[Brandon716]

Anyway, I wonder why I bother with this.

Many of us are asking this about you as well.

You first stated the Liberal party has no policy, I provided a link that the party does indeed have policy that is far reaching beyond a carbon tax alone. Also, I made a comment somewhere in this discussion that I also believe if a carbon tax cannot be agreed upon by all parties within whatever governing party is in office, and if it is too controversial for voters to accept, that I do think it would be better for Dion to negotiate and get the other 90% of his plans enacted, especially the carbon cap and trade program that is essential with other mandates for lowering pollution. Carbon taxes are not the end-all-be-all, and I believe in mainstream negotiation to get something done if a carbon tax isn't agreeable.

You totally started to ignore the issue and started attacking global warming itself, so that's how we got into the CO2 argument.

Again, I provided a generic Wikipedia link about global warming that has all the information anyone needs to know about why global warming is a human based phenomenon and why CO2 is bad for the environment when released by man-made techniques on this level. The scientific data are there for you to assess, and its there for everyone to read.

You go into a very vague discussion on some studies say this or some "scientists" say that about global warming being bunk in that its a natural phenomenon.

And you try to legitimize your argument by trivializing the wording of some posts, such as my saying the CO2 element in the sky taking it literally to mean an element on the periodic table.


The reality is that you've provided little data, no argument, and your arrogance just turns people off.

So why are you in this discussion still? Who knows, but people can read on their own accord and decide for themselves who has been more open, frank, and scientifically driven in this discussion. You've not provided anything that a personal opinion.

 

[Hydrogen]

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.

I've looked at far more than the "evidence" you have provided (a web page), and I don't count on wikipedia as a definitive source of information. As to picking apart your words, you weren't being clear.

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.

I'm going to ask you again: what are the "average" or "normal" temperatures? What are they supposed to be? How do you know that the rise in temperature is not natural?

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.

What is conclusive? Hundreds of thousands of years spans a significant number of glacial and interglacial periods. If you actually look at the data you would notice that throughout much of that time temperatures were considerably colder for very long periods of time. There were also much shorter warm periods called interglacials. We are lucky to presently live in one of those. It won't last. During an interglacial period of over 400,000 years ago, there were entire forests covering southern greenland. Their DNA is found in todays ice. We can assume Greenland was much warmer then than today.

If you look at the data again, you will notice that C02 does not stay constant throughout that time. As the warming for each interglacial took place, a rise in carbon dioxide would follow. Note: the rise in carbon dioxide would follow a rise in temperature. Carbon dioxide does not drive major temperature increases. This carbon dioxide measure is not taken from ice core measures, but from deposits of carbon isotopes. If you still want to look further back in time, you would note that the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been dropping for thirty million years. We presently live during a period of extremely low levels of atmospheric C02. Carbon dioxide levels have been considerably higher in the past than today, and the world did not come to an end.

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.

C02 is an infrared absorbing gas, and it absorbs this radiation only at very specific and limited wavelengths. The earth's atmosphere is not a greenhouse. Heat is always being lost into space (greenhouses are designed to isolate the plants they house and trap in heat from the otherwise convective and cooling effects of the atmosphere).

As to discussing the different eras, you raised the issue. What I am showing you is that there is a very long history of natural fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide, fluctuations far more significant than the one observed in the last few decades.

Direct chemical measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and measures taken from changes in preserved stromatal density of fossil pine needles, show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has fluctuated considerably over the last 1,500 years - to levels higher than even today.

Ice core measures are not direct measures of actual atmospheric carbon dioxide content. Present measures of carbon dioxide content in such cores are based on a set of arbitrary assumptions that ice cores are closed systems. They are not. There is considerable contamination. For example, in cold water C02 is very soluble, and of course very cold liquid water is commonly present in polar snow and ice. In addition, the drastic pressure produced inside ice sheets produces a diffusion effect that minimizes variations in carbon dioxide levels, and reduces the maximums. That is why ice core measures show a flattened carbon dioxide trend when other measures show much more variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

The "stuff" (carbon dioxide) is not "off the charts." Presently, it is at about 380ppmv. The compressed ice cores show concentrations of 260 ppmv. Fossil leaf stromata have shown spikes as high as 400 ppmv. So the data is certainly not conclusive, complete or closed with respect to the present quantities of atmospheric carbon dioxide being terribly unusual or dangerously high. The science is not complete.

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.

The question is: will you go looking for that evidence that would change your mind? It's out there. Will you be open enough to looking at a view that does not jibe with your present beliefs?

It's funny that so few people pay attention to the naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (and other ocean oscillations which are driven by the sun and resulting complex ocean water convection). The shifts in these ocean oscillations match very nicely with noted historic variations in atmospheric temperature. The data is available from NOAA. Free for everyone to look up, just like the satellite data I noted above. This is the same ocean oscillation, by the way, that is suspected to have caused the Little Ice Age - which really only ended about 150 or so years ago (by getting warmer of course).

