# Wynne gov't lying to consumers on cap and trade carbon tax on home heating bills



## carverman

Wynne is lying when she mentioned in an interview with the media that her carbon tax starting January 2017 will
only add about $6 to the average household heating bill using nat gas.

I used the Union Gas website calculator and submitted my nat gas usage from the 4 coldest months last winter (2015)

on 428 cu meters (january) the cap n trade carbon tax is calculated at $14.12
on 378 cu meters (february) calculation is $12.47
on 310 cu meters (march ) calculation is $10.29
Ok this carbon tax is based on consumption and from May to October, the natural gas usage will not be as high as
in the winter months...lets say 100 cu meters for heating water and some home heat in the early spring and fall
for 2 months .. 
on 100 cu meters (may) calculation is $3.30 ($6.60 for the two months of may and October)
for the other 6 months where a/C is used more (except for water heating) lets say it costs 40 cu metres to heat the water
40 x 3.3c = $1.32 (june, july, aug, sept) $1.32 

So who is lying here?


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-budget-1.3461834


> Gas prices in Ontario will rise about 4.3 cents a litre and r*esidential natural gas bills will go up about $5 a month under
> the Liberal government's cap-and-trade plan*.


----------



## Davis

Carverman, Wynne said it would $6 per month on average. That doesn't mean that everyone but pay $6 more -- some will pay more than that, and some will pay less. That is how average work. It is quite likely that you are not average. Consider yourself to be exceptional.


----------



## STech

When has that two-faced money-moron and her lousy piece of trash minions said anything that was remotely true? Mclier was even worst. 

Very shortly, she'll start buying votes again with our own money, and unfortunately, some feeble minds will fall for it again.


----------



## Beaver101

Hopefully those feeble minds of a minority ... mid-year poll:

*Kathleen Wynne's Liberals Trailing Tories In Ontario, Poll Suggests
The Huffington Post Canada | By Ryan Maloney 
Posted: 08/19/2016 2:48 pm EDT Updated: 08/19/2016 2:59 pm EDT *

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/19/kathleen-wynne-poll-patrick-brown-horwath_n_11610714.html


----------



## mordko

So, 28 percent of people in Ontario are employed by the government or unions. No other way to explain that there are still people supporting liberals in Ontario.


----------



## carverman

Davis said:


> Carverman, *Wynne said it would $6 per month on average*. That doesn't mean that everyone but pay $6 more -- some will pay more than that, and some will pay less. That is how average work. It is quite likely that you are not average. Consider yourself to be exceptional.


I just finished calculating what my carbon tax will be for the year based on last years consumption.
$57.47 for the winter months ( Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb/March)
$26.40 approx for the other 7 months (may to Oct) hot water heating
------
$83.80 /12 = $6.98 per month... about $7.00 a month
add to that the HST


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> Hopefully those feeble minds of a minority ... mid-year poll:





> *Kathleen Wynne's Liberals Trailing Tories In Ontario, Poll Suggests
> *


*

My question is... Will Wynne and her scaly-wag minions get kicked out of office on a non-confidence vote and call for an early election.




It appears Premier's Wynne's chickens have finally come home to roost, and voters have started to notice the controversies surrounding her government," Forum Research president Dr. Lorne Bozinoff said in the poll summary.

Click to expand...

Enough is enough. They are killing Ontario's economy with the additional taxes and mismanagement..no wonder they are sometimes referred to as the Fiberals.*


----------



## Davis

carverman said:


> I just finished calculating what my carbon tax will be for the year based on last years consumption.
> $57.47 for the winter months ( Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb/March)
> $26.40 approx for the other 7 months (may to Oct) hot water heating
> ------
> $83.80 /12 = $6.98 per month... about $7.00 a month
> add to that the HST


So that's pretty hilarious. You're $1 a month higher than the average, and you accidentally her of lying. Tell us how you really feel, carverman.

Or better yet, have a nice cup of tea and calm down. All this anger isn't doing your heart any good.


----------



## sags

_My question is... Will Wynne and her scaly-wag minions get kicked out of office on a non-confidence vote and call for an early election._

I doubt it. People don't care about gas plant scandals, carbon taxes and all that political stuff.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> _My question is... Will Wynne and her scaly-wag minions get kicked out of office on a non-confidence vote and call for an early election._
> 
> I doubt it. People don't care about gas plant scandals, carbon taxes and all that political stuff.


Unfortunately people here so much brainwashed by Liberal propaganda that I doubt she gonna be kicked out from the office .... also as mordko mentioned thaere are a huge amount of government workers


----------



## Davis

That's right, everyone who disagrees with you must be brainwashed or self-esteem interested because your point of view is the only need reasonable one. This is why I am trying to stop commenting on these threads. 

I am no longer employed by the government, and am not a union member. I am not brainwashed either. I am pretty pissed because of about a lot of things that the Ontario Liberals have done, and would gladly vote for a credible alternative if there were one. I'm not going to vote against a party until there is an alternative I can support. 

The Ontario PCs have consistently failed to present themselves as capable of providing good government that is representative of all Ontarians, or a leader that I could support. 

Brown has so far continued this sorry tradition, but he still has a few years to up his game before the election, and God knows he doesn't have a high standard to beat vis-vis the Liberals.


----------



## mordko

Correction: 



> So, 28 percent of people in Ontario are *or used to be* employed by the government or unions. No other way to explain that there are still people supporting liberals in Ontario.


Ontario Liberals will come to a sorry end. Other peoples' money will eventually run out. The question is if there will still be any industry left in the province (outside government and retirees).


----------



## Davis

Except that a lot of people working in government see what is going on with the party in power and get sick of it. I worked for Conservative and Liberal governments in Ontario and at the the federal level, and see this happen. 

The notion that anyone who works for government is a fallacy. I knew lots of Tories and New Democrats in government. But more importantly, the people bi worked with one that it was their job to serve b the governer of the day, and the public interest. 

And suggesting that I owe them some debt because I used to work for the government is ridiculous. I started in both levels of government under Conservatives. I got to retire by saving and investing well despite the Liberals freezing managers' salary for six years. People tend not to think highly of party that freezes their salaries for that long.


----------



## STech

Davis said:


> The Ontario PCs have consistently failed to present themselves as capable of providing good government that is representative of all Ontarians, or a leader that I could support.
> 
> Brown has so far continued this sorry tradition, but he still has a few years to up his game before the election, and God knows he doesn't have a high standard to beat vis-vis the Liberals.


We all would like a party that represents all the people all the time, and a leader that's inspiring and will have history books written about them, but that's often fantasy. At this point of time, with a decade and a half of an absolute atrocious record, a monkey that flings it's poo at a board is better at picking policies to help the province. I apologize about the visual, but it really isn't that far off. At least the monkey isn't going to lie about what it's doing.

So Davis, you can wait forever for your prefect Conservative leader to come in on a horse and wow you away, or you can get real and stop day dreaming.


----------



## Davis

That's just the thing: we aren't allowed to choose a money that flings poo at a dartboard. Last time, the only alternative was Tim Hudak, who would have been worse than the monkey. If only there were still a New Democratic Party to give us a third choice, not that I'm crazy about social democrats, but they seem to have disappeared altogether.


----------



## STech

Davis said:


> That's just the thing: we aren't allowed to choose a money that flings poo at a dartboard. Last time, the only alternative was Tim Hudak, who would have been worse than the monkey. If only there were still a New Democratic Party to give us a third choice, not that I'm crazy about social democrats, but they seem to have disappeared altogether.


Lucky for us, Patrick Brown is that monkey. But you seem to have written him off already.

I'd very much like Andrea Horwath to lead the PCs, but I'm not into day dreaming.


----------



## Davis

Brown has not impressed me so far: playing to SoCons to get elected, then trying to bury them. Trying to use the sex Ed curriculum against the Liberals in a by election, then running away from that as quickly as he could. Not really coming up with much in the way of policy other than opposing the Liberals. But as I wrote, he has a few years yet to get his act together, so I'll keep an open mind and see how things look at election time. I think it is safe to say that few here would keep an open mind about Wynne regardless of what she does in the next few years. For me, I'll gather all the info and make my decision when the time comes.


----------



## STech

Davis said:


> I think it is safe to say that few here would keep an open mind about Wynne regardless of what she does in the next few years. For me, I'll gather all the info and make my decision when the time comes.



Quite a few people kept an open mind about Wynn, after a decade of the Dalton McGunity horror show. How well did that turn out? What's that quote from Einstein about doing the same over and over again and expecting a different result? What did he call it? Insanity was it?

Good on you for trying to keep an open mind, but feel free to call me cynical. 15 years, dozen and dozens of scandals, police investigations, an economy in the toilet, and the biggest debt of any sovereign state later, and I have no faith left.


----------



## carverman

Davis said:


> So that's pretty hilarious. You're $1 a month higher than the average, and you accidentally her of lying. Tell us how you really feel, carverman.
> 
> *Or better yet, have a nice cup of tea and calm down. All this anger isn't doing your heart any good*.


I'm on fixed income. Maybe I should ask my CPP and OAS pensions to be raised by $7 to make up the increase
to my heating bill because of this new carbon tax that the "assh*les" are installing starting January 1st?

Get real Davis..maybe you think that $7 extra tax coming off your lucrative salary is nothing to cry about?
... but for me.._it means less of my pension to live on_ and more to pay to the big assh*les that run Queens Park, who lie to the public because they don't care!


----------



## Davis

Carverman, I no longer have a salary. Your CPP and OAS are being increased for inflation. I don't like paying more for fuel than anyone else, but I also think n it's high time that we do something about carbon beyond clapping our hands over our ears and shouting "I can't hear you." The only way to get people and business to produce less carbon is to start charging for it. 

As an aside it is unfortunate that when some one starts a thread with a premise that gets disproved (like Wynne is lying about the cost), it never gets removed from the heading.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Carverman, I no longer have a salary. Your CPP and OAS are being increased for inflation. I don't like paying more for fuel than anyone else, but I also think n it's high time that we do something about carbon beyond clapping our hands over our ears and shouting "I can't hear you." The only way to get people and business to produce less carbon is to start charging for it.
> 
> As an aside it is unfortunate that when some one starts a thread with a premise that gets disproved (like Wynne is lying about the cost), it never gets removed from the heading.


YUP-the sheep need to make room for China to build a new coal plant every month. CO2 coming from China isn't the same as CO2 coming from Ontario (forget the fact that our emissions are immaterial to the Big China Smoke-it is the thought that counts.)


----------



## mordko

Nelley said:


> YUP-the sheep need to make room for China to build a new coal plant every month. CO2 coming from China isn't the same as CO2 coming from Ontario (forget the fact that our emissions are immaterial to the Big China Smoke-it is the thought that counts.)


It's pronounced Djina, not China.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> The only way to get people and business to produce less carbon is to start charging for it.


CO2 is not carbon. 

That being said...the undisputable fact is that no one has proven that we need to reduce or stop producing CO2. Taxing people to fix a non-existent problem is one of the stupidest actions a government can take.


----------



## Davis

I dispute that. Most scientists dispute that. Stephen Hawking disputes that. All the big scientific organizations dispute that. NASA disputes that. The NOAA disputes that. So you are demonstrably when you say it's indisputable. Bombast doesn't make you right, and doesn't win arguments.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> CO2 is not carbon.
> 
> That being said...the undisputable fact is that no one has proven that we need to reduce or stop producing CO2. Taxing people to fix a non-existent problem is one of the stupidest actions a government can take.


What does the C in CO2 stand for?

You're winning the pedantry award for the day with this comment.


----------



## carverman

Davis said:


> As an aside it is unfortunate that when some one starts a thread with a premise that gets disproved (like Wynne is lying about the cost), it never gets removed from the heading.


*I think the heading has merit.* and it will remain as such.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. Wynne's carbon tax will add more stress to the low income families
that are struggling right now with high electricity rates and inspite of collecting the carbon tax revenue it will NOT make much of a difference in consumption of carbon based fuels or green house gas generation
...so this is a big lie from Wynne and her gov't.

The people that are going to suffer the worst are those on low incomes.

In summary, in spite of the imposed carbon tax starting Jan 1/2017: 

*1. Cars, trucks and buses, airplanes will still burn the same amount of fuel to carry on daily business.*

*2. Heating buildings and houses will still go on regardless, just that it will cost more in 2017.*

All that CO2 gets released into the atmosphere all over Canada.

In the US, it is much worse as the consumption is FAR greater than in Canada and that CO2 release is
cumulative..and there is no way Trump will implement a national carbon tax or put individual states
to task to implement it on their own..that would be political suicide in any state that tries it.

Besides, all the other countries that burn carbon based fuel will continue to burn carbon based fuel depending on their economies and needs, regardless of Wynne's carbon tax. 
They will ALSO continue to release vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is cummulative around the globe, no matter where the CO2 is released into the atmosphere and all that will add to global warming increase in spite of Wynne's carbon tax. 

We all live on the same planet and breathe the same atmosphere. While parts of the atmosphere can be
polluted (China for example)due to high coal burning regions), whether we burn coal, gasoline, propane,
nat gas, jet fuel, diesel or even wood, the end product of combustion is Carbon Dioxide which traps the
suns rays. When it is plentiful in the atmosphere it is acting like a blanket to trap heat from the sun.

Fossil fuel consumption around the world, will not stop just because Wynne has added a carbon tax. 
It is a repressive tax, meant ONLY to add revenue to Wynne's soon to be 300 Billion Ontario deficit.
Forget about her promises of balancing the budget within the next year or two. 

Wynnes' carbon tax will NOT make any difference to global warming until the rest of the other high users
of carbon based fuels either cut down or stop using carbon based fuels, so this is just another CASH GRAB
from the scandalous Wynne gov't. 

So in conclusion: 
*This carbon tax will NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE to GLOBAL WARMING, it's just another tax heaped on the people of Ontario to pay on top of all the other taxes we already pay. 
*
BTW; My CPP and OAS increase in 2017 will NOT match what I have to spend extra on this new carbon tax and my property tax goes up as well.


----------



## Davis

Sorry, Carverman, the heading and your first post claim that Wynne is lying when she says the average household will pay $6 more because you estimate that you will pay $7 more.

Your claim is based on your failure to understand the difference between an average and you. 

Your later objections to the effectiveness of the policy in combating climate change don't change that.


----------



## carverman

Davis said:


> Sorry, Carverman, the heading and your first post claim that Wynne is lying when she says the average household will pay $6 more because you estimate that you will pay $7 more.
> 
> Your claim is based on your failure to understand the difference between an average and you.
> 
> Your later objections to the effectiveness of the policy in combating climate change don't change that.


She is still lying to me. Based on my nat gas consumption of 2016, I will be paying a lot more in the heating season for nat gas.

I don't care what Wynne is saying about averages. When Enbridge adds 3.3c for every cu M of nat gas i consume, in the winter months, January, depending on how cold it gets, will require about 400 cuMetres of nat gas for heat and hot water.

At 3.3 c per Cu M of carbon tax..that's $13.20 extra added to my monthly gas bill on top of the other charges and HST. That is far more per month than the $6 a month extra that the carbon tax wil add that she was talking about to the press.

It's all BS from the Wynne gov't. They are more interested in padding their provincial treasury than trying to address global warming.

My reasons are in my previous post. 

At least Saskatchewan had the sense not to get involved with this carbon tax cash grab scheme as it will
do nothing to prevent global warming.


----------



## STech

The auditor general has serious doubts this tax grab will do any good for climate change, and I believe her. But let's put aside the debate on climate change, formerly known as global warming. Question is, do you trust the current gang of clowns to administer the program properly? And the answer is a resounding HELL NO.

Given their fabulous track record with absolutely everything they touch, I have no doubt in no time we're gonna start hearing about the myriad of scandals and waste with this program as well.


----------



## Davis

When Wynne tells you about the implant on n the average household, that's all she is telling you. She isn't feeling you what the impact is on you. Saying, "I don't care about averages so she lying" does not make any sense, and I'm sure that you can see that. 

Yes, Canada is a small contributor to CO2 emissions in a world of 200 countries, but Canadians are close to the top of the league in terms of how much each of us produces, which is many times more than the CO2 each Chinese person produces. 

There is no way we can ask any other country to control their emissions of we're not willing to do it ourselves. 

You may not agree with the logic of this, and you are entitled to your opinion, as are people who agree with it. The repeated trope of some CMFers in these discussions that anyone who disagrees with them is lying, stupid, a sheep, or part of a conspiracy is what makes these discussions entirely useless. 

