

[afransen]

They have a plan, but it's a mixed bag:

(Good/sound) *Carbon tax to encourage better behavior
(stupid and redundant with above) *Cap and trade program to create a market for carbon
(not very value efficient) *Green Investment Account to pay businesses back for investing in green technology
(potentially dangerous--will be bent if it gets too restrictive) *Government mandates to require carbon caps
(it should be phased in gradually) *The numbers are competitive with the European Union and programs starting in California and BC

"Also, an 80% reduction goal in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 will largely mean that agriculture and forestry can be pretty much the only emitters. That means it probably won't happen."

That's an interesting observation. Whether the goal will be achieved or not is rather irrelevant. What is relevant, is what will be achieved in a politically feasible manner.

"If the Liberals win and put this scheme into effect, they will support this action on the basis of beliefs, not completed science."

There hasn't been conclusive evidence to suggest that BPA is a harmful plasticizing agent. Will you continue to use BPA-based products without regard to risk mitigation until Health Canada lists it as a toxic substance in ~ 14+ months?

Risks are almost never well understood until it is too late to mitigate them. This is why a robust plan is better than one that leads to either big wins or big loses. The reduction in carbon emissions is a small reduction in growth over the medium term (eventually fossil fuels will be mostly replaced by other sources due to cost pressures anyway) or the potential risk, even slight, of serious economic damage caused by climate change. The more robust plan is to reduce carbon emissions--this won't lead to any disastrous outcomes under any scenario, political feasibility ensures that the adjustment will be gradual and not terribly painful.

That is, claiming that the science isn't in yet, and thus we should take no action is a fallacy.

 

[Hydrogen]

There hasn't been conclusive evidence to suggest that BPA is a harmful plasticizing agent. Will you continue to use BPA-based products without regard to risk mitigation until Health Canada lists it as a toxic substance in ~ 14+ months?

I would, but as these products won't be on the shelves, I won't have a choice.

Risks are almost never well understood until it is too late to mitigate them.

That's a rather excessive statement. You could pretty much package all of life into it. The precautionary principle does not operate on knowledge, it operates on assumptions and beliefs of what might possibly happen. It is argued from a position of a lack of knowledge.

The reduction in carbon emissions is a small reduction in growth over the medium term (eventually fossil fuels will be mostly replaced by other sources due to cost pressures anyway) or the potential risk, even slight, of serious economic damage caused by climate change.

If the reduction in carbon dioxide is meaningless, but there is a reduction in growth (or economic stability), and an increase in costs related to the price of energy, then there is a negative economic consequence that has no purpose, but considerable effect.


The reduction in the availability of oil presently has little to do with potential of oil availability. Over 85% of the North American coastline is off limits to oil exploration - by law. There is no clear estimate for oil availability from Africa, South America, the high Arctic or the Antarctic, or the ocean areas surrounding them. There have been conscious decisions to block oil exploration in many of these areas (and not without good reason). Most of the ocean is unexplored as well (and not just for oil, just unexplored - period). So oil exploration and production has, in many instances, been curtailed and not depleted. This has been done both by governments and through international agreements by governments. So yes, government has played a role in global energy policy and controlling energy potential in the marketplace. Taxation is also a direct incursion into the marketplace in order to generate revenue (40% at the pump in many Canadian jurisdictions). It would be hard to then suggest that governments then stay out the markets with respect to solutions to assumed problems. The debate should be about what constructive role governments should play in addressing actual, measurable problems.

It still has not been proven that a carbon tax would produce better behaviour. What it would do is produce more general revenue - which is exactly the reason why it would be put in place. It counts on consumption. Without any viable alternative to oil, that's a captive market.

 

[unimaginative2]

What actual problem will this tax supposedly solve? If you mean carbon dioxide emissions, most of carbon dioxide emissions are natural. Human additions are a tiny fraction of the total carbon dioxide that cycles through ecosystem. And how do you know that this carbon dioxide is so dangerous? Look around you. Anything that is green lives because of carbon dioxide. You are alive because of carbon dioxide. Water vapour is the most prominent infrared absorber in the atmosphere - by far. Maybe we should all stop boiling water, too.

Uh, virtually every scientist and every major scientific body in the world tells us that human carbon emissions are having a major impact on our environment, and you're giving us "Life is made of carbon!" C'mon, Hydrogen, I know you revel in being a gadfly, but this really hurts your (otherwise excellent) credibility.

 

[Hydrogen]

Uh, virtually every scientist and every major scientific body in the world tells us that human carbon emissions are having a major impact on our environment, and you're giving us "Life is made of carbon!"

Have you actually checked with virtually every scientist, or is this something you are being told repeatedly? No globally averaged temperature increase in ten years - even with increases in C02.

Water, oxygen and carbon dioxide: all essential to life. You don't have to ask me; ask some scientists.

 

[unimaginative2]

Alright Hydrogen, what are you being told? Name me two reputable scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Brandon716]

Oh for crying out loud, don't even give him the light of day. Its like trying to prove the Earth is flat, its not even a viable discussion.