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.

Yup, I'm against the carbon tax. I guess you are for it. So how much would like to tax? And what if it does nothing to ameliorate your fears about carbon dioxide? Because, really, it won't do much of anything.

And you missed the point again, the government is actually not doing anything about the problem you so fear. They are not addressing the issue directly. They are raising revenue. People will still drive their cars that require gasoline, but maybe they'll cut back just a little. Meanwhile, other nations will increase their oil consumption. Ultimately, no net gains will be generated this way.

 

[Hydrogen]

You totally started to ignore the issue and started attacking global warming itself, so that's how we got into the CO2 argument.

Brandon, do I have to remind you that the carbon tax is directly related to fears about global warming? As I noted above, if you are actually worried about this issue, you will note that a carbon tax will not actually do much of anything - except increase the price of energy. That affects everything that requires energy.

Many of us are asking this about you as well.

Really, you all talk about me? How sweet.

 

[Brandon716]

I'm not interested in pointless arguing. Online its too easy, and my real life persona is not an argumentative type. The Internet has become too often a forum for pointless arguing.

All I can do is point out a few key points.

This discussion started out with a carbon tax, and I explained why I thought it was a decent idea, although I also said that if it can't be agreed upon and implemented without a lot of distrust that it would be better to put it on a backburner and implement the other reforms, like cap and trade and other mandates.

You came out and started attacking the Liberal party for having "no plans" to do anything, and I actually linked you to the full proposal outside the carbon tax.

Since you were shown they do have plans, and you just disagree with them, you then started attacking global warming and changed the discussion to the validity of global warming itself.

I then link a simple Wikipedia entry showing the charts with CO2 concentrations and historic temperatures. Some of these charts dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

You then debunk Wikipedia as an invalid source because its just a general article, and then you change the discussion yet again by asking why you even care to post.

Everytime you've lost the argument, you change the tone and bring up another totally irrelevant idea, and then you question why we aren't taking about a carbon tax.

The discussion has come upon a full 360 loop and we can go back into how a carbon tax does have good aspects. It creates incentive to purchase non-carbon technology.

Personally I think any green and carbon environmental bills should include several other mandates: higher fuel efficiency for SUV's and cars and trucks. There should be a mandate that all car manufacturers upgrade from present day hybrid technology to plug-in hybrid technology. And they should begin to offer plug in hybrid CARS instead of SUV's as their priority.

Toyota and Honda have hybrid cars, GM and Ford at present only have SUV hybrids. Its a travesty. Only a government mandate that they provide these vehicles within a fair time frame will seemingly encourage certain car makers to do the right thing.

If you can get tax credits and generous year-over-year deductions for purchasing green plug in hybrid cars, that also helps.

Of course this is all dependent upon the hydro system becoming more dependent upon renewables and nuclear energy, but in Ontario this isn't a problem. Many other US states like Illinois (which predominantly uses nuclear and only a few percent comes from coal) are already ready as well.

The point is that there is no one singular solution, but we need to use current day technology to get the job done while looking into fuel cells and other technology.

Could you imagine after 5 years of sales how used plug in hybrids would eventually drip into the hands of the less well off how much of an offset we could have in oil usage??

Imagine half of Ontario - and Canada for that matter - driving the first 50-80km every day on pure electric energy before even beginning to use oil.

It takes a law to create the incentive to get it done, otherwise the industry would have already acted.

We don't even have plug in hybrids yet, and the Chevy Volt isn't being created as a mainstream car, its being created as a small scale enthusiast car.

We need laws making plug in hybrids practical and affordable for a large market.

Thats my opinion, and the idea of a carbon tax helps further the incentive to buy these vehicles when they are available, and the mandates in other areas with cap and trade programs is a real plan for environmental change.

 

[Brandon716]

BTW, if you want another reason why a carbon tax is a good idea, where do you think the government is going to get the money to pay people for these generous tax credits and incentives to encourage buying green products?

Raising carbon fuel prices via a new tax, reducing other taxes, and creating subsidy for green technology is a simply understood idea.

It doesn't have to be for some pie-in-the-sky technology that doesn't exist. I already gave the plug in hybrid and renewable/nuclear idea a discussion to start with.

And yes, a carbon tax can be part of the solution.

 

[Hydrogen]

Don't have time to answer this weekend, but:

BTW, if you want another reason why a carbon tax is a good idea, where do you think the government is going to get the money to pay people for these generous tax credits and incentives to encourage buying green products?

You're not aware that about 40% of the at-pump cost of gasoline is tax, are you? You're solution is more tax.