It really justs ends up as a shouting match providing no illumination at all.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> What does the C in CO2 stand for?
> 
> You're winning the pedantry award for the day with this comment.


Why not call CO2 oxygen instead of carbon if it's not a big deal? After all, there are twice as many oxygen molecules than carbon molecules in CO2?

The fact is that alarmists choose to call CO2 "carbon" is because carbon is black and that creates a "dirty" image to the uninformed. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead...after all, it's hard to get anyone worked up about an invisible trace gas that is essential for life on the planet to exist.


----------



## Spudd

I just calculated mine, and for the past 12 months if the new tax is 3.3c/cuM, I will be paying $4.64 extra per month. So between me and Carverman, the average is $5.82/mo, pretty close to the $6 figure stated.


----------



## carverman

bass player said:


> Why not call CO2 oxygen instead of carbon if it's not a big deal? After all, there are twice as many oxygen molecules than carbon molecules in CO2?
> 
> The fact is that alarmists choose to call CO2 "carbon" is because carbon is black and that creates a "dirty" image to the uninformed. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead...after all, it's hard to get anyone worked up about an invisible trace gas that is essential for life on the planet to exist.



Sigh....gather around children, let Perfessor Carve" explain the difference so we are on the same page..heh heh.
..look up the definition of carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide..a clear and colourless gas that is now considered a green house gas)



> In the context of climate change, "carbon" is commonly used as a shorthand for carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas released by humans. Technically, however, this isn't accurate. Carbon only becomes carbon dioxide when each atom of carbon joins with two atoms of oxygen (hence the chemical formula of carbon dioxide, CO2)





> This shorthand can sometimes cause confusion, because although "a tonne of carbon" will often be used to mean "a tonne of CO2", in a scientific context the same phrase could mean "CO2 containing a tonne of carbon" (which is a much smaller amount, as oxygen accounts for most of the weight of each CO2 molecule).
> 
> *The term carbon also crops up in the phrase carbon footprint, which describes the total amount of greenhouse gases released as the result of a given activity*. In this context, "a tonne of carbon" may mean something else still: "a mix of greenhouse gases with a combined warming impact equivalent to that of a tonne of CO2".
> 
> Carbon molecules move around the Earth system in the carbon cycle


.

Carbon diioxide is not totally bad for the environment as plants/trees could not survive on earth without it. Plants, in order to generate OXYGEN
(O2) that we need to survive, also require to take in carbon dioxide (CO2) one carbon molecule combined with 2 oxygen molecules)
Plants generate oxygen by day due to sunlight and take in carbon dioxide by night..this is the process known as photosynthesis..it is an
essential process on earth to sustain life.



> By using the energy of sunlight, plants can convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates and oxygen in a process called photosynthesis. As photosynthesis requires sunlight, this process only happens during the day. We often like to think of this as plants `breathing in carbon dioxide and `breathing out oxygen.


 Carbon (black) OTOH is:

Carbon black [C.A.S. NO. 1333-86-4] *is virtually pure elemental carbon in the form of colloidal particles that are produced by incomplete combustion or thermal decomposition of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons under controlled conditions.* Its physical appearance is that of a black, finely divided pellet or powder. Its use in tires, rubber and plastic products, printing inks and coatings is related to properties of specific surface area, particle size and structure, conductivity and color. Carbon black is also in the top 50 industrial chemicals manufactured worldwide, based on annual tonnage. Current worldwide production is about 18 billion pounds per year [8.1 million metric tons]. Approximately 90% of carbon black is used in rubber applications, 9% as a pigment, and the remaining 1% as an essential ingredient in hundreds of diverse applications.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

The simple truth is Canadians are being punished for something that unless the largest nations in the world get on board it will not make one iota of difference. Not one bit of difference at all. 

This will only make Canada less competitive in the global marketplace, and impact all the local businesses that depend on disposable income.


----------



## carverman

bobsyouruncle said:


> The simple truth is Canadians are being punished for something that unless the largest nations in the world get on board it will not make one iota of difference. Not one bit of difference at all.
> 
> 
> 
> This will only make Canada less competitive in the global marketplace, and impact all the local businesses that depend on disposable income.
Click to expand...

"
Thank you *Bobsyouruncle"*; This is my feeling on this carbon tax SCAM that the Wynne gov't and her Ontario Fiberals are trying to convince us that it's for our own good, but in fact, it's just another cash grab that they can get away with because most people don't understand, that no matter how much you tax people on using fossil fuels..it WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE on a GLOBAL SCALE in today's *modern society worldwide *.

The weather patterns don't just hang over Ontario, so Wynne can tell us..yes, my carbon footprint/carbon tax is making some difference..the air temperature is more stable and the winters are back to being cold again.
In fact the jet stream and other weather phenomena moves around all the time. It creeps down from the polar
regions and Siberia..and who is on the other side of the polar region? Russia...and Putin is not about to
impose a carbon tax on his population anytime soon..in fact he is probably secrety laughing at these 
Canadian fools. 

A couple hundred years, ago in a diffent rural society relying on horse drawn everything, society as a whole didn't generate the huge amount of carbon dioxide we do today, so no matter how the provincial gov'ts "juggle' their mismanaged funds then try to pull the wool over our eyes, that they are doing something about it..

In tge end folks...IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE in relation to global temperatures, when other countries don't subscribe to the same plan.


----------



## mordko

I am ok with carbon taxes hypothetically, but not if large competitors in US and elsewhere have no such constraints. And international schemes of this nature never work. There are alternative solutions to the problem.


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> In summary, in spite of the imposed carbon tax starting Jan 1/2017:
> 
> *1. Cars, trucks and buses, airplanes will still burn the same amount of fuel to carry on daily business.*
> 
> *2. Heating buildings and houses will still go on regardless, just that it will cost more in 2017.*
> [...]
> So in conclusion:
> *This carbon tax will NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE to GLOBAL WARMING, it's just another tax heaped on the people of Ontario to pay on top of all the other taxes we already pay.
> *


You're forgetting efficiency. People will consider choosing more efficient vehicles, or retrofitting their homes to use less energy to heat. Adding insulation to the attic and replacing old windows can make huge differences in heating.

The cost is pretty minor, but it will nudge people toward higher energy efficiency. The fact that you are freaking out about this is evidence that people respond, sometimes irrationally, to small price incentives.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> I am ok with carbon taxes hypothetically, but not if large competitors in US and elsewhere have no such constraints. And international schemes of this nature never work. There are alternative solutions to the problem.


Carbon taxes don't necessarily hurt competitiveness. We can provide export support to carbon intensive industries when exporting to lax jurisdictions. And revenues from carbon taxes should be used to reduce taxes that are more harmful, like corporate and personal income taxes. I think you would also need to give some refundable tax credits/GST rebate-style transfer to offset the regressive effects of carbon tax.


----------



## andrewf

bobsyouruncle said:


> The simple truth is Canadians are being punished for something that unless the largest nations in the world get on board it will not make one iota of difference. Not one bit of difference at all.
> 
> This will only make Canada less competitive in the global marketplace, and impact all the local businesses that depend on disposable income.


This is tragedy of the commons argument. Everyone should dump their garbage in the street because everyone else is doing it anyway. Maybe you want to live in a world where no one tries to cooperate to take care of the commons, but I think it is worthwhile to provide leadership and then guilt and shame those who don't follow it.


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> This is tragedy of the commons argument. Everyone should dump their garbage in the street because everyone else is doing it anyway. Maybe you want to live in a world where no one tries to cooperate to take care of the commons, but I think it is worthwhile to provide leadership and then guilt and shame those who don't follow it.


Sheep: You are simply mouthing nonsense from the MSM-China is in control of CO2 emissions, not you or Wynne.


----------



## Davis

Andrewf has nailed the issue here. And the issue is not nomenclature; the issue is human-produced greenhouse gases causing climate change which threatens human populations. CO2 emissions in China, by the way, actually fell a little this year, although it is not clear how much of thatb results from environmental policy and how much from economic slowdown. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...s-china-coal-use-drop-reduction-a7416011.html


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Carbon taxes don't necessarily hurt competitiveness. We can provide export support to carbon intensive industries when exporting to lax jurisdictions. And revenues from carbon taxes should be used to reduce taxes that are more harmful, like corporate and personal income taxes. I think you would also need to give some refundable tax credits/GST rebate-style transfer to offset the regressive effects of carbon tax.


Sorry but that's bollocks. Carbon taxes raise the cost of energy. When energy-intensive companies decide whether to set up shop, it forms part of their business case. 

Indeed, jurisdictions with high cost of energy have been losing business to jurisdictions with low cost of energy right left and centre. Ontario is a very obvious case in point.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

andrewf said:


> This is tragedy of the commons argument. Everyone should dump their garbage in the street because everyone else is doing it anyway. Maybe you want to live in a world where no one tries to cooperate to take care of the commons, but I think it is worthwhile to provide leadership and then guilt and shame those who don't follow it.


Your analogy doesn't correlate. 

If citizens in California dumped their garbage on the street and it ended up piling high on my street in a fashion that was impossible for me and others on my street to tidy up, then yes, I might as well chuck my garbage on the street. I can't tidy the mess they're making. 

That's what a carbon tax is doing. It's trying to get me to tidy a mess that's _impossible_ to tidy, unless those who are actually causing the biggest build of the mess chip in and help. Until then, the carbon tax is just sending more people and businesses into other countries where they can throw garbage on the street that ends up in Canada anyway.


----------



## Davis

On a per person basis, Canadians are among those causing the biggest mess by a very wide margin. (2011: Canada - 16.24 tonnes of CO2/person, China - 6.52 tonnes/person.) Because there are so many more Chinese, their total production swamps ours, but individually, we are far worse culprits. 

We have no business asking China or anyone else to clean up their acts if we are not willing to do so first. 

As far as it being impossible to clean up, I refuse to give up on this planet. It is my favourite planet, and all my stuff is here. I couldn't look my nieces and nephews in the eye and say "I won't do anything to stop screwing up the planet. You're on your own, suckers."


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Davis said:


> On a per person basis, Canadians are among those causing the biggest mess by a very wide margin. (2011: Canada - 16.24 tonnes of CO2/person, China - 6.52 tonnes/person.) Because there are so many more Chinese, their total production swamps ours, but individually, we are far worse culprits.
> 
> We have no business asking China or anyone else to clean up their acts if we are not willing to do so first.
> 
> As far as it being impossible to clean up, I refuse to give up on this planet. It is my favourite planet, and all my stuff is here. I couldn't look my nieces and nephews in the eye and say "I won't do anything to stop screwing up the planet. You're on your own, suckers."


If Canada is worse on a per person basis, and we're serious about tackling climate change, then it's logical to clamp down on immigration of peoples from places like China. Would you support that?


----------



## mordko

1. US emits more CO2 PER PERSON than Canada does.

2. CO2 has low global warming potential. Methane - 30 times more potential. N2O, CFCs - hundreds of times more. China emits significantly more substances with high global warming potential than Canada does (per person). Canada's release of C02 is neither here nor there.

3. The issue of CO2 in atmosphere - if that concerns you so much - can be easily solved by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Indeed, this is being done in Canada, albeit on a small scale. A large scale project would be way, way cheaper than dumb taxes.


----------



## Davis

bobsyouruncle said:


> If Canada is worse on a per person basis, and we're serious about tackling climate change, then it's logical to clamp down on immigration of peoples from places like China. Would you support that?


That makes no sense whatsoever. Canada needs immigrants to grow, and we can grow while reduced GHG emissions. If we don't figure out how to do that, we are condemning future generations.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Davis said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. Canada needs immigrants to grow, and we can grow while reduced GHG emissions. If we don't figure out how to do that, we are condemning future generations.


Of course it makes sense. 

If the priority is climate change, and people from lesser developed parts of the world switch from a lifestyle of 6 tonnes/person to a lifestyle of 16 tonnes/person, then it makes sense to prevent them access to such a lifestyle that is more damaging to the environment. Thus, Canada, if the government are REALLY trying to tackle climate change as a priority, should clamp down on immigration that is counter-productive to the primary goal.

However, if the goal is economic growth, then this tax is counter-productive.

I'm all for environmentally friendly technology and energy sources, but it needs to be more transparent. Right now it's just a trigger to gain votes from a certain section of society that's sensitive to the environmental issues, and a convenient model to raise revenue that the government think they can spend more wisely than the individuals they're stealing from.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Andrewf has nailed the issue here. And the issue is not nomenclature; the issue is human-produced greenhouse gases causing climate change which threatens human populations.


That is 100% false. The alarmists keep ignoring the most important fact in this issue. That fact is that no one has proven that increased CO2 will cause irreversible harm, or will even be bad. NO ONE.

The only man-made warming seems to be the adjustments to the temperature data:

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/


----------



## carverman

mordko said:


> I am ok with carbon taxes hypothetically, but not if large competitors in US and elsewhere have no such constraints. And international schemes of this nature never work. There are alternative solutions to the problem.


What are the alternate solutions?

Switch over from gasoline to electric cars? Currently the cost of electric cars is still prohibitive to most.
Change over 20 year old gas furnaces to new energy efficient 96% efficient furnaces?
Add more insulation to the attic and walls?
Turn down the thermostats?


----------



## carverman

bass player said:


> That is 100% false. The alarmists keep ignoring the most important fact in this issue. That fact is that no one has proven that increased CO2 will cause irreversible harm, or will even be bad. NO ONE.
> The only man-made warming seems to be the adjustments to the temperature data:


* Myth:* Increased amounts of human produced carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming:
* Fact:* For millions of years levels in carbon dioxide have shifted and changed, for various reasons. There is no proof that carbon dioxide is the cause for a slight increase in the earth's overall temperature.


----------



## like_to_retire

Spudd said:


> I just calculated mine, and for the past 12 months if the new tax is 3.3c/cuM, I will be paying $4.64 extra per month. So between me and Carverman, the average is $5.82/mo, pretty close to the $6 figure stated.


Yeah, I just calculated mine on a typical 1100 sq. ft. bungalow to be $9.24 per month. That's the nice thing about averages, you get to include all sorts of tail effects from people who use almost zero gas. Carbon pricing will do little other than provide another drag on the economy of Ontario. The revenue, whether neutral or not, won't have an effect on carbon emissions IMO.

ltr


----------



## mordko

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I just calculated mine on a typical 1100 sq. ft. bungalow to be $9.24 per month. That's the nice thing about averages, you get to include all sorts of tail effects from people who use almost zero gas. Carbon pricing will do little other than provide another drag on the economy of Ontario. The revenue, whether neutral or not, won't have an effect on carbon emissions IMO.
> 
> ltr


Drop your thermostat a few degrees, put on a coat and a hat. You will save yourself 10 bucks and the planet shall survive. 

Problem solved.


----------



## like_to_retire

mordko said:


> Drop your thermostat a few degrees, put on a coat and a hat. You will save yourself 10 bucks and the planet shall survive.
> 
> Problem solved.


I'm already watching TV under a blanket while wearing a fleece sweater every night, but yeah, if I can supply the incompetent Ontario Liberal government with more funds to waste under the guise of saving the world by adding a hat and maybe a coat, I'm all in.

ltr


----------



## Spudd

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I just calculated mine on a typical 1100 sq. ft. bungalow to be $9.24 per month. That's the nice thing about averages, you get to include all sorts of tail effects from people who use almost zero gas. Carbon pricing will do little other than provide another drag on the economy of Ontario. The revenue, whether neutral or not, won't have an effect on carbon emissions IMO.
> 
> ltr


Now our average is back up to $7 (6.96 to be exact). But yes, perhaps median would have been a better measurement than average.


----------



## mordko

like_to_retire said:


> I'm already watching TV under a blanket while wearing a fleece sweater every night, but yeah, if I can supply the incompetent Ontario Liberal government with more funds to waste under the guise of saving the world by adding a hat and maybe a coat, I'm all in.
> 
> ltr


Remember that your goosebumps warm up the souls of every bleeding heart liberal out there. Hope this thought by itself makes you feel a little bit warmer. 

Also... a lot of students voted for Trudeau. Trudeau returned the favour when he took away the text book tax credit. Nice touch. Of course he is screwing young people in many other ways, in particular by making sure that Canada's debt grows extra fast.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> That is 100% false. The alarmists keep ignoring the most important fact in this issue. That fact is that no one has proven that increased CO2 will cause irreversible harm, or will even be bad. NO ONE.
> 
> The only man-made warming seems to be the adjustments to the temperature data:
> 
> http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/





carverman said:


> * Myth:* Increased amounts of human produced carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming:
> * Fact:* For millions of years levels in carbon dioxide have shifted and changed, for various reasons. There is no proof that carbon dioxide is the cause for a slight increase in the earth's overall temperature.