Anyway, the best thing the government can also do is mandate a certain percent of plug-in hybrids be added to the national fleet over periods of time. This can be done primarily through tax incentives such as major credits and year-over-year deductions on top of standard deductions. Such programs can help make higher cost hybrid technology available to more people willing to take the plunge, and after five years these cans can then start to make significant inroads into used car purchases.

Increasing plug in hybrids and adding ethanol with traditional oil is the first step in helping become less carbon dependent. Ethanol has its own downfalls, but not when the factories that produce the ethanol are using non-coal energy and also not when the tractors use bio-diesel. Its net energy positive and carbon free when these other factors become a reality.

Imagine the first 50-80km of every daily drive being completely oil/ethanol free, with the reliance on hydroelectricity and nuclear energy it is possible to get to substantially lower carbon usage with today's technology.

 

[Hydrogen]

Alright Hydrogen, what are you being told? Name me two reputable scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Right after you prove that virtually every scientist and every major scientific body in the world states that human carbon emissions are having a major impact on our environment.

In the meantime look at the UAH MSU lower troposphere satellite data for the last ten years.

This thread is about a carbon tax.

 

[Hydrogen]

Oh for crying out loud, don't even give him the light of day.

Funny, coming from you.

 

[Brandon716]

Funny, coming from you.

On this one particular issue the scientific evidence is overwhelming, CO2 is rapidly becoming an element that has surpassed historical evidence from hundreds of thousands of years in the past, and the increase of CO2 is a guarantee for significant climate change and warmer average temperatures. The highest changes coming from the higher lattitudes.

Since you have requested the data, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Look at the charts on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and the temperature graphs from the last 2000 years using the ice bubbles in the ancient ice cores. Also check out the ice core samples that date back hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Hydrogen]

Wikipedia is not a particularly good source for information on global warming.

On this one particular issue the scientific evidence is overwhelming, CO2 is rapidly becoming an element that has surpassed historical evidence from hundreds of thousands of years in the past, and the increase of CO2 is a guarantee for significant climate change and warmer average temperatures. The highest changes coming from the higher lattitudes.

C02 is a molecule actually, and has shown considerable variability in atmospheric concentration depending on how measurements have been taken. There is no "direct" measure of atmospheric carbon dioxide into the past of hundreds of thousands of years of duration.

Since you raise a supposed "average" temperature for the earth, what is it? Global atmospheric temperature has been quite variable over time. There have been cooler periods than today during the Holocene, and much warmer periods as well. The Eemian interglacial had much warmer periods than anything noted in the Holocene.

Recent changes in the Arctic ice cover are due to shifts in the Arctic Ocean Oscillation. The data was collected using satellite measures and undersea pressure gauges. This information was released last year by NASA. Warming in southern Greenland is directly linked to shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and it mimics the warming of the same region observed between 1920 and 1940. As for the Antarctic, record ice extents were measured last year and the averaged atmospheric temperature in the southern hemisphere actually fell (was cooler). In short, it is worth remembering that oceans cover more than a third of the planet. Humans have no influence on their temperature variations, but ocean oscillations can and do affect the atmosphere.

In terms of absorbing infrared radiation in the atmosphere, water vapour is the most effective, and it is the primary infrared absorber in the atmosphere by far. Water vapor also absorbs at most of the same wavelengths as carbon dioxide - and does so much more effectively. This means that if the water vapour is already effectively absorbing the energy at those wavelengths, then changing the amount of C02 will have very little effect.

The so called "evidence" for overwhelming climate change is derived from computer models. These models have so far failed to predict any natural climate events such as ENSO's or LaNina's. They have also failed to predict the cooling of ocean water in the southern hemisphere.

It is also clear that we do not live in the warmest period of the Holocene - regardless of carbon dioxide. The paleoclimatic record shows this quite clearly.


Anyway, I wonder why I bother with this. You've made up your mind. But think about this, can you know for sure that this slight warming is not natural (and it is less than one degree C. over a century). Can you know for sure that it is not an artifact of an extremely piecemeal record of surface temperature measurements? Start with that.

This post is supposed to be about carbon tax, isn't it?

 

[Brandon716]

When I say element, I didn't mean a singular atomic element. I was using a generic term to describe an element of the air. You obviously have decided not to look at the evidence provided, and that's your free choice to do so. Instead you've chosen to try and pick apart singular words in order to give the appearance that you're some kind of environmental scholar.

If you want to look at the data and reject the fact that we have higher acceleration of average temperatures than normal based on huge data and evidence that CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere, that is your choice.

But the evidence and data are there and scientists have recently proven the information based on ice core samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. This is information we didn't have as much data from many years ago, but today its pretty conclusive.

You can talk about the different eras all you want, but the fact remains that the data conclude CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we have astronomically higher accelerations of this stuff that is off the chart from previous normal increases, and we have the recent temperature increases to prove the earlier evidence on CO2. This isn't naturally occuring, this is the release of carbon from man made processes.

If you want to say "I've made my mind up" its the scientific evidence, not that I've just made my mind up. If the evidence says something else, I would gravitate toward that.

Yes, this is about a carbon tax, and the fact that you are against it. Just like you are against the idea of global warming. Sounds like YOU'VE made your mind up: that government has no proper role in this environmental crisis, and that the crisis isn't even real.