Raising carbon fuel prices via a new tax, reducing other taxes, and creating subsidy for green technology is a simply understood idea.

You think it's a good idea because you don't bother to question the logic of it. I've outlined the problems in earlier posts.

Since you were shown they do have plans, and you just disagree with them, you then started attacking global warming and changed the discussion to the validity of global warming itself.

Fears over global warming are the basis for the carbon tax. That does not appear clear to you.

I then link a simple Wikipedia entry showing the charts with CO2 concentrations and historic temperatures. Some of these charts dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

And I told you something about the data that you don't understand. I've suggested that you look beyond wikipedia, and dare to go beyond your casual preconceptions.

The discussion has come upon a full 360 loop and we can go back into how a carbon tax does have good aspects. It creates incentive to purchase non-carbon technology.

With about 85% of global energy being derived from hydrocarbons, there's no choice. Purchasers don't develop technologies, they select them. If there are none to select from, they have no choice. They become captives to that and new taxes.

Hybrids still use gasoline and still produce C02. Efficiency is relative to use. But they are a step forward.

Everytime you've lost the argument, you change the tone and bring up another totally irrelevant idea, and then you question why we aren't taking about a carbon tax.

You clearly don't understand the argument. The carbon tax is about the things you deem as irrelevant. And if you think I've "lost" the argument (how competitive of you in your non-argumentative way), why do you bother to respond?



Must run for fun and games. I'll comment more on your post when I return.

 

[Brandon716]

^Yes, I'm aware of the current rate of taxation. No, I'm not ignorant.

You apparently don't seem to get it that it takes money to fund these green programs and what better way than to reduce taxes in other areas, such as income, and offer generous credits and subsidy for green programs, and raise those funds through a carbon tax.

I don't deny you have a disagreement with the plan, I've never said you haven't made a case. What I've said is that I disagree with it and think a carbon tax is a great way to fund programs to get wean people away from carbon fuels and to create incentive to do so on a greater scale.

If a carbon tax is implemented, and income taxes are slightly lowered, and generous credits and subsidies are given to purchase green friendly vehicles (think plug in hybrids of the future), I agree with this.

You don't.

That's the disagreement. You can quit with the personal, condescending attitude that me or others don't understand your way of thinking. Not everyone agrees, but you're in a dubious positon to be saying those of us who accept the scientific data of global warming are somehow the underdog in this discussion because we don't yet know its man-made.

Its quite hilarious.

 

[Hydrogen]

You apparently don't seem to get it that it takes money to fund these green programs and what better way than to reduce taxes in other areas, such as income, and offer generous credits and subsidy for green programs, and raise those funds through a carbon tax.

I've worked in environmental policy. And I am citing science.

 

[Brandon716]

I've worked in environmental policy. And I am citing science.

This pissing contest is over, all I can say is good for you and good luck. I've provided the information I have, and my beliefs. If you disagree with my beliefs, you can stop with the condescending attitude. It degrades your character and apparently you're the only one who can't see that.

I assume you've worked on behalf of Conservative policy regarding environmental issues from the sound of it. If so, good for you. Stand for your beliefs. But don't expect everyone to follow when we have data showing otherwise.

 

[afransen]

Hydrogen, do you have any examples of your work in environmental policy?

At any rate, Hydrogen, you are disputing the idea that if something rises in price relative to other substitutes, demand will fall for that good, and demand will rise for the substitutes. This is basic economics, and your argument that this doesn't work is based on intuition and ideology. I mean, do you have any evidence to suggest that rising fuel prices won't reduce fuel consumption? There certainly is plenty of evidence that suggests that it does. See the significant increase in SUVs traded in for smaller vehicles, and the value of used SUVs falling.

Arguing against increasing fuel taxes also tends to go the other way, suggesting that they should be reduced. Do you think the federal and provincial governments should eliminate fuel taxes and instead increase personal and corporate income tax rates? If not, what is so ideal about present fuel tax rates? And please don't obfuscate the point with any discussion of size of government, which is entirely beside the point.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, do you have any examples of your work in environmental policy?

At any rate, Hydrogen, you are disputing the idea that if something rises in price relative to other substitutes, demand will fall for that good, and demand will rise for the substitutes. This is basic economics, and your argument that this doesn't work is based on intuition and ideology. I mean, do you have any evidence to suggest that rising fuel prices won't reduce fuel consumption? There certainly is plenty of evidence that suggests that it does. See the significant increase in SUVs traded in for smaller vehicles, and the value of used SUVs falling.

My work belongs to me and those who contracted for it. I have not asked for examples of your employment record or capacity to comment on these issues, have I? If you don't want to accept that I have been employed in this area, don't. I still got paid for it. So rather than questioning me or my credentials, stick with what I have written. That way I won't be asking you for your personal credentials as an economist, or your assumed capacity in grasping the entire corpus of economic theory.