No matter how much you throw around unequivocal statements and righteous indignation, you can't get around the fact that yours is a minority, or even a fringe, opinion in the scientific community.

The fact that bass player is posting a link from an anonymous blog instead from a reputable scientific organization says a lot about the quality of the information he is getting. Do you have an idea about the scientific qualifications of the author (if any)? Why is he smarter than all of the national and international scientific organizations? Or is it just you like his conclusion?

And let's be clear: when you write "alarmists", you're talking about the world's most respected scientists.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> No matter how much you throw around unequivocal statements and righteous indignation, you can't get around the fact that yours is a minority, or even a fringe, opinion in the scientific community.


Wrong again. Remember...that 97% claim the alarmist desperately cling to has been proven to be fake news. In addition, hundreds of scientific papers have been written in the last few years debunking the man-made climate change danger.

Repeating alarmist lies over and over doesn't make them true.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> No matter how much you throw around unequivocal statements and righteous indignation, you can't get around the fact that yours is a minority, or even a fringe, opinion in the scientific community.


Typical Sheep comment-the herd is always right.


----------



## Davis

I was mistaken about it being an anonymous blog. It seems that it is mostly written by "Tony Heller", which is a pseudonym for Steven Goddard. What kind of Scottish word under an assumed name? According to Wikipedia, Goddard has a BS in geology and a master's in electrical n engineering. A BS is not an advanced degree, although it is in a fairly related field. Electrical engineering won't tell you much about climate science. He has presented at a Heartland Institute conference, the Heartland Institute being funded by the oil industry which profits from CO2 production.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> I was mistaken about it being an anonymous blog. It seems that it is mostly written by "Tony Heller", which is a pseudonym for Steven Goddard. What kind of Scottish word under an assumed name? According to Wikipedia, Goddard has a BS in geology and a master's in electrical n engineering. A BS is not an advanced degree, although it is in a fairly related field. Electrical engineering won't tell you much about climate science. He has presented at a Heartland Institute conference, the Heartland Institute being funded by the oil industry which profits from CO2 production.


I don't care if you don't like who wrote the article. Please tell us what part of the article was inaccurate...the data presented came from known government sources. Big Oil had nothing to do with it....it's just another weak and shallow attempt to dismiss anything that you don't agree with.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Wrong again. Remember...that 97% claim the alarmist desperately cling to has been proven to be fake news. In addition, hundreds of scientific papers have been written in the last few years debunking the man-made climate change danger.
> 
> Repeating alarmist lies over and over doesn't make them true.


The large majority of scientists and all scientific organizations accept the science of anthropogenic climate change. Calling Stephen Hawking and the world's most respected scientists "liars" and "alarmists" is laughable. When the debate degenerates into name-calling, there's no point carrying it on.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> The large majority of scientists and all scientific organizations accept the science of anthropogenic climate change. Calling Stephen Hawking and the world's most respected scientists "liars" and "alarmists" is laughable. When the debate degenerates into name-calling, there's no point carrying it on.


LOOK-you have a "majority"-reality doesn't matter-reality is your popularity contest-BAA BAA little Sheep.


----------



## mordko

Let's agree that few of us have qualifications to discuss climate scinence. Clearly CO2 has global warming potential, but the scale, the speed and the impact of other factors are debatable. Right now we can't predict what happens next month with a 90% confidence, all models predicting remote future are highly uncertain.

Here are the facts:
- Canada emits 1.6% of global CO2 emissions
- Taxing energy and high energy prices are bad for the industry and economy. Otherwise 1970s would have been high growth years and Ontario would be the fastest growing economy.
- Our southern neighbour is going to pump as much CO2 and as fast as they can
- If CO2 were to become an actual and immediate threat, there are straightforward technologies for removing it from the air.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> I don't care if you don't like who wrote the article. Please tell us what part of the article was inaccurate...the data presented came from known government sources. Big Oil had nothing to do with it....it's just another weak and shallow attempt to dismiss anything that you don't agree with.


I could post dozens of links to articles in peer-reviewed respected scientific journals written by real-life climate scientists instead and let you try to challenge those. Blogs are not peer-reviewed, and electrical engineers are not experts in climate science. 

Credibility is not on your side.


----------



## Nelley

mordko said:


> Let's agree that few of us have qualifications to discuss climate scinence. Clearly CO2 has global warming potential, but the scale, the speed and the impact of other factors are debatable. Right now we can't predict what happens next month with a 90% confidence, all models predicting remote future are highly uncertain.
> 
> Here are the facts:
> - Canada emits 1.6% of global CO2 emissions
> - Taxing energy and high energy prices are bad for the industry and economy. Otherwise 1970s would have been high growth years and Ontario would be the fastest growing economy.
> - Our southern neighbour is going to pump as much CO2 and as fast as they can
> - If CO2 were to become an actual and immediate threat, there are straightforward technologies for removing it from the air.


If CO2 was considered to be a major threat to the global billionaire community, exactly how many days until a tariff would be slapped on Commie China until they cut way back on their CO2 emissions? 30 days, 60 days? This whole stupid scam only fools the braindead sheep.


----------



## STech

mordko said:


> *Drop your thermostat a few degrees, put on a coat and a hat. You will save yourself 10 bucks and the planet shall survive.
> 
> Problem solved.*



NOOOOOOOO.....don't.

Have we forgotten already? It was only a few months ago. Gee I wonder why everyone is so cynical of this garbage government?




Ontarians paying more to use less electricity, a trend critics say won't change


----------



## mordko

STech said:


> NOOOOOOOO.....don't.
> 
> Have we forgotten already? It was only a few months ago. Gee I wonder why everyone is so cynical of this garbage government?
> 
> Ontarians paying more to use less electricity, a trend critics say won't change


Tongue in cheek. I might be a bit doolally but one would have to be bat **** crazy to believe that we will be saving the planet by being cold. Liberals think the people are completely dumb.


----------



## andrewf

bobsyouruncle said:


> Your analogy doesn't correlate.
> 
> If citizens in California dumped their garbage on the street and it ended up piling high on my street in a fashion that was impossible for me and others on my street to tidy up, then yes, I might as well chuck my garbage on the street. I can't tidy the mess they're making.
> 
> That's what a carbon tax is doing. It's trying to get me to tidy a mess that's _impossible_ to tidy, unless those who are actually causing the biggest build of the mess chip in and help. Until then, the carbon tax is just sending more people and businesses into other countries where they can throw garbage on the street that ends up in Canada anyway.


We all live on the same street. In the metaphor, Canada is the guy who is complicit in the problem by throwing our trash in the street (and we throw in more than almost anyone) because all our neighbours do the same.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> Remember that your goosebumps warm up the souls of every bleeding heart liberal out there. Hope this thought by itself makes you feel a little bit warmer.
> 
> Also... a lot of students voted for Trudeau. Trudeau returned the favour when he took away the text book tax credit. Nice touch. Of course he is screwing young people in many other ways, in particular by making sure that Canada's debt grows extra fast.


So, should we eliminate government red tape on the use of dioxins? After all, those regulations might be costing Canadians literally dozens of dollars per year each.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> Let's agree that few of us have qualifications to discuss climate scinence. Clearly CO2 has global warming potential, but the scale, the speed and the impact of other factors are debatable. Right now we can't predict what happens next month with a 90% confidence, all models predicting remote future are highly uncertain.
> 
> Here are the facts:
> - Canada emits 1.6% of global CO2 emissions
> - Taxing energy and high energy prices are bad for the industry and economy. Otherwise 1970s would have been high growth years and Ontario would be the fastest growing economy.
> - Our southern neighbour is going to pump as much CO2 and as fast as they can
> - If CO2 were to become an actual and immediate threat, there are straightforward technologies for removing it from the air.


It would cost a lot more to remove carbon from the air than the benefit derived from emitting it in the first place (that's just thermodynamics).


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> It would cost a lot more to remove carbon from the air than the benefit derived from emitting it in the first place (that's just thermodynamics).


I am sorry, but as a physicist, I can tell you the above statement is false. There is no law like that, nor is it anywhere near truth. You are are confusing it with something or other.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> So, should we eliminate government red tape on the use of dioxins? After all, those regulations might be costing Canadians literally dozens of dollars per year each.


What? You obviously trace some kind of analogy between release of canceroginic substances impacting Canadians with CO2. Beats me.


----------



## houska

Sigh. I don't usually weigh in to political arguments, but I think all of us share a responsibility to occasionally speak up.

The link between human activity and temperature change is very credibly established by multiple strands of scientific research. Does that mean it's "100% proven"? Probably not (though that depends on what "proven" means). It does mean it is a well-established, robust theory with vastly more evidence behind it than the claim "no, human activity is not meaningfully contributing to climate change". Furthermore, when we deal with major societal risk factors, we need to mitigate them when we feel they are _reasonably likely_ not once we are "100% certain" they _will_ happen. Why do we spend lots of societal money putting up fences and barriers where someone _could_ get hurt (but probably won't) but resist spending societal money to reduce carbon emissions since it isn't proven to every crackpot's satisfaction that we're 100% scr**ed if we don't?

It will be interesting to see to what extent fairly low carbon taxes on fossil fuels, such as those starting in Ontario, nudge reduction in fossil fuel demand. Certainly when oil was 2x its current price, people drove a bit less, invested in more fuel-efficient cars and better home insulation, turned down the thermostat a bit; airlines replaces fuel-guzzling planes with more fuel-efficient ones, etc. When energy prices retreated, people did less of that. But I heard from an economist with a good reputation last week that many think the carbon tax will need to be tripled from the upcoming levels to make a real difference. We shall see.

In the meanwhile, we survived with $100+ oil. We can survive taxing oil from $50 to $60 or $75 or whatever. And I prefer a chunk of that going into _my_ government's general revenues than the $$$ we were paying into OPEC countries' slush funds a few years ago.


----------



## Davis

The 97% figure is valid, but it is applied too broadly. It refers to a sample of active climate scientists, not the broader scientific community. There have been other studies, including by the US National Academy of Science, that support the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of climate science experts believe that humans are causing climate change.

"The study found roughly 90 percent of the climate researchers were convinced that rising temperatures are being caused by human activity, while 10 percent were not convinced. But the more expertise the researchers had, the greater their consensus."
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...yer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/


----------



## Davis

And it is supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Medical Association. Here is a list of 200 scientific organizations outside of the US that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action: https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Amazingly, they will probably be called "sheep", or "stupid" or "conspirators," by people with no scientific education beyond dissecting frogs in high school.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> The 97% figure is valid


No matter how many times you repeat a lie, that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Davis

The 97% figure had been taken out of context by many people (maybe even me in earlier comments), but it is not a lie. Here is my source. NASA is a well respected scientific organization. They put a man on the moon, and Forbes magazine did not. 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." 
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


----------



## bass player

Yes, it's a lie. Take a look at how 97% was determined:

"After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.

The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the “myth-busting” website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

*From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.**

http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html


----------



## Davis

So 97% of the peer-reviewed climate science papers sampled that took a position that endorsed anthropogenic climate change. You only get to call it a lie if you misrepresent what the study concluded, which admittedly, many people do. But the 97% figure is not a lie. And other studies, like the NAS study, have found similar results: ""The study found roughly 90 percent of the climate researchers were convinced that rising temperatures are being caused by human activity, while 10 percent were not convinced. But the more expertise the researchers had, the greater their consensus." And the fact that every US national and international science organization has endorsed it supports the consensus argument.


----------



## mordko

There are no reputable scientists claiming that global warming does not exist. It's like the Theory of Relativity; people who argue against are just ignorant. Specific forecasts, the roles of various factors, consequences and ways to mitigate it - all those issues are up for discussion.


----------



## Davis

If you re-read my post above, you will see the evidence that there is a consensus amongst climate scientists, supported by a wide range of scientific organizations across all disciplines, that rising temperatures are caused by human activity.


----------



## mordko

houska said:


> Sigh. I don't usually weigh in to political arguments, but I think all of us share a responsibility to occasionally speak up.
> 
> The link between human activity and temperature change is very credibly established by multiple strands of scientific research. Does that mean it's "100% proven"? Probably not (though that depends on what "proven" means). It does mean it is a well-established, robust theory with vastly more evidence behind it than the claim "no, human activity is not meaningfully contributing to climate change". Furthermore, when we deal with major societal risk factors, we need to mitigate them when we feel they are _reasonably likely_ not once we are "100% certain" they _will_ happen. Why do we spend lots of societal money putting up fences and barriers where someone _could_ get hurt (but probably won't) but resist spending societal money to reduce carbon emissions since it isn't proven to every crackpot's satisfaction that we're 100% scr**ed if we don't?
> 
> It will be interesting to see to what extent fairly low carbon taxes on fossil fuels, such as those starting in Ontario, nudge reduction in fossil fuel demand. Certainly when oil was 2x its current price, people drove a bit less, invested in more fuel-efficient cars and better home insulation, turned down the thermostat a bit; airlines replaces fuel-guzzling planes with more fuel-efficient ones, etc. When energy prices retreated, people did less of that. But I heard from an economist with a good reputation last week that many think the carbon tax will need to be tripled from the upcoming levels to make a real difference. We shall see.
> 
> In the meanwhile, we survived with $100+ oil. We can survive taxing oil from $50 to $60 or $75 or whatever. And I prefer a chunk of that going into _my_ government's general revenues than the $$$ we were paying into OPEC countries' slush funds a few years ago.


All valid points, except for conclusion. First of all, worldwide economy didn't do all that well when the prices were $100+. Canada was, of course, benefiting by selling expensive oil to the US, but the effect of this additional taxation is going to be very different for obvious reasons - US production won't be subject to the same burdens. Secondly (and crucially), at issue is price differential between energy costs in Canada and in the US. 

When companies decide where to set up shop, it becomes part of the equation. At the time when the US is about to slash taxes and regulations, Canada is introducing EXTRA costs. This will have a devastating effect, which we are already observing in Ontario.


----------



## houska

mordko said:


> All valid points, except for conclusion. First of all, worldwide economy didn't do all that well when the prices were $100+.


Didn't do too badly either. Basically, some parts of the economy do well in a low-oil regime, others in a high-oil regime. Overall, the economy sputters along OK with a wide range of energy costs. The question becomes who do you want pocketing "rent" for energy access - all of us of course would love to say "me!", but that's unrealistic. From the other candidates, the government is far from the worst choice.



mordko said:


> Secondly (and crucially), at issue is price differential between energy costs in Canada and in the US.
> When companies decide where to set up shop, it becomes part of the equation. At the time when the US is about to slash taxes and regulations, Canada is introducing EXTRA costs. This will have a devastating effect, which we are already observing in Ontario.


The first part is true, but again highly situation dependent. In some sectors, for instance aluminum smelting, the rank order in the global cost curve switches around significantly based on differences in carbon regulation (I modeled this about a dozen years ago - the specifics will have changed since the situation, including prospective regulation then, were quite different - but the message likely the same). In other sectors, it would take many multiples of the change the Ontario Government or the Trudeau Government (minimums) are proposing to make a difference. I hope and trust someone has done reasonable calculations with current data just as they were being done years ago. But it's far from a clear conclusion that it would in the macro sense have a "devastating" conclusion, even though those who *are* affected of course benefit from making such comprehensive claims very loudly.

There are of course many factors that affect manufacturing and/or service-providing costs in the U.S. and Canada. Of course, if U.S. will slash taxes and regulations, there will be pressure on Canada to follow suit. Maybe - maybe not - quality of life differences will play a role. In my admittedly small and "elitist" network of acquaintances, there continues to be higher interest in migration from the U.S. to Canada and I know of two (smallish) companies considering moving their R&D to Canada. Of course, this is not representative, but I am skeptical of claims that it's clear there will be a horrific net effect. I suspect net-net it will be a great big "meh!", though that prediction is as robust (i.e. not at all) as someone saying "the sky is falling".

In conversations about these types of topics, I find there is a lot of bias confirmation going on. Business deregulation and low-taxation proponents are reading, adopting, and presenting as gospel truth narratives supporting that emotionally-driven conclusions. Environmentally-minded and social-justice proponents quote and requote narratives supporting their own biases. While the climate science is itself fairly clear-cut (on the high level at least) the economics much less so and we need to admit we just don't know.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> I am sorry, but as a physicist, I can tell you the above statement is false. There is no law like that, nor is it anywhere near truth. You are are confusing it with something or other.


It takes more energy to bind the carbon emitted than was released by burning it in the first place.


----------



## bass player

Has anyone calculated exactly how much warming will be prevented by a carbon tax?


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> What? You obviously trace some kind of analogy between release of canceroginic substances impacting Canadians with CO2. Beats me.


Replace dioxin with any other pollutant that is currently regulated. Use CFCs if you want something less obvious. There are countries that still use CFCs, so why are Canadians behaving like chumps by not using these superior refrigerants.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> It takes more energy to bind the carbon emitted than was released by burning it in the first place.


True statement. Because emitting carbon by oxidation actually generates thermal energy, that's the whole point. In fact, doing nothing also "takes" more energy than oxidizing carbon. So?


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Replace dioxin with any other pollutant that is currently regulated. Use CFCs if you want something less obvious. There are countries that still use CFCs, so why are Canadians behaving like chumps by not using these superior refrigerants.


CFC analogy works. Guess what - US replaced CFCs too.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Has anyone calculated exactly how much warming will be prevented by a carbon tax?


Climate change will only be slowed if all countries control/reduce their GHG emissions. That means that the industrialized counties that have contributed the most to the problem not so far, including Canada, have to lead, so that we can make a credible case to the industry counties like India and China. The industrializing countries can reasonably say, "You got us into this mess, how can you ask us to do anything about it if you refuse to? Why should we ask us to moderate growth or if you won't change their behaviour?"

Those who oppose taking market-based actions like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax never seem to come up with alternatives beyond technologies that have not been developed yet or those that are too expensive to implement.


----------



## bass player

China and India won't listen to Ontario...or even Canada. In fact, China has already stated that they will continue to build coal plants until 2030, at which point they think they'll have enough to meet their needs. In other words...they plan to do absolutely nothing.

The only thing a carbon tax will do in Canada is punish poor people and hurt industry by making us less competitive. It will do nothing to "save" the planet.


----------



## Davis

I don't agree with your opinion. China is well aware of its pollution problem, and India knows that its coastal regions are at risk. But they will only listen if industrialized counties act together. 

And I don't agree with saying that the world is going to hell in a handbasket so we might as well continue being a part of the problem. Future generations deserve better from us than cynical self-interest and callous disregard for the impacts of our actions.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Future generations deserve better from us than cynical self-interest and callous disregard for the impacts of our actions.


On that we agree. However, your concern is on unproven damaging warming. My concern is the damage to future generations from uncontrollable debt and a punishing tax.


----------



## mordko

Technologies for carbon dioxide removal exist even now. As always, technology develops fast and furiously if and when the actual need arises. Government efforts, on the other hand, are invariably counterproductive. Biofuels is a good example - generates way more greenhouse gas than gas burning. UN incentives actually ended up inducing China to release more CFCs into atmosphere. 

Regardless, Canada emits 2 percent of carbon dioxide and killing our industry while US does nothing is insane.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Climate change will only be slowed if all countries control/reduce their GHG emissions. That means that the industrialized counties that have contributed the most to the problem not so far, including Canada, have to lead, so that we can make a credible case to the industry counties like India and China. The industrializing countries can reasonably say, "You got us into this mess, how can you ask us to do anything about it if you refuse to? Why should we ask us to moderate growth or if you won't change their behaviour?"
> 
> Those who oppose taking market-based actions like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax never seem to come up with alternatives beyond technologies that have not been developed yet or those that are too expensive to implement.


I will grade you an A+ for Political Correctness with this tripe you just wrote-but why are you ignoring transgender issues?


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> On that we agree. However, your concern is on unproven damaging warming. My concern is the damage to future generations from uncontrollable debt and a punishing tax.


well, yeah, I do think we should acting on the advice of the broad consensus of climate scientists -- who probably know them most about climate science, instead of on the advice oil companies and right-wing journalists. The tobacco companies used the same arguments: you haven't proven that smoking is bad for you, so we'll just continue marketing cigarettes to children. When the Heartland Institute lost the battle on tobacco, it switched to fighting the science of climate change. "It's not proven yet!" Even those most experts agree that the evidence is more than sufficiently strong to warrant taking action now before we do more damage.


----------



## bass player

Give it up Davis. There is no evidence. It is a fact that tornadoes are down, and the US has gone the longest time in recorded history without a major hurricane making landfall. Sea levels continue to rise at the same rate they have been for the last several hundred years.

Trotting out the smoking analogy is a standard tactic for those who don't have actual proof. If there was proof, we'd have heard of it by now.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> well, yeah, I do think we should acting on the advice of the broad consensus of climate scientists -- who probably know them most about climate science, instead of on the advice oil companies and right-wing journalists. The tobacco companies used the same arguments: you haven't proven that smoking is bad for you, so we'll just continue marketing cigarettes to children. When the Heartland Institute lost the battle on tobacco, it switched to fighting the science of climate change. "It's not proven yet!" Even those most experts agree that the evidence is more than sufficiently strong to warrant taking action now before we do more damage.


Child: "We" (China) is not going to stop pumping out CO2 so give it a rest.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Give it up Davis. There is no evidence. It is a fact that tornadoes are down, and the US has gone the longest time in recorded history without a major hurricane making landfall. Sea levels continue to rise at the same rate they have been for the last several hundred years.
> 
> Trotting out the smoking analogy is a standard tactic for those who don't have actual proof. If there was proof, we'd have heard of it by now.


It doesn't matter whether I give it up or not, science isn't giving it up. You can ignore science all you want, but science is what is happening to the world. You can say "I'm right" all you want, and you can say that you know better that the world's major scientific organizations, but like me, you're some anonymous guy on the internet. 

Don't expect anyone else to buy your delusion that you know better than the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, NASA, the NOAA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, and 200 other of the world's major scientific organizations. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2005/global-response-climate-change/

If you ignore them, you're just blocking out anything that disagrees with your prejudice.


The "there is not proof" argument is standard for those, like the tobacco and oil industries, to use so they can delay any government or consumer action, and continue to make money from poisoning people and/or the planet.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> It doesn't matter whether I give it up or not, science isn't giving it up. You can ignore science all you want, but science is what is happening to the world. You can say "I'm right" all you want, and you can say that you know better that the world's major scientific organizations, but like me, you're some anonymous guy on the internet.
> 
> Don't expect anyone else to buy your delusion that you know better than the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, NASA, the NOAA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, and 200 other of the world's major scientific organizations. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2005/global-response-climate-change/
> 
> If you ignore them, you're just blocking out anything that disagrees with your prejudice.
> 
> 
> The "there is not proof" argument is standard for those, like the tobacco and oil industries, to use so they can delay any government or consumer action, and continue to make money from poisoning people and/or the planet.


Sheep: Your argument is termed Appealing to Authority-you are totally ignorant on this subject and unwilling to learn anything so you point at the "Experts" and say that proves everything. The history of science shows your infallible "Experts" are wrong and/or corrupted often.


----------



## Davis

Nelley, you're the one who keeps bleating on about sheep. I present scientific evidence through links to credible scientific sources that I have read. You should read what the scientists say about it instead of getting my non-scientist's interpretation. All we get from you is cheap, repeated insults and conspiracy theories. You're not even putting up arguments.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Nelley, you're the one who keeps bleating on about sheep. I present scientific evidence through links to credible scientific sources that I have read. You should read what the scientists say about it instead of getting my non-scientist's interpretation. All we get from you is cheap, repeated insults and conspiracy theories. You're not even putting up arguments.


Everybody knows that the MSM is pushing this climate change agenda-we don't need you to tell us that-do you have any opinions, even a single one, that aren't simply a parroting of the MSM line-why not tell us that one-if it exists.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Don't expect anyone else to buy your delusion that you know better than the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, NASA, the NOAA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, and 200 other of the world's major scientific organizations. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2005/global-response-climate-change/


All those groups are funded by the government, which only funds one side of the "debate", and that funding has added up to the hundreds of billions over the years.

Only when and if the government decides to fund both sides and allow a true debate, can we be sure there is no hidden agenda. However, since the government only funds one side, then says the debate is over, and then wants to raise taxes to fix something they won't allow people to debate, then people have the right to be skeptical.


----------



## Davis

Do have evidence to support your claim that the more than 200 scientific organizations are funded by the governments in their respective countries? I don't think that's true at all. Please provide your evidence. Thanks.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Do have evidence to support your claim that the more than 200 scientific organizations are funded by the governments in their respective countries? I don't think that's true at all. Please provide your evidence. Thanks.


Who else funds scientific organizations? Big Oil? Lol...


----------



## Davis

So, no, you have no evidence. Just checking.

Once you dismisd all scientists who disagree with you as being part of a vast, global conspiracy of all the world's governments, with no evidence for this claim, there's really not point in debating any longer. 

I'd be curious to know who is behind this conspiracy - the Pope? The Illuminati? Elvis? Aliens?


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> So, no, you have no evidence. Just checking.
> 
> Once you dismisd all scientists who disagree with you as being part of a vast, global conspiracy of all the world's governments, with no evidence for this claim, there's really not point in debating any longer.
> 
> I'd be curious to know who is behind this conspiracy - the Pope? The Illuminati? Elvis? Aliens?


No...it's not a vast global conspiracy. It's very simple...the government has decided, for whatever reason, that human related warming is an issue, and therefore, only funds scientists who also believe in human induced warming. There are no government studies to determine IF there is warming...only studies to show the impact of human related warming.

Anyone who is skeptical doesn't get funding. In addition, anyone who is skeptical is viciously attacked by the media, the government, and the alarmists. Therefore, the majority of scientist who are skeptical have learned to keep their mouth shut.


----------



## Davis

Again, do you have any evidence to support these wildly alarmist claims about governments of the world deciding to coerce scientists for their own ends, and the claim that scientists around the world are chucking away their professional integrity in the pursuit of filthy luchre? That is a vicious and unsupported attack on scientists and on governments.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Again, do you have any evidence to support these wildly alarmist claims about governments of the world deciding to coerce scientists for their own ends, and the claim that scientists around the world are chucking away their professional integrity in the pursuit of filthy luchre? That is a vicious and unsupported attack on scientists and on governments.


That's not what I said and you know it.


----------



## Davis

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an independent organization in the US. It does not get funding from government or corporations. http://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding.html

And it supports the case from anthropogenic climate change and the need to do something about it. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Skeptical Science is an international organisation that relies exclusively on PayPal donations, and gets no government funding. https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

And it supports the case from anthropogenic climate change and the need to do something about it. https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


----------



## Davis

Do you have any evidence to support your wildly alarmist claims that the world's governments have decided, for whatever reason, that human related warming is an issue, and only funds scientists who also believe in human induced warming?

Do you have any evidence to support your vicious attack on the world's governments when you claim that there are no government studies to determine if there is warming, only studies to show the impact of human related warming?

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the majority of scientists who are skeptical have learned to keep their mouth shut?


----------



## sags

If the government spends the carbon tax revenue on individual energy initiatives, which is the future of energy........every rooftop, every yard, every home and building self sufficient, it will be a good thing.

They can do this through grants to building owners.

If the government collects carbon taxes and fails to fund research and initiatives in alternative energy, it will be a failed policy.


----------



## bass player

Skeptical Science is a known alarmist website and anything they say should be read with an understanding of their agenda.


----------



## Davis

Every site has an agenda. Can you provide any evidence to support your wildly alarmist claims about and vicious attacks on the world's governments and scientific associations?


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Every site has an agenda. Can you provide any evidence to support your wildly alarmist claims about and vicious attacks on the world's governments and scientific associations?


What vicious attacks? I simply stated that the government only funds man-made warming studies and programs. They don't fund studies that investigate other factors in warming and they don't fund skeptical scientists.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> So, no, you have no evidence. Just checking.
> 
> Once you dismisd all scientists who disagree with you as being part of a vast, global conspiracy of all the world's governments, with no evidence for this claim, there's really not point in debating any longer.
> 
> I'd be curious to know who is behind this conspiracy - the Pope? The Illuminati? Elvis? Aliens?


I am surprised you would even ask such a question-obviously it is PUTIN-the entire universe and everything in it is controlled by Vlad-just ask the braindead sheep.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> What vicious attacks? I simply stated that the government only funds man-made warming studies and programs. They don't fund studies that investigate other factors in warming and they don't fund skeptical scientists.


And what vicious attacks have been made against scientists who question anthropogenic climate change? That's alarmist rhetoric. 

And what evidence is there that governments around the world (there is no "the government" - each of the 200 countries has its own government) only fund research that supports climate change? It is pretty vicious to claim that our governments are abusing science in order to tax us.

Here's where Nelley will accuse me of being a sheep again (yawn).


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> CFC analogy works. Guess what - US replaced CFCs too.


Guess what - the US has also committed to GHG emissions reductions.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> Technologies for carbon dioxide removal exist even now. As always, technology develops fast and furiously if and when the actual need arises. Government efforts, on the other hand, are invariably counterproductive. Biofuels is a good example - generates way more greenhouse gas than gas burning. UN incentives actually ended up inducing China to release more CFCs into atmosphere.
> 
> Regardless, Canada emits 2 percent of carbon dioxide and killing our industry while US does nothing is insane.


A carbon tax is one way of incentivizing the development of such technologies, by creating a market for carbon sequestration, where none exists today. Witness the utter failure of CCS to date.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> If the government spends the carbon tax revenue on individual energy initiatives, which is the future of energy........every rooftop, every yard, every home and building self sufficient, it will be a good thing.
> 
> They can do this through grants to building owners.
> 
> If the government collects carbon taxes and fails to fund research and initiatives in alternative energy, it will be a failed policy.


This is the wrong way to go. The revenues should be used to reduce other taxes. Subsidizing uneconomic projects is just a waste and bad for the environment.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Guess what - the US has also committed to GHG emissions reductions.


What are you trying to say? We both know CO2 emissions won't be taxed south of the border until 2021 at the very earliest. Four years is plenty to convert Canadian industrial landscape into a desert.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> A carbon tax is one way of incentivizing the development of such technologies, by creating a market for carbon sequestration, where none exists today. Witness the utter failure of CCS to date.


The main reason technology has not been applied large scale is that today there is no need for it. If there is in year 2200 or something, then technology will be developed. Government attempts to drive technological development when there is no actual commercial need end in tears. Every. Single. Time.


----------



## sags

NASA has developed all kinds of spinoff products that have been commercialized.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...t-leaps-how-nasa-rocked-our-world-879377.html

The world wide GPS system was developed by the US Department of Defense.

There are lots of examples of government funded research and products that became everyday commercial products.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> What are you trying to say? We both know CO2 emissions won't be taxed south of the border until 2021 at the very earliest. Four years is plenty to convert Canadian industrial landscape into a desert.


Do you have any evidence that a modest carbon tax would have that effect, particularly if the revenues are used to reduce other taxes? BC is not exactly a smoking ruin.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> The main reason technology has not been applied large scale is that today there is no need for it. If there is in year 2200 or something, then technology will be developed. Government attempts to drive technological development when there is no actual commercial need end in tears. Every. Single. Time.


Once warming gets going, there isn't much reason to believe that we could feasibly slow it down or reverse it. Geo-engineering is mostly just theoretical and may or may not work/be feasible, or have other deleterious effects on the environment. I'm inclined to take at least modest measures (like a modest revenue neutral carbon tax) and let that drive investments and research that will reduce the carbon intensity of the economy.


----------



## mordko

American space program is a spin-off of the Nazi V-2 program. From the Nazi point of view there was a clear and immediate need to commit resources and slave labour to the program of murdering as many British civilians as possible. Subsequently US was in a very real Cold War race to deliver nuclear charges using ballistic missiles. Again, humongous resources and best talent were committed to the objective. Since then the US space program has died, but arguably it met the objective, whatever the cost.

Nuclear power and weapons, biological weapons, lasers, jet engines... Yes, wars develop technology. 

Climate change isn't in the same league as an ongoing war.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> NASA has developed all kinds of spinoff products that have been commercialized.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...t-leaps-how-nasa-rocked-our-world-879377.html
> 
> The world wide GPS system was developed by the US Department of Defense.
> 
> There are lots of examples of government funded research and products that became everyday commercial products.


NASA and other government research is not tied to particular sources of funding. There is no NASA tax. All publicly funded primary research should be justified on its own merits, not merely a dumping ground for cash. ARPA-E is just fine as a way of funding energy research (some of the projects funded are inevitably dubious). Big difference between funding research and subsidizing uneconomic implementations of technology. That's how Ontario got itself into its current mess with the feed in tariff. Paying 80 cents per kwh for uneconomic solar installations was always going to end in tears.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Once warming gets going, there isn't much reason to believe that we could feasibly slow it down or reverse it. Geo-engineering is mostly just theoretical and may or may not work/be feasible, or have other deleterious effects on the environment. I'm inclined to take at least modest measures (like a modest revenue neutral carbon tax) and let that drive investments and research that will reduce the carbon intensity of the economy.