Presently, what is the substitute to the gasoline-powered automobile that you are talking about? Is it available to consumers right now? For those who use natural gas to heat their homes in the winter, what is the presently available substitute for natural gas?

Given that there is no viable substitute to the millions of gasoline and diesel automobiles and trucks, what are all these millions of people and businesses supposed to choose from?

It would appear that your argument is one where the price of fuel is to be driven so far up that other fuel sources equally as expensive then become viable. That would still require examples of products that are ready to replace hydrocarbon usage are now available in large quantities to used in tens of millions of vehicles. Also, given that your argument is all about driving price up to generate price viability, you've still failed to take into consideration the downstream effects of making energy so extremely expensive.

Consumption of hydrocarbons will continue to increase. You don't have to take my word for it, its a pretty common expectation of energy analysts. It will increase at different rates in different countries. As for the price of fuel, as I noted earlier, at its lowest point the price of oil in 1998 was around $10 a barrel. Today it is hovering around $130. Do you note a vast drop in the consumption of gasoline since? Sure, you can keep driving the price of fuel up by adding on ever more taxation to the increasing barrel costs, but such tax increases do not operate in a vacuum, like the rise in the price of oil they will have a considerable impact on virtually every aspect of the economy. Any drop in consumption would result in a drop in revenues for the government.

Globally, the overwhelming number of cars sold are small cars, and the overall numbers of these vehicles will keep on increasing. Also, the rise in the price of oil over the last decade has not reduced the numbers of vehicles in operation in Canada. That has increased as well (along with the consumption of gasoline).

Arguing against increasing fuel taxes also tends to go the other way, suggesting that they should be reduced. Do you think the federal and provincial governments should eliminate fuel taxes and instead increase personal and corporate income tax rates? If not, what is so ideal about present fuel tax rates? And please don't obfuscate the point with any discussion of size of government, which is entirely beside the point.

Why would you presume to think this an either/or scenario? Maybe you should keep your intuition and ideological assumptions out of the picture. If politicians like Dion really want to solve a problem they believe is particularly negative, they have the responsibility to actually generate policies that solve the source of these problems, and not merely generate a general revenue tax from them.

To that end, present provincial and federal taxes could be aimed at actually pursuing actual solutions, not pretending to shape a generalized notion of behaviour without understanding what the actual complex economic impact will be. But as your assumed worries are global in nature, it really does not matter much what Canada or Canadians do (unless someone in this country finally develops a fast-charging, long lasting electric car battery).

In the end, the Liberals will never tax hydrocarbons to a degree where it becomes either extremely detrimental to the economy, nor to a degree where it changes behaviour as theorized. To that end, this becomes nothing more than a tax increase to pad up general revenues and to advertise the image that Liberals are trying to live up to their Kyoto promises.

 

[Hydrogen]

This pissing contest is over, all I can say is good for you and good luck. I've provided the information I have, and my beliefs. If you disagree with my beliefs, you can stop with the condescending attitude. It degrades your character and apparently you're the only one who can't see that.

I assume you've worked on behalf of Conservative policy regarding environmental issues from the sound of it. If so, good for you. Stand for your beliefs. But don't expect everyone to follow when we have data showing otherwise.

Your beliefs should not to be confused with the actual climate. And you actually know nothing of my character to comment on it. As to your beliefs, they are yours; but that does not mean that they are automatically accurate or factual. Otherwise, you are more than entitled to them.

As to your other assumptions (beliefs), yet once again you have assumed incorrectly. Take a look and see who was in power in Canada in - say - 2001. The fact that you would try and tag political ideology to climate research suggests that you accept or even encourage the overt politicization of science. It may come as a massive surprise to you, but not everyone who questions human emissions of infrared gases as a supposed cause of catastrophic climate change is a political conservative. After all, you share the same beliefs on climate change as John McCain. Should I then assume that you are a Republican?

 

[unimaginative2]

Hydrogen, I'd say it's pretty weak that you claim to have worked in environmental policy to back up your claims, and you then refuse to elaborate when pressed. Basically, all you have provided is your opinion, and without any evidence that your opinion is anything more than the claims of a gadfly, you're not terribly convincing on this subject.

 

[Hydrogen]

Not weak at all. My work for my clients is my business, not yours. The fact that you want to turn this around to be about me appears as nothing more than a means to get off topic.

I have yet to see you back up your opinion with evidence. So consequently, by your own measures you are not being convincing on this topic either.

 

[unimaginative2]

On the contrary, you made your experience relevant when you used it, only a few posts ago, as evidence to support your opinion.

My opinion is based on the research done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That, on top of tens of thousands of other papers, books, and studies is my evidence. What about you? Cite one reputable organization or paper.