What's stopping you? Am I right to assume that your house is using geothermal power and the roof is covered in solar panels? And that you never ever take you children to skate or play hockey?


----------



## andrewf

Did you catch the word 'modest'? I act rationally to manage my energy consumption while living my life. I'm not suggesting Canada martyr itself. We can start by not being a laggard on the file (which we decidedly are).


----------



## mordko

Phosphorus is important for growing plants. Production of phosphogypsum is associated with very real and immediate environmental consequences; for example doses to the public far exceed those from nuclear power or reprocessing. A lot of concentrated toxic chemicals are contained within the waste rock, which invariably leaches and contaminates surface and groundwater.

In mid 90s EU introduced stringent regulation for manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. Within a year European production dropped by a factor of 4. Worldwide production also dropped significantly. 

However by late 90s worldwide production not only recovered, it exceeded mid nineties. Europe no longer produces phosphorus. Production simply shifted to N Africa and China. Europe's use of phosphorus in agriculture hasn't been reduced. The net effect for environment has been negative. 

At least environment in Europe has improved - problems have been transferred elsewhere and Europe pays the price. 

With CO2 taxation, we have 2 options:

1. It's so small that it makes no difference. Begs the question "Why?"
2. Energy sensitive industries feel the pinch. Unless we are talking mining of unique minerals, all future investment will go elsewhere.

The net effect = no change in CO2 generation, but Canadian jobs will be lost and Canadian taxpayer will get screwed yet again for no benefit at all.


----------



## carverman

mordko said:


> With CO2 taxation, we have 2 options:
> 
> 1. It's so small that it makes no difference. Begs the question "Why?"


It could become just a carbon consumption tax to fill the coffers of the Ontario gov't. The gov't is hoping that adding the extra carbon tax in itself, will reduce fossil fuel consumption of industry and consumers and thereby the lower GHG effect. 

But we have yet to see any long range plan how all this CO2 tax money collected. is going to be used to reduce GHG emissions.

Will the collected carbon tax revenue just go into a black hole, and then be used to reduce the growing Ontario deficit, or be invested in alternative forms of energy to replace carbon fuels. We all know what a fiasco the
sale of Hydro One, and the ever increasing hydro rates effect has on the general population now.

So far, Wynne is not showing any real leadership on how the tax money collected will be applied to reduce GHG. Until she does, it's just yet another consumption tax placed on Ontario consumers.



> 2. Energy sensitive industries feel the pinch. Unless we are talking mining of unique minerals, all future investment will go elsewhere.


If industry has to pay additional taxes on energy usage, they will be looking for more favourable countries to relocate their production, so that could mean some loss of jobs in Ontario.



> Under a cap-and-trade system, governments impose a strict quota, or cap, on the overall level of carbon pollution that can be generated. *The cap typically decreases each year to cut down the total emissions output from industry.*
> *Governments issue permits to companies specifying how much carbon they can burn. If a company is unable to meet its allotted target, it can buy permits from other more efficient firms.*


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/how-do-they-work-carbon-pricing-vs-cap-and-trade-1.3100294



> The net effect = no change in CO2 generation, but Canadian jobs will be lost and Canadian taxpayer will get screwed yet again for no benefit at all.


It really boils down to economics. A homeowner with a 20 year old 80% efficient furnace would either be forced to upgrade to a new (and expensive) furnace, or sell and move.
Industry, and especially the transport of goods to stores will simply raise their fuel price contracts and the 4.4cent/litre of fuel carbon tax will be passed indirectly onto the stores, which will include any delivery contract increases in their retail prices. 
The consumer will just end up paying more every year for their purchases, as the carbon taxes increase and
the allowable emissions are decreased.

Also industry that can't cut back their carbon usage, will have to buy more unused carbon emission room from other industries to stgay compliant with regulations, as their gov't monitored emissions are cut back more each year. If it costs too much to modernize the current plant, the company in question could also cease operations in Ontario and move elsewhere, if it's more profitable.


----------



## mordko

Yeah, I don't see people changing furnaces just because the runnng cost has gone up by $6. That means thousands of dollars up front. Like Andrew said, the value of climate change in itself is just too small for him to do anything except argue for higher taxes.

Plants probably won't close but when a new investment is made, companies will opt for low cost, low tax jurisdictions so they can maximize profits as is their duty. Guess what, energy won't be taxed south of the border. And Trump is promising to slash taxation on profits to well below current Canadian levels. And many states in the US don't have closed shops.

Given that Canada will be less friendly to business and the market is smaller and fractured, why would anyone invest here? Climate change taxes are not going to help.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:
 

> Climate change isn't in the same league as an ongoing war.


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists state that both nuclear war and climate change are existential threats .



> It is still 3 minutes to midnight
> 2016 Doomsday Clock Statement
> 
> To: Leaders and citizens of the world
> Re: It is still three minutes to midnight
> Date: January 26, 2016
> 
> *In the past year, the international community has
> made some positive strides in regard to humanity’s
> two most pressing existential threats, nuclear
> weapons and climate change.* In July 2015, at the
> end of nearly two years of negotiations, six world
> powers and Iran reached a
> historic agreement that limits
> the Iranian nuclear program and
> aims to prevent Tehran from
> developing nuclear weaponry.
> And in December of last year,
> nearly 200 countries agreed
> in Paris to a process by which
> they will attempt to reduce their
> emissions of carbon dioxide,
> aiming to keep the increase in world temperature
> well below 2.0 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial
> level.
> The Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate
> accord are major diplomatic achievements, but
> they constitute only small bright spots in a darker
> world situation full of potential for catastrophe.
> 
> Promising though it may be,
> the Paris climate agreement
> came toward the end of
> Earth’s warmest year on
> record, with the increase in global temperature
> over pre-industrial levels surpassing one degree
> Celsius. Voluntary pledges made in Paris to
> limit greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient
> to the task of averting drastic climate change.
> They are, at best, incremental moves toward the
> fundamental change in world energy systems that
> must occur, if climate change is to ultimately be
> arrested.
> * the diplomatic successes on Iran and in
> Paris have been offset, at least, by negative events
> in the nuclear and climate arenas, the members
> of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science
> and Security Board find the world situation to be
> highly threatening to humanity—so threatening
> that the hands of the Doomsday Clock must
> remain at three minutes to midnight, the closest
> they’ve been to catastrophe since the early days of
> above-ground hydrogen bomb testing.*


Atomic scientists--PhDs in physics and chemistry----what the hell do they know?


----------



## mordko

^ John Mecklin does not have a PhD. He is a journalist with degree in psychology.

According to earlier publications in the esteemed bulletin, life on earth as we know it should have finished decades ago.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:



> Government attempts to drive technological development when there is no actual commercial need end in tears. Every. Single. Time


The beginnings of the the internet resulted from attempts by DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ,an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military, to link computers together for research purposes.I t didn't start out as a commercial venture.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> ^ John Mecklin does not have a PhD. He is a journalist with degree in psychology.
> 
> According to earlier publications in the esteemed bulletin, life on earth as we know it should have finished decades ago.


That's your rebuttal?

Gimme a break.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> The beginnings of the the internet resulted from attempts by DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ,an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military, to link computers together for research purposes.I t didn't start out as a commercial venture.


It was indeed department of defence. Another Cold War project.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> That's your rebuttal?
> 
> Gimme a break.


Have a break. During the break ponder credibility of a bulletin which had been claiming that the world is minutes away from doomsday for well over half a century.


----------



## Davis

Mordko, even you can understand that the Doomsday Clock is not a literal thing. It is figurative. It is an expression of our proximity to extinction each year relative to other years. I do not believe that you don't understand this. 

Wraphter's point is that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which is an independent, not-for-profit organisation run by atomic scientists including 16 Nobel laureates, sees can climate change as highly threatening be to humanity. 

Saying "don't worry, every thing is fine" means rejecting the best advice we are getting from the smartest people there are, and that is a stupid, stupid thing to do, when the fate of our only planet is at risk. 

Cue the insults: those scientific geniuses are being alarmist, they are sheep, they are somehow in league with governments out to subjugate us through taxation, and cue the deafening silence when the deniers are asked for evidence to support their claims.


----------



## mordko

Davis said:


> Wraphter's point is that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which is an independent, not-for-profit organisation run by atomic scientists including 16 Nobel laureates, sees can climate change as highly threatening be to humanity.


Which Nobel laureates? There hasn't been a Nobel prize in Nuclear physics since 1983 (I know because I have a PhD in this field). The winner has been dead for over 20 years. I looked through the names on the bulletin. The guy who wrote it is a psychologist and a journalist. Most of the rest appear to be government officials, politicians, managers, Obama appointees.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Mordko, even you can understand that the Doomsday Clock is not a literal thing. It is figurative. It is an expression of our proximity to extinction each year relative to other years. I do not believe that you don't understand this.
> 
> Wraphter's point is that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which is an independent, not-for-profit organisation run by atomic scientists including 16 Nobel laureates, sees can climate change as highly threatening be to humanity.
> 
> Saying "don't worry, every thing is fine" means rejecting the best advice we are getting from the smartest people there are, and that is a stupid, stupid thing to do, when the fate of our only planet is at risk.
> 
> Cue the insults: those scientific geniuses are being alarmist, they are sheep, they are somehow in league with governments out to subjugate us through taxation, and cue the deafening silence when the deniers are asked for evidence to support their claims.


YUP-that is what the braindead sheep are told-as you said-"the fate of our only planet is at risk from climate change"-NEWSFLASH-even if the most ridiculous alarmist projections somehow came true on this one, the fate of new Orleans or Miami Beach would be at risk-the planet Earth doesn't have a problem with CO2 levels.


----------



## Davis

The Bulletin is published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, not by the guy who wrote the article.

The Bulletin's Board of Sponsors is consulted on the determination of the position of the Clock. http://thebulletin.org/board-sponsors-0 

I count ten physics laureates, five chemistry laureates, and one medicine laureate. I wonder if there are any science Nobel laureates who question anthropogenic climate change. Even one?

And hysterical crackpots in this forum accuse the brightest scientists in the world of being "alarmist".


----------



## mordko

Most definitely. Nobel Prize in physics. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's an interesting perspective https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4gyCUHiRj4

Who is on the board is not all that relevant. A bunch of people get government money for doing nothing.


----------



## Davis

Nice, you just dissed the professional integrity of 16 Nobel laureate in one go, without any basis. I think that defines "closedmindedness".

Can you provide evidence that the BAS receives government funds? Or that the memes of the Board of Sponsors are paid? Or are you just making assumptions that fit your prejudices?

According to the BAS 2015 annual report, its revenue is earned from subscriptions, or redefined through grants or donations. Only two governments appear in the list of dozens of contributors: Norway and Alberta, so calling it "government money" simply isn't supported by evidence. 

Sorry to keep flinging things like facts and evidence at your prejudices. I'm not a pure scientist, just an economist, but we draw conclusions after doing research and gathering information from reliable sources.


----------



## mordko

Here is the opposite point of view by Steven Weinberg. He makes good points, using the precautionary principle(which I am not a fan of). The specific suggestion he is making is to tax gas at petrol stations and treat SUVs using a more stringent standard. I would support both ideas. 

Note how he is not saying the world will definitively end tomorrow and not promoting measures that would damage economy in his country.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmtrRniZqw


----------



## mordko

Davis said:


> Nice, you just dissed the professional integrity of 16 Nobel laureate in one go, without any basis. I think that defines "closedmindedness".
> 
> Can you provide evidence that the BAS receives government funds? Or that the memes of the Board of Sponsors are paid? Or are you just making assumptions that fit your prejudices?


I am not dissing anything. I am merely pointing out that the text referenced by W. was written by a psychologist and that when "sponsors" lend their name to an organization, they usually do it in exchange for $s. At least that's the case with all board members of similar organizations that I know. Sometimes it's not $s but connections or some other perks.


----------



## Davis

No-one outside of the Biblical prophesy people and the guy who yells at my street corner at 3:00 in the morning are saying that the world will end tomorrow or even soon. The BAS does not say that, as you well know. 

Putting a price on CO2, through a carbon tax, cap-and-trade mechanisms, or a combination of the two, is the most efficient way of getting consumers and industry to change their behaviour. They work best if they are phased in over time to give consumers and industry time to adjust. (I won't replace my car every year, but if I know that the tax is being passed on over five years, it will affect my next purchasing decision.)

Both industry and consumers create CO2, so both have to be part of the solution. 

Differentiating fuel tax on the basis of vehicles sounds like a good idea, but doesn't work at the administrative level: when I fill up at the self-serve and pay at the pump, no-one knows what vehicle i'm driving. You don't want to implement a tax that forces retailers to change their business model, i.e., go back to full serve, and then require gas jockeys to be responsible for during how much tax each customer pays.


----------



## sags

It is amusing to listen to how Canada is threatened by Trump's plan to slash taxes while spending a Trillion dollars.

Trump has always loved debt and he will put the US up to their eyeballs in it, if he implements his agenda.

Companies are moving to the US because commercial energy prices are subsidized by the States to attract business.

Canada could attract lots of business here as well, if we wanted to pay them to come.

All in favor of paying corporations to come to Canada....... say aye.


----------



## mordko

Davis said:


> No-one outside of the Biblical prophesy people and the guy who yells at my street corner at 3:00 in the morning are saying that the world will end tomorrow or even soon. The BAS does not say that, as you well know.


The text quoted above by W. talks about "doomsday", "3 minutes to midnight" followed by political drivel. Al Gores Nobel Prize winning documentary stated that a "planetary emergency" and "doomsday" were going to happen within 10 years. That was more than 10 years ago.


----------



## mordko

With regards to taxing fuel, you obviously didn't listen to the proposal you are criticizing. He is suggesting to tax fuel, regardless of vehicle. He is also suggesting that SUVs no longer receive preferential treatment from regulators, as they do today, it's nothing to do with taxes on fuel. 

Taxing industry based on carbon seems wrong in general, but downright criminally stupid if done in a single small country while the largest emitters move in the opposite direction.


----------



## Davis

mordko said:


> The text quoted above by W. talks about "doomsday", "3 minutes to midnight" followed by political drivel. Al Gores Nobel Prize winning documentary stated that a "planetary emergency" and "doomsday" were going to happen within 10 years. That was more than 10 years ago.


I've already explained the Doomsday Clock and no-one would take that "3 minutes to midnight" as being literal. Why are you pretending to be obtuse? We are already seeing the effects of climate change globally. It is well documented.



mordko said:


> With regards to taxing fuel, you obviously didn't listen to the proposal you are criticizing. He is suggesting to tax fuel, regardless of vehicle. He is also suggesting that SUVs no longer receive preferential treatment from regulators, as they do today, it's nothing to do with taxes on fuel.
> 
> Taxing industry based on carbon seems wrong in general, but downright criminally stupid if done in a single small country while the largest emitters move in the opposite direction.


I watched the video, and he did not recommend taxing SUVs differently at the pump. I misread your summary of what he was saying and thought that you were advocating that. 

Corporations make location decisions for a wide range of reasons -- proximity to raw materials, proximity to markets, transportation networks, availability of an educated or skilled workforce, access to free trade areas, political stability, taxation. This article on locations decisions for manufacturing facilities doesn't even list taxation in its six factors. https://www.managementstudyguide.com/facility-location.htm#

If taxation were the only factor in location decisions, all the jobs would have moved from high tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions already. Yet they haven't. And companies continue to decide to locate in higher tax jurisdictions because of the other factors. Having public health insurance, for example, offsets a significant part of the higher tax burden in Canada because then companies don't have to pay out so much in private insurance premiums to attract the labour they need.


----------



## mordko

I am thinking when they use words like "doomsday", talk about "minutes to midnight" like the bulletin and make demonstrably false claims like Al Gore, they are actually damaging trust in science in general. Its unfortunate. They are being dishonest because the uncertainty is not discussed in any way and the language is biblical rather than technical.

Decisions on siting are made on the basis of many reasons, all of which come down to return on investment.

Canada is a small market, even trade between provinces is complex. We have strong unions and closed shops. Our corporate taxes are much lower but that's about to change. Cost of labour could be a bit less with a weak CAD but that's uncertain going forward. Our licensing and ENvironmental Assessment process is high risk and takes forever. US has issues too, but they will cut down on regulations. Our energy is very expensive, at least in Ontario. In fact, companies our already selecting other locations. 

Why would anyone invest in Canada?


----------



## carverman

mordko said:


> Here is the opposite point of view by Steven Weinberg. He makes good points, using the precautionary principle(which I am not a fan of). The specific suggestion he is making is to tax gas at petrol stations and treat SUVs using a more stringent standard. I would support both ideas.
> 
> Note how he is not saying the world will definitively end tomorrow and not promoting measures that would damage economy in his country.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmtrRniZqw


The world as we know it will end with either all out nuclear war. or perhaps some wayward asteroid hits us like it did in the dinasaur epoch.
Certainly what Steven Weinberg is saying has merit..what we do today (reducing CO2) will certainly have an effect on our grandchildren and certainly more likely in our greatgrandchildren's generation, in 20 to 50 years time. 

CO2 does trap the suns rays and raises the average temperatures, but these are very slow changes over time.

Trudeau came back from Europe on one of his climate change junkets and decided to try to implement a national carbon tax policy, to try to get all the provinces to agree and get in on it.

Not all provinces are in agreement,because the carbon tax will just add extra cost to the daily operations of farmers and industry and consumers.

Will this carbon tax provide the incentive for me to change my 80% mid efficiency furnace (20 yrs old but working reliably), to replace it with a high tech 95% efficient furnace with an ECM at $3500-$4000 (depending on the make) with just a $250 rebatefrom the Ontario Energy board?

Not bloody likely. Even if that furnace costs me about $80 t0 $100 a year EXTRA in carbon tax, it would take 20 years and then some, to pay for itself? The extra efficiency of the newer furnace (say 15% more) is tempting but certainly not enough in real savings to just swap it out now..
...unless there is something seriously wrong with it, like a heat exchanger with cracks giving off trace amounts of carbon monoxide. 

Besides even at 95% efficiency..there is still CO2 being released into the atmosphere..maybe not as much as the older furnace but it's still producing CO2.


----------



## Davis

Educated work force. Public health insurance. Access to US, Canadian and Mexican markets (at least for now). Political stability. Proximity to massive consumer market in southern Ontario, northeastern US. Good transportation links. The knowledge sectors, in particular, have to go where the workers are. Educated workers want to live in downtown Toronto, not in Armpit, Alabama. Condo towers are shooting up because developers know they will be able to sell them. Office buildings are being built because developers know they can rent them. The doom-and-gloom about one factor in business location decisions seems to have escaped the people actually doing business.


----------



## mordko

Davis said:


> Educated work force.


Educated people can go to the US (unless it's arts). In general, engineers and doctors will do OK whatever. They are not the people who will be hurt.



Davis said:


> Public health insurance.


It's crap but OK, companies don't care as long as someone else covers most of the bills.



Davis said:


> Access to US, Canadian and Mexican markets (at least for now).


And US does not have access to the US market?



Davis said:


> Political stability.


The message from Alberta to Ontario is that we are unfriendly to business. Stable but not enticing. 



Davis said:


> Proximity to massive consumer market in southern Ontario, northeastern US. Good transportation links. The knowledge sectors, in particular, have to go where the workers are.


See above. 




Davis said:


> Educated workers want to live in downtown Toronto, not in Armpit, Alabama.


I've been to a few places in Alabama. Huntsville struck me as a town with higher concentration of educated people than Toronto. 



Davis said:


> Condo towers are shooting up because developers know they will be able to sell them. Office buildings are being built because developers know they can rent them.


They have been shooting up because of the bubble in property market. Nothing is shooting up any more, construction has slowed down dramatically.



Davis said:


> The doom-and-gloom about one factor in business location decisions seems to have escaped the people actually doing business.


There is more than one factor. Business environment is changing for the better south of the border + protectionism. At the very same time we are imposing extra burdens on the economy. As for people doing business... Which planet are you on?


----------



## Davis

Not all workers can or want to go to the US. There is no slowdown in Toronto development. Add in said before, of taxation were the be-all and end-all, all the jobs would have left already. They haven't because business location decisions are not that simple. Businesses deciding between Ontario and the US will make much more complex and sophisticated business decisions. I'm on the planet where things can't be simplified down to absolutes like "why would anyone invest in Ontario?" 

I'm not saying increased taxation won't affect business decisions, just that Canada has prospered despite higher tax rates for a long time. This isn't going to end our growth.

Happy new year to you, Mordko, and to all other CMFers.


----------



## mordko

1. Housing construction starts are going down in Ontario: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3169032

2. Companies are already investing elsewhere. On the other hand, Alabama and other low-tax, business-friendly jurisdictions are doing well. 

Things are about to get much worse as Liberals are deliberately punishing the industry at the time we need all the help we can get.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> Yeah, I don't see people changing furnaces just because the runnng cost has gone up by $6. That means thousands of dollars up front. Like Andrew said, the value of climate change in itself is just too small for him to do anything except argue for higher taxes.


I said nothing of the sort. Mordko, you don't need to stoop to misquoting people. People won't prematurely replace equipment, but when they are making decisions about the types of furnace or car they buy, they will place a greater emphasis on efficiency.


----------



## Davis

Every tax increase on business has been greeted with threats of losing investment and jobs, of businesses moving away. Yet Canada continues to grow. Of course it will affect some business decisions, but tax increases on businesses have not destroyed our economy ever before. You need more than simplistic "tax increases are bad" arguments to convince anyone that this is somehow the straw that will break the camel's back. Canada is not teetering.


----------



## andrewf

Mordko, do you care to address how BC, which implemented a carbon tax eight years ago, has not collapsed into an economic ruin?


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> You need more than simplistic "tax increases are bad" arguments to convince anyone that this is somehow the straw that will break the camel's back.


We need more than the simplistic "We need to raise taxes on the rich/1%/corporations" as if that is the magic potion that will make everything better.


----------



## steve41

andrewf said:


> Mordko, do you care to address how BC, which implemented a carbon tax eight years ago, has not collapsed into an economic ruin?


Uh..... perhaps it is its geography. Many high mountains, resevoirs (natural and fabricated) and situated in the wet, west coast marine flow which drops rain and snow year round. Our electrical grid is virtually 100% hydro.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Mordko, do you care to address how BC, which implemented a carbon tax eight years ago, has not collapsed into an economic ruin?


So, any tax that doesn't cripple an economy is "good", even if it's a bad tax to begin with??


----------



## Davis

That it is a "bad tax" is your opinion. Many people disagree, as is evidenced by this discussion. THe Clean Economy Alliance is a group of nearly 100 organizations representing a broad cross-section of Ontarians that support Ontario in showing leadership in addressing the crucial issue of climate change. http://cleaneconomyalliance.ca/#section1 Its members are listed here: http://cleaneconomyalliance.ca/members/


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> I said nothing of the sort. Mordko, you don't need to stoop to misquoting people. People won't prematurely replace equipment, but when they are making decisions about the types of furnace or car they buy, they will place a greater emphasis on efficiency.


You said you were not prepared to pay for technologies which would significantly reduce your carbon footprint (sun panels/geothermal). How about electric cars? Is that what you are driving?

I am just a little tired from all the hypocrisy. We now know Al Gore's carbon footprint is orders of magnitude higher than for an average North American. His house by itself consumes 12 times what an average US house consumes in electricity. He has a bunch of other properties SUVs, etc... George Bush, on the other hand, has an energy efficient house which consumes far less electricity than Al Gore.


----------



## mordko

steve41 said:


> Uh..... perhaps it is its geography. Many high mountains, resevoirs (natural and fabricated) and situated in the wet, west coast marine flow which drops rain and snow year round. Our electrical grid is virtually 100% hydro.


Thank you.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> You said you were not prepared to pay for technologies which would significantly reduce your carbon footprint (sun panels/geothermal). How about electric cars? Is that what you are driving?
> 
> I am just a little tired from all the hypocrisy. We now know Al Gore's carbon footprint is orders of magnitude higher than for an average North American. His house by itself consumes 12 times what an average US house consumes in electricity. He has a bunch of other properties SUVs, etc... George Bush, on the other hand, has an energy efficient house which consumes far less electricity than Al Gore.


Why do I have to be a martyr to argue for collective action? Voluntary abolition of things like CFCs and leaded gasoline were not going to get the job done.

Arguing for individual action to solve tragedy of the commons situations shows an unfamiliarity with history and economics, or a someone open to using dishonest rhetoric.


----------



## mordko

People who argue to impose their beliefs on others while not acting on their beliefs themselves have low credibility in my eyes, but I am just one person. You will get great support among the liberals.


----------



## mordko

In USSR communists were huge on equality (in terms of income, not opportunity). Population couldn't buy meat, cheese or decent jeans and shoes. Population was very equal, from professors and doctors to miners and bus conductors. Communist leaders collected western cars and shopped in special shops, which actually had goods.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> People who argue to impose their beliefs on others while not acting on their beliefs themselves have low credibility in my eyes, but I am just one person. You will get great support among the liberals.


I live in a condo, so I don't have the ability to mount anything on the exterior of the property. I also don't have enough property to install ground loops for geothermal. What else would I need to check off your endless checklist before I would have your blessing to suggest we do something about a pressing global issue?

What is your coherent argument for government force being used to curtail the use of CFCs and leaded gasoline, but not for doing anything about GHG emissions?


----------



## bass player

CO2 has little effect on temperature once 20 ppm is passed. This has been known for decades. Special interest groups and politicians choose to ignore this fact:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's why a carbon tax or any other CO2 mitigation attempts will do no good.


----------



## wraphter

How can one look around at our planet and deny the success of science? Science has transformed our lives. Look at the 
transformative effects of science upon medicine. Billions of people are alive today who would never have been born but for science. We have the sequencing of the human genome which promises further advances . 

Physicists have split the atom giving us terrible weapons and nuclear reactors. Rockets can fly to the moon and other planets.
We have the internet enabling the networking of the entire world. 

Scientists have a reputation for honesty. You can't be a liar and be a scientist.

How come they suddenly become dishonest crooks when they talk about global warming? 
Do they magically have a personality change?

Science is based on empiricism. Data is sacred. 

How come scientists are so successful in other spheres and they don't know what they are talking about when the subject is global
warming?

If you believe in medical diagnosis you should also believe the planetary doctors know what they are talking about
because they are both using the same empirical methodology.

An individual who doesn't follow doctors orders may very well be putting his or her life at risk. A society that doesn't follow the orders of the planet doctors may very well be putting humanity at risk.


----------



## Davis

Thank you, wraphter. 

Bass player continues to trash the integrity of scores of respected, accomplished scientists without providing a shred of evidence to support his hysterical claims.

On what basis does he dismiss Nobel laureates? None at all. He just sits firing cheap shots at people who, unlike him, understand climate science.


----------



## Nelley

wraphter said:


> How can one look around at our planet and deny the success of science? Science has transformed our lives. Look at the
> transformative effects of science upon medicine. Billions of people are alive today who would never have been born but for science. We have the sequencing of the human genome which promises further advances .
> 
> Physicists have split the atom giving us terrible weapons and nuclear reactors. Rockets can fly to the moon and other planets.
> We have the internet enabling the networking of the entire world.
> 
> Scientists have a reputation for honesty. You can't be a liar and be a scientist.
> 
> How come they suddenly become dishonest crooks when they talk about global warming?
> Do they magically have a personality change?
> 
> Science is based on empiricism. Data is sacred.
> 
> How come scientists are so successful in other spheres and they don't know what they are talking about when the subject is global
> warming?
> 
> If you believe in medical diagnosis you should also believe the planetary doctors know what they are talking about
> because they are both using the same empirical methodology.
> 
> An individual who doesn't follow doctors orders may very well be putting his or her life at risk. A society that doesn't follow the orders of the planet doctors may very well be putting humanity at risk.


Your rant reminds me of those posters from the 1950s (paraphrased)- "4 out of 5 Medical Doctors smoke Camels" -those are collectibles now.


----------



## Davis

Doctors were wrong about smoking so therefore scientists are wrong about everything. That makes so much sense.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Thank you, wraphter.
> 
> Bass player continues to trash the integrity of scores of respected, accomplished scientists without providing a shred of evidence to support his hysterical claims.
> 
> On what basis does he dismiss Nobel laureates? None at all. He just sits firing cheap shots at people who, unlike him, understand climate science.


There are plenty of scientists on the other side of the issue. They are either ignored or dismissed by the other side....in many cases, cheap shots are taken against them.

This is supposedly the most important issue facing mankind, yet no one is allowed to debate the issue, or discuss "adjustments" to raw data, or question the agenda of those who want to set policy. 

No one has a shred of proof that there will be dangerous warming, and no one can predict what will happen in the future.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Doctors were wrong about smoking so therefore scientists are wrong about everything. That makes so much sense.


They are just humans-you look at scientists the way some people used to look at priests-the Nazis had the top scientists on the planet-being a scientist doesn't make you a saint.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Doctors were wrong about smoking so therefore scientists are wrong about everything. That makes so much sense.


You again miss the point-the sheep are always looking to authority figures and holding them up as proof.


----------



## Davis

There is a mountain of proof that has convinced the large majority of climate scientists, the 16 Nobel laureates on the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Stephen Hawking, NASA, the NOAA, the National Science academies of every G8 Nation, Brazil, China, India, 200 other scientific organizations around the world, and you continue to failure to prove any evidence of your usual, nonsensical claim that they are choosing their professional ethics and integrity and caving into pressure. 

They have seen the evidence of dangerous warming and the human cause of it.

You have failed to provide any evidence at all to support your claim.


----------



## Davis

Nelley, thank you for providing us such a vivid illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Nelley, thank you for providing us such a vivid illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


LOL-finally you come up with a good one.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Doctors were wrong about smoking so therefore scientists are wrong about everything. That makes so much sense.


Doctors were wrong about smoking, ulcers, and cholesterol. 

Therefore, it's not out of line to think that some scientists might be wrong about the planet's future weather. After all...so far they have been wrong about the pause, that the arctic would be ice-free by 2015, the projected rate of increase in temperatures, and the increased intensity and frequency of bad weather.

They are 0 for 4...and some people want to spend hundreds of billions based on their expert opinion of what might happen next. 

Can any of the computer models they are relying so heavily on to guess the future recreate the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age? If you can't predict the past...then you certainly can't predict the future.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> What is your coherent argument for government force being used to curtail the use of CFCs and leaded gasoline, but not for doing anything about GHG emissions?


See above. Gasoline pricing does not put Canadian industry at a disadvantage vs competition. Cheap energy is crucial to having actual industry beyond services/financial/tourism. 

Now, I don't think ideological taxing is justified anyway (given that Canada emits less than 3% CO2 and it will make f-k all difference), but at least it won't hurt the little working guy while making spoiled brats feeling good about themselves.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> There are plenty of scientists on the other side of the issue. They are either ignored or dismissed by the other side....in many cases, cheap shots are taken against them.
> 
> This is supposedly the most important issue facing mankind, yet no one is allowed to debate the issue, or discuss "adjustments" to raw data, or question the agenda of those who want to set policy.


Can you provide any evidence to support your claims here?
I.e., that no-one is allowed to debate, or to question the alleged "agenda"? Or is it that the climate change sceptics have failed to win the debate because the evidence for climate change is so strong? 

No, I didn't think so. You never back up claims like these. Now Nelley will call me a sheep for not taking your word for it.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Doctors were wrong about smoking, ulcers, and cholesterol.
> 
> Therefore, it's not out of line to think that some scientists might be wrong about the planet's future weather. After all...so far they have been wrong about the pause, that the arctic would be ice-free by 2015, the projected rate of increase in temperatures, and the increased intensity and frequency of bad weather.
> 
> They are 0 for 4...and some people want to spend hundreds of billions based on their expert opinion of what might happen next.
> 
> Can any of the computer models they are relying so heavily on to guess the future recreate the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age? If you can't predict the past...then you certainly can't predict the future.


I agree that some scientists might be wrong. But scientists are right much more often than they are wrong. If they weren't, nobody would listen to them at all, and they'd be no better respected that astrologers. 

In this case, we have a huge number of sciencists have studied this issue more than any other issue of our day and come to the conclusion the anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat to humanity and that soon must be taken to slow down. And scientific societies from almost all disciplines and countries are saying, "yeah, we think they are right". And all those Nobel laureates.

But you think that you're smarter. Bully for you. 

I'll bet on all those really smart people actually doing the research. 

All you're left with is claims that you cannot substantiate about them going along with everybody else, and not speaking up, and wanting to get government grants. The fact that you believe this nonsense in the absence of evidence shows that you believe what you want to believe rather than approaching it critically.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> I agree that some scientists might be wrong. But scientists are right much more often than they are wrong. If they weren't, nobody would listen to them at all, and they'd be no better respected that astrologers.
> 
> In this case, we have a huge number of sciencists have studied this issue more than any other issue of our day and come to the conclusion the anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat to humanity and that soon must be taken to slow down. And scientific societies from almost all disciplines and countries are saying, "yeah, we think they are right". And all those Nobel laureates.
> 
> But you think that you're smarter. Bully for you.
> 
> I'll bet on all those really smart people actually doing the research.
> 
> All you're left with is claims that you cannot substantiate about them going along with everybody else, and not speaking up, and wanting to get government grants. The fact that you believe this nonsense in the absence of evidence shows that you believe what you want to believe rather than approaching it critically.


Look-you don't like being identified as a sheep but look at your post here-all you are doing is appealing to authority-Nobel prize, really smart people, blah blah blah.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Doctors were wrong about smoking, ulcers, and cholesterol.
> 
> Therefore, it's not out of line to think that some scientists might be wrong about the planet's future weather. After all...so far they have been wrong about the pause, that the arctic would be ice-free by 2015, the projected rate of increase in temperatures, and the increased intensity and frequency of bad weather.
> 
> They are 0 for 4...and some people want to spend hundreds of billions based on their expert opinion of what might happen next.
> 
> Can any of the computer models they are relying so heavily on to guess the future recreate the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age? If you can't predict the past...then you certainly can't predict the future.


They might be wrong about penicillin, better stay away from the doctor when you get your next infection, sheep!


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> See above. Gasoline pricing does not put Canadian industry at a disadvantage vs competition. Cheap energy is crucial to having actual industry beyond services/financial/tourism.
> 
> Now, I don't think ideological taxing is justified anyway (given that Canada emits less than 3% CO2 and it will make f-k all difference), but at least it won't hurt the little working guy while making spoiled brats feeling good about themselves.


There is no such thing as taxation that is not ideological. Fighting a carbon tax is how we ended up with a disastrous policy like the feed in tariff. Sensible people in the centre argue for market mechanisms. The right argues for inaction, the left argues for wasteful subsidies, and we get the economic harm without the environmental benefit.


----------



## Davis

Nelley said:


> Look-you don't like being identified as a sheep but look at your post here-all you are doing is appealing to authority-Nobel prize, really smart people, blah blah blah.


Because following the advice of smart people is always better than following the advice of stupid people.😜

But more to the point, I do not pretend to understand climate science anywhere near to the degree that climate scientists do. And neither should you. 

When I had to start a lawsuit, I hired a lawyer. When I broke my ankle, I went to a surgeon. When the computer doesn't work, I get my IT professional husband to fix it. 

I understand my limitations, and accept that other people know more than me in many areas. I don't have the conceit that I understand everything better than experts in the field. 

In each of those cases, the experts told me things I didn't want to hear: you won't get everything you're suing for, you can't walk on that foot for three months, we need an expensive new computer gizmo. 

But I don't, without any evidence, question their ethics and integrity just because I don't like the answers they are giving me.


----------



## smihaila

Now that "Cilimate Change" (previously-known "Global Warming" in a new disguise even more deceptive) is making a direct, financial impact, to each peoples' wallet, people are beginning to feel uncomfortable and realize that something is fishy about this: losses (companies' overall polution) are socialized (externalized) while their profits are privatized. Not one cent is lost by the unethical / sociopathic corporations, the population has to pick up the tab as always.

DOWN WITH THIS DECEPTION. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Global warming is a scam invented by some "clever" feudal lords who want to just live like some financial parasites, off hardworkers' work with a BOGUS TAX. Soon, there will be also a tax on the oxygen we're all breathing. And your oxygen will suddenly go low (or, equivalently, your personal "bogus tax" will go waaaaay up) if you are a USELESS EATER.

This is an abomination which should be eradicated from the face of this Earth, ASAP.


----------



## ian

Just imagine...a politician lying to the voters. Or trading on half truths

She sounds like a seasoned politician. Much like all the others.


----------



## steve41

> DOWN WITH THIS DECEPTION. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Global warming is a scam invented by some "clever" feudal lords who want to just live like some financial parasites, off hardworkers' work with a BOGUS TAX. Soon, there will be also a tax on the oxygen we're all breathing. And your oxygen will suddenly go low (or, equivalently, your personal "bogus tax" will go waaaaay up) if you are a USELESS EATER.


AGW was fabricated by the Lefties. After the cold war, socialism/communism were discredited and capitalism/democracy prevailed. The left were licking their wounds when a few bright sparks discovered that C02 and global warming seemed to be in lock step. Those nasty capitalists like Exxon Mobil and Shell were destroying the Earth and thus the scam was unleashed.


----------



## mordko

^ Its not a scam. The physics behind the theory is real. 

Unfortunately the left did jump on the bandwagon and distorted the science to the level where you can no longer recognize it for their political ends. They created a religion out of global warming. Not only does it undermine appreciation of the threat, it is further undermining trust in science as a whole.


----------



## wraphter

Global warming denial is playing Russian roulette with the planet.


----------



## bass player

wraphter said:


> Global warming denial is playing Russian roulette with the planet.


Or not.

A simple test of the accuracy of computer models would be for them to predict the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming period from weather data entered prior to those events. Yet, not one single computer model can do that.

Who are the real deniers?


----------



## bass player

"...in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role."

Link to the article, which has a link to the hundreds of peer reviewed papers that question the impact of man-made warming:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/...-climate-alarm/#sthash.UrKUfGSi.seo1bLfG.dpbs


----------



## Davis

Are you going to take the word of Pierre Gosselin? I know he has degrees in civil and mechanical engineering, but doesn't that make you a sheep? 

He is a climate change denier who has assembled a list of papers that he claims question the impact of climate change. I haven't reviewed the 500 papers to see if his analysis is accurate or wishful thinking on his part, and I'm sure you haven't either.

I'd trust the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society and the scientific academies of 80 other countries over this guy. I'm sure he's sincere, but I wouldn't active about fixing my broken ankle from my neighbour who is an accountant. 

Here is a link to a paper that establishes a "consensus of consensus surveys". 
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

The only way it makes sense to dismiss the world's great scientific organzations in favour of a sincere amateur is if there is evidence that they are throwing away their professional ethics and integrity to collude with rapacious governments. There just is no evidence of that.


----------



## Davis

steve41 said:


> AGW was fabricated by the Lefties. After the cold war, socialism/communism were discredited and capitalism/democracy prevailed. The left were licking their wounds when a few bright sparks discovered that C02 and global warming seemed to be in lock step. Those nasty capitalists like Exxon Mobil and Shell were destroying the Earth and thus the scam was unleashed.


Actually, Exxon's own scientists were telling them about climate change in the 1970s, and Exxon covered it up. Don't take my word for it, read the Scientific American article, or the Wikipedia entry that had 125 references to a wide variety of credible sources. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Are you going to take the word of Pierre Gosselin? I know he has degrees in civil and mechanical engineering, but doesn't that make you a sheep
> 
> He is a climate change denier who has assembled a list of papers that he claims question the impact of climate change. I haven't reviewed the 500 papers to see if his analysis is accurate or wishful thinking on his part, and I'm sure you haven't either.
> 
> I'd trust the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society and the scientific academies of 80 other countries over this guy. I'm sure he's sincere, but I wouldn't active about fixing my broken ankle from my neighbour who is an accountant.
> 
> Here is a link to a paper that establishes a "consensus of consensus surveys".
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
> 
> The only way it makes sense to dismiss the world's great scientific organzations in favour of a sincere amateur is if there is evidence that they are throwing away their professional ethics and integrity to collude with rapacious governments. There just is no evidence of that.


Amateur? The link had 500 peer reviewed articles written by scientists that question the warming agenda. You don't like the person who had a quote at the top of the article (he didn't write the article...not that it really matters), so you simply dismissed all 500 peer reviewed scientific reports as false.

That's pathetic and weak minded.


----------



## Davis

I am question his claim that the 500 people say what he says they are saying. You are just taking his word for it that they do. You need to be a bit more sceptical.

Gosselin seems to be the founder of the site. No info is provided on the author. Google tells me that there is a Kenneth Richard with undergraduate degrees in botany and chemistry, and in environmental engineering. And a PhD in public policy. 

So here's a smart guy, no doubt, but there is so much more evidence on the other side that the climate change sceptics dismiss as scientists toasting to government agendas without ever providing evidence to support that claim.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> I am question his claim that the 500 people say what he says they are saying. You are just taking his word for it that they do. You need to be a bit more sceptical.


Well, you could have read some of the reports linked, but you instead chose to completely dismiss 500 peer reviewed scientific articles outright because they don't fit your already made up mind.

Is that about right?


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> I am question his claim that the 500 people say what he says they are saying. You are just taking his word for it that they do. You need to be a bit more sceptical.


Logical thinking is a real challenge for the sheep. LOOK-you are convinced that C02 emissions are a major problem-CO2 emissions are not going to decline dramatically no matter what nonsense you swallow-China will continue as per usual-so according to the MSM this is a problem that cannot be fixed-so what are you babbling on about?


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Well, you could have read some of the reports linked, but you instead chose to completely dismiss 500 peer reviewed scientific articles outright because they don't fit your already made up mind.
> 
> Is that about right?


No, I opened the article, and started looking down the list of excerpts, bit you know, I don't have a background in climate science, so I'm not in a position to analyse this stuff. Or to question 80 national academies of science and 16 Nobel laureate in physics and chemistry and Stephen Hawking and think that I can understand this stuff better than they do.

It must be liberating to think that you do know enough to do that. Maybe I should send you my ankle x-rays and get your opinion so that I can go challenge my doctor.


----------



## Davis

The meme that China is doing nothing to limit growth in CO2 emissions is getting old, so I decided to do some research. 

China is doing something, but not enough:
"The most recent data show reductions in coal use in China for the third year in a row. China is on track to peak its carbon dioxide emissions between 2025 and 2030, which is an important element of its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) commitment under the Paris Agreement. However, the absence of comparable measures, or commitments, on other greenhouse gases means that total greenhouse gas emissions could continue to increase until at least 2030. Although China’s policies and actions appear set to achieve the CO2 goal in its NDC, as well as its national targets, the NDC itself is not yet ambitious enough to limit warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement's stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort than China."

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

If we throw up our hands and decide that we don't have to do anything, then we can expect China to start burning more coal again instead of less.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> No, I opened the article, and started looking down the list of excerpts, bit you know, I don't have a background in climate science, so I'm not in a position to analyse this stuff. Or to question 80 national academies of science and 16 Nobel laureate in physics and chemistry and Stephen Hawking and think that I can understand this stuff better than they do.
> 
> It must be liberating to think that you do know enough to do that. Maybe I should send you my ankle x-rays and get your opinion so that I can go challenge my doctor.


How many peer reviewed scientific articles will it take for you to even consider that the other side has a valid argument?

1,000?

10,000?


----------



## Davis

There is an argument on the other side. That doesn't mean it is right. You have to accept that extremist statements about there "being no proof" the the climate is changing, or that it is caused by human activity, or that we don't need to take action are not reasonable when so much of the scientific world believes in these things. 

Yes, there is a minority that disagrees, but the weight of research and evidence and opinion is heavily on the side of anthropogenic climate change and the need to take action.


----------



## bass player

Now you claim that the 500 peer reviewed articles from 2016 alone are now "extremist statements"...even though you have no expertise in the field and never even read one of the articles??

Lol...


----------



## steve41

He's a pure Warmista..... he drank the warmunist cool-aid. Let him be.


----------



## Davis

No, bass, I was referring to extremist statements here that claim there is no evidence of climate change.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> No, bass, I was referring to extremist statements here that claim there is no evidence of climate change.


No one is denying that the climate changes, always has, and always will. What they are skeptical about is how much of that change man is responsible for.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> ...the undisputable fact is that no one has proven that we need to reduce or stop producing CO2.





bass player said:


> That is 100% false. The alarmists keep ignoring the most important fact in this issue. That fact is that no one has proven that increased CO2 will cause irreversible harm, or will even be bad. NO ONE.





carverman said:


> * Myth:* Increased amounts of human produced carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming:
> * Fact:* For millions of years levels in carbon dioxide have shifted and changed, for various reasons. There is no proof that carbon dioxide is the cause for a slight increase in the earth's overall temperature.


Here are some examples of people here claiming that evidence doesn't exist, even though the large majority of climate scientists and 80 national academies of sciences and 16 Nobel laureate in physics and chemistry (... and on and on and on) have become convinced of it. 

You may not agree with the conclusions that all of these eminent scientists and scientific bodies have come to, but unequivocally claiming that there is no evidence only makes sense if there is some conspiracy or ulterior motive that has caused all of these scientists to take positions without the evidence to support it.

And no-one ever supplies the evidence of conspiracy or ulterior motive. They only make unsupported accusations.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Here are some examples of people here claiming that evidence doesn't exist, even though the large majority of climate scientists and 80 national academies of sciences and 16 Nobel laureate in physics and chemistry (... and on and on and on) have become convinced of it.
> 
> You may not agree with the conclusions that all of these eminent scientists and scientific bodies have come to, but unequivocally claiming that there is no evidence only makes sense if there is some conspiracy or ulterior motive that has caused all of these scientists to take positions without the evidence to support it.
> 
> And no-one ever supplies three evidence of conspiracy or ulterior motive. They only make unsupported accusations.


No ulterior motive-listen very carefully little sheep-THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY BEING MADE OFF THIS ONE-you think that motivates people? You don't have a clue.


----------



## Davis

If there is a lot of money being made from this, then it should be easy to provide evidence that scientists and scientific organzations are selling their integrity. Please share that evidence so that we may all know the truth.

Otherwise, you're just shouting and throwing around insults like the guy who is out on my street corner at 3 a.m. I don't think he's quite right, if you know what I mean. He probably types all-in-caps too.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> If there is a lot of money being made from this, then it should be easy to provide evidence that scientists and scientific organzations are selling their integrity. Please share that evidence so that we may all know the truth.
> 
> Otherwise, you're just shouting and throwing around insults like the guy who is out on my street corner at 3 a.m. I don't think he's quite right, if you know what I mean. He probably types all-in-caps too.


So you are saying I am crazy and you are stupid. Maybe.


----------



## bass player

Davis...there were 500 peer reviewed articles in released in 2016 alone that were critical of the man-made climate "consensus". You have dismissed every single one of them with no evidence to back that up.

There is no proof in the world that you will accept. An ice age could come and we'd be under a mile of ice and you would still be believing the "warmest year evah!!" lie.

Follow the money...the US government has spent hundreds of BILLIONS on climate...and every single dollar goes to those who believe in warming.


----------



## Davis

Bass, there are thousands of papers the support anthropogenic climate change. Even if we take the word of the sceptic engineer that he is representing those 500 papers correctly - and I don't - those papers have failed to convince the scientific community, and you continue to fail to produce evidence that scientists and scientific organizations have abandoned the professional ethics and integrity. 

All you've done is pointed out that there is a minority viewpoint. They doesn't mean it is right.

http://thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html 

You've provided no evidence of scientists following the money, so I'll provide the counter-evidence.
An anonymous poll of over 3100 earth scientists showed overwhelming support for anthropogenic climate change. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp It was anonymous, so they could say what they really think.


----------



## Davis

Nelley said:


> So you are saying I am crazy and you are stupid. Maybe.


I'm not saying that I am stupid. I'm just asking you to provide evidence to support your alarmist claims. It should be easy if they are true.


----------



## agent99

Lot of hot air in this thread. Not all caused by Global Warming. 

I figured out that the Cap & Trade program in Ontario will cost me $115/yr for fuel for our vehicles. Home heating (which is heat pump) will have zero affect. Not worth blowing hot air over.


----------



## hboy54

Hi:

This is such a loaded topic.

On a personal level, my usage of fossil fuels is likely in the lower quartile for all Canadians of my vintage, and likely in the low decile for my vintage and wealth. So I do not feel very bad about my lifestyle with regard to this issue.

I am not competent to understand the science of the issue first hand, so I don't even bother to try. I say this as someone with an engineering degree and being reasonably close to the top of the intelligence heap. I am sure there are great swaths of people who should keep their mouths shut on the topic, due to lack of competence, but don't.

I am inclined to think that human caused warming is real. As people say, if we don't trust the experts, then where are we? At the same time, there is science that has been true for a very long time ... until it was not, say ulcers. Also, all the science on this topic can never be as robust as calculating something like say the gravitational constant, no way, no how.

Then there are the practicalities. I absolutely agree that without an international treaty that can be enforced, Canada might as well piss on it's leg. The evaporation of the urine will do more to cool things down than what we can shave off our CO2 emissions.

Finally, there is observing what our leaders actually do as opposed to their rhetoric. Justin Trudeau feels so strongly that this is an issue worthy of great concern that he is unwilling to forgo any personal pleasures that consume great fuels. He and the family are currently on vacation in Barbados I think, was IIRC in Cuba in the fall, and last Christmas was somewhere else in the Caribbean. I wonder where Notley has been this year? Suzuki and Al Gore live in a bigger houses than I do. Unlimited shooting of fish in a barrel here.

So what I am left with is this:

I don't intend to change my behaviour any. Even if fuel is $5/litre in a few years, I will still be able to afford the expected $5000 annual cost on a projected 10,000km/year annual driving. My small sailboat fuel budget will be about $150, instead of current $30, and my chainsaw will be about $100 instead of $20.

Wealthy and powerful people like Trudeau will be able to live their lives unchanged and unencumbered from the monetary costs.

The very poor, often not owning vehicles, will be subsidized for the impact on heating fuels, electricity, and embedded fuel/CO2 in general products. Indeed this has started already, see the latest news on the poor and the Ontario electricity fiasco.

As the money has to come from somewhere, the vast glob in the middle will pay directly for their own usage, as well as the subsidies necessary elsewhere. A good bunch of this cost burden will be punted by adding to the debt.

My tax load will rise more on the income tax side due to subsidy funds needed, than the carbon tax side, due to my low relative level of consumption. Again, see Ontario electricity. I am now under $10kWh/day and just over $100/month, but the government is adjusting electricity prices downwards and expanding the provincial debt.

The outcome in terms of global warming in the long term will most likely be indistinguishable from doing nothing. I'll be long dead.

hboy54


----------



## BoringInvestor

Davis said:


> Here are some examples of people here claiming that evidence doesn't exist, even though the large majority of climate scientists and 80 national academies of sciences and 16 Nobel laureate in physics and chemistry (... and on and on and on) have become convinced of it.
> 
> You may not agree with the conclusions that all of these eminent scientists and scientific bodies have come to, but unequivocally claiming that there is no evidence only makes sense if there is some conspiracy or ulterior motive that has caused all of these scientists to take positions without the evidence to support it.
> 
> And no-one ever supplies the evidence of conspiracy or ulterior motive. They only make unsupported accusations.


Quite amazing that there are still anthropogenic climate change deniers.


----------



## bass player

BoringInvestor said:


> Quite amazing that there are still anthropogenic climate change deniers.


500 of them are scientists who wrote papers in 2016.

But, I guess every single one of them are liars?


----------



## Dilbert

I think this entire thing is ridiculous and firmly believe Wynne has sealed her fate in the next election&#55357;&#56833;

Don't forget that the cost doesn't only translate to the cost of power, gas, etc. You get directly billed for. Practically every business will be charging more for their services. The consumer will get punished even further by the compounding effect of this.

Nice to think we are likely subsidizing all the wealthy Tesla buyers....


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> 500 of them are scientists who wrote papers in 2016.
> 
> But, I guess every single one of them are liars?


I don't have the expertise to evaluate the claims, merits, and findings of these papers.
If you'd like me to acknowledge they exist - sure, your link has links to those papers.


Now, from my view I see numerous government and international organizations, representing the views of the overwhelming majority (about 97%, link) of climate scientists, saying climate change is real, and it's primarily because of the actions of humans.

Why should I deny this claim?


----------



## bass player

BoringInvestor said:


> I don't have the expertise to evaluate the claims, merits, and findings of these papers.
> If you'd like me to acknowledge they exist - sure, your link has links to those papers.
> 
> 
> Now, from my view I see numerous government and international organizations, representing the views of the overwhelming majority (about 97%, link) of climate scientists, saying climate change is real, and it's primarily because of the actions of humans.
> 
> Why should I deny this claim?


You don't have to deny...take them at their word:

Ottar Edenhofer Co-chair U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> You don't have to deny...take them at their word:
> 
> Ottar Edenhofer Co-chair U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015:
> 
> "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
> 
> Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change:
> 
> “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”


I don't follow. What do your quotes show?


----------



## wraphter

5 or 6 years ago I was a denier. Arguing online with a very knowledgeable but very obnoxious advocate of AGW and seeing the movie
Avatar produced by Canadian James Cameron (who also made Titanic) convinced me that I was wrong.

If the deniers don't believe in AGW what else don't they believe in? Most likely they don't believe in mainstream medicine.Probably
believe vaccines cause autism and the flu shot is not necessary.


----------



## sags

Here is a link to a short, interesting video on a couple living on the coast in Louisiana.

In the story, it becomes evident climate change is already affecting a lot of people.

(Note.......in the first shots in the video, note how high their home is sitting on piers. When they first built their home in 1947 it stood 5 feet off the ground. They had to raise it to 8 feet off the ground. It now sits at 15 feet off the ground. The "wilderness" that used to surround them is now under water. As they say.........the water keeps rising and the storms get stronger. )

Hundreds of millions of people live on coastlines around the world. If climate change does nothing more than continue to raise sea levels, there will be a forced migration of people such as the world has never seen before and at a cost that cannot be calculated.

One can only imagine the environmental damage of all the urban infrastructure that would be left behind under corrosive sea water.


----------



## BoringInvestor

wraphter said:


> 5 or 6 years ago I was a denier. Arguing online with a very knowledgeable but very obnoxious advocate of AGW and seeing the movie
> Avatar produced by Canadian James Cameron (who also made Titanic) convinced me that I was wrong.
> 
> If the deniers don't believe in AGW what else don't they believe in? Most likely they don't believe in mainstream medicine.Probably
> believe vaccines cause autism and the flu shot is not necessary.


Thanks for sharing your story.
Mind expanding upon how seeing Avatar helped to change your view?

Also to pry a little deeper - what were your reasons/rationale for being a denier back then?


----------



## bass player

BoringInvestor said:


> I don't follow. What do your quotes show?


What part of the quotes don't you understand?? What they said was very clear.


----------



## bass player

wraphter said:


> 5 or 6 years ago I was a denier. Arguing online with a very knowledgeable but very obnoxious advocate of AGW and seeing the movie
> Avatar produced by Canadian James Cameron (who also made Titanic) convinced me that I was wrong.
> 
> If the deniers don't believe in AGW what else don't they believe in? Most likely they don't believe in mainstream medicine.Probably
> believe vaccines cause autism and the flu shot is not necessary.


Lol. Because everyone who doesn't believe that the planet is headed for disaster must also not believe in vaccines or flu shots.

Liberal logic would be funny except for the fact that everyone gets punished by their warped thinking.


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> What part of the quotes don't you understand?? What they said was very clear.


I looked up the first quote in context, and fail to see how that addresses the science behind climate change.

Please explain.


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> Lol. Because everyone who doesn't believe that the planet is headed for disaster must also not believe in vaccines or flu shots.
> 
> Liberal logic would be funny except for the fact that everyone gets punished by their warped thinking.


"Liberal logic"? Eh?

Do you mean economic liberal, socially liberal, another type of liberal, or the views commonly expressed of a particular party with liberal in it's name - if so, which one?


----------



## bass player

BoringInvestor said:


> I looked up the first quote in context, and fail to see how that addresses the science behind climate change.
> 
> Please explain.


That's because it's really not about science...it's about the money. They specifically stated that in clear and precise terms.


----------



## Retired Peasant

This thread reminds me of a book title
I'm right and you're an idiot

In fact, it might even be about climate change.


----------



## Nelley

wraphter said:


> 5 or 6 years ago I was a denier. Arguing online with a very knowledgeable but very obnoxious advocate of AGW and seeing the movie
> Avatar produced by Canadian James Cameron (who also made Titanic) convinced me that I was wrong.
> 
> If the deniers don't believe in AGW what else don't they believe in? Most likely they don't believe in mainstream medicine.Probably
> believe vaccines cause autism and the flu shot is not necessary.


LOL-"The Deniers".


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> That's because it's really not about science...it's about the money. They specifically stated that in clear and precise terms.


To ensure I'm understanding, we're talking about the problem (climate change), the driver of the problem (humans), and the proposed solution (curbing emissions, especially in more developed countries).

I hear you don't like, or agree with, the proposed solution.

What I'd like to know your thoughts on climate change under this scenario.
Hypothetically, let's say the problem and driver remain constant (humans are altering the climate) but, the proposed 'solution' was changed to: "let's do nothing and hope for the best, and continue doing what we're doing."

Would you still consider yourself a climate change denier, or would the change to the 'solution' alter your view on the problem?


----------



## Nelley

Retired Peasant said:


> This thread reminds me of a book title
> I'm right and you're an idiot
> 
> In fact, it might even be about climate change.


On this subject, the sheep always revert to "the experts say so" and then quickly pivot to an unrelated topic (medicine, etc) as some sort of proof.


----------



## Davis

And the so-called sceptics dismiss the conclusions of the people who actually study this stuff with accusations of abandoning their integrity for grants, but refuse to provide any evidence for the accustions. "There is money, therefore they are corrupt" doesn't cut it. 

And then they fling tired old schoolyard insults in every single post. Yawn. 

The comparisons to the anti-vaxers and the "there's no proof tobacco is bad" are valid. The climate change sceptics are using the same tactics, and are sometimes, in the case of tobacco, the same organizations and people.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> And the so-called sceptics dismiss the conclusions of the people who actually study this stuff with accusations of abandoning their integrity for grants, but refuse to provide any evidence for the accustions. "There is money, therefore they are corrupt" doesn't cut it.
> 
> And then they fling tired old schoolyard insults in every single post. Yawn.
> 
> The comparisons to the anti-vaxers and the "there's no proof tobacco is bad" are valid. The climate change sceptics are using the same tactics, and are sometimes, in the case of tobacco, the same organizations and people.


You are the one using the disgusting term "denier", chosen to invoke Holocaust Denier sentiments.


----------



## bass player

BoringInvestor said:


> To ensure I'm understanding, we're talking about the problem (climate change), the driver of the problem (humans), and the proposed solution (curbing emissions, especially in more developed countries).
> 
> I hear you don't like, or agree with, the proposed solution.
> 
> What I'd like to know your thoughts on climate change under this scenario.
> Hypothetically, let's say the problem and driver remain constant (humans are altering the climate) but, the proposed 'solution' was changed to: "let's do nothing and hope for the best, and continue doing what we're doing."
> 
> Would you still consider yourself a climate change denier, or would the change to the 'solution' alter your view on the problem?


I don't think we need a "solution" to a problem that hasn't been proven to exist. Remember...the only "proof" we have are computer models that are proven to be highly inaccurate, and IPCC reports which are heavily edited by policy makers to fit their agenda.

I'm not denying that the climate changes...the question is how much of an impact mankind has on it, and if the possible impact is all "bad". The truth is that a lot of the world can use a little more warmth for longer growing seasons. Science has already established that the increased CO2 is helping to green the planet, and increased plant growth and longer growing seasons are good for everyone.


----------



## BoringInvestor

bass player said:


> I don't think we need a "solution" to a problem that hasn't been proven to exist. Remember...the only "proof" we have are computer models that are proven to be highly inaccurate, and IPCC reports which are heavily edited by policy makers to fit their agenda.
> 
> I'm not denying that the climate changes...the question is how much of an impact mankind has on it, and if the possible impact is all "bad". The truth is that a lot of the world can use a little more warmth for longer growing seasons. Science has already established that the increased CO2 is helping to green the planet, and increased plant growth and longer growing seasons are good for everyone.


If you feel the current level of proof is not sufficient, what further proof are you looking for?


----------



## Nelley

BoringInvestor said:


> If you feel the current level of proof is not sufficient, what further proof are you looking for?


Who are you-Clarence Darrow or Johnny Cochrane-if the glove does not fit you must acquit-there is ZERO proof-that is the whole point. Jeez.


----------



## Davis

There is enough proof to convince the world's most respected scientists and scientific organzations, and no evidence whatsoever to question their professional integrity and ethics. 

Warning is also leading to the loss of low-lying coastal areas where millions of people live, and it is exacerbating the desertification of arable land in regions like the Sahel where millions more people depend on subsistence farmers. 

And then there are the extreme weather events.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> There is enough proof to convince the world's most respected scientists and scientific organzations, and no evidence whatsoever to question their professional integrity and ethics.
> 
> Warning is also leading to the loss of low-lying coastal areas where millions of people live, and it is exacerbating the desertification of arable land in regions like the Sahel where millions more people depend on subsistence farmers.
> 
> And then there are the extreme weather events.


Ontario is one of the most heavily forested areas on the planet (85% forest)-Commie China should be cutting a cheque to every one of us for our help in consuming C02.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> There is enough proof to convince the world's most respected scientists and scientific organzations, and no evidence whatsoever to question their professional integrity and ethics.
> 
> Warning is also leading to the loss of low-lying coastal areas where millions of people live, and it is exacerbating the desertification of arable land in regions like the Sahel where millions more people depend on subsistence farmers.
> 
> And then there are the extreme weather events.


Extreme weather always happens and it is normal. By the way...the US has gone the longest time in recorded history without a major hurricane making landfall. Tornadoes are also down.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Extreme weather always happens and it is normal. By the way...the US has gone the longest time in recorded history without a major hurricane making landfall. Tornadoes are also down.


Sure, pick only two data points to imply that extreme weather events are not increasing. They are, according to the NOAA and the American Metrological Society: "For each of the past four years, this [2015] report has demonstrated that individual events, like temperature extremes, have often been shown to be linked to additional atmospheric greenhouse gases caused by human activities, while other extremes, such as those that are precipitation related, are less likely to be convincingly linked to human activities,”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...-severity-of-many-extreme-events-in-2014.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...pacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Sure, pick only two data points to imply that extreme weather events are not increasing. They are, according to the NOAA and the American Metrological Society: "For each of the past four years, this [2015] report has demonstrated that individual events, like temperature extremes, have often been shown to be linked to additional atmospheric greenhouse gases caused by human activities, while other extremes, such as those that are precipitation related, are less likely to be convincingly linked to human activities,”
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...-severity-of-many-extreme-events-in-2014.html
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...pacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html


Lol. The data never counts when you disagree, right?

NOAA has adjusted historic temperature data 16 times, every single time making the past cooler and/or recent times warmer. Quite the coincidence, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Davis

Why do you have different data that you can compare to? Data get revised. That is part of statistics. If you've got evidence that they are fudging the data, you absolutely must share it. It would be almost criminal not to share such evidence on such an important issue. But since your case against the scientific community rests on nothing but unsupported accusations and aspersions, I won't hold my breathe waiting for it.


----------



## sags

The North Pole was above freezing, while cold weather was much further south than normal.

Today it is mild and raining in Ontario..........in January.

Severe drought, unusual weather patterns, historic severity level storms, higher waves than previously recorded, rising sea levels, disappearing ice......are all signs of changing weather patterns due to climate change.

Some people will always demand more "proof" than there will ever be, but they aren't going to matter. 

The world opinion is that climate change is happening and human activity is a factor.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Why do you have different data that you can compare to? Data get revised. That is part of statistics. If you've got evidence that they are fudging the data, you absolutely must share it. It would be almost criminal not to share such evidence on such an important issue. But since your case against the scientific community rests on nothing but unsupported accusations and aspersions, I won't hold my breathe waiting for it.


I provided a link to the altered data previously. Why don't you go back and read it?


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> I provided a link to the altered data previously. Why don't you go back and read it?


The claim by blogger Steven Goddard (aka Tony Heller) of NASA data fudging has been completely debunked. Politifact.com rated it as "Pants on fire" —its lowest possible rating. "All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.... experts across the spectrum found fundamental flaws in its analytic methods. By relying on raw data, it ignored that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80 years. The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results. "
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...oocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/


----------



## bass player

"The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results."

Well, that settles it. Lol.


----------



## Davis

Sure. Get your medical advice from your accountant and your legal advice from your carpenter. Don't get information on climate from climate scientists - get it from an engineer "pants on fire" blogger instead. 

No proof that the data were tampered with to pursue an agenda.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Sure. Get your medical advice from your accountant and your legal advice from your carpenter. Don't get information on climate from climate scientists - get it from an engineer "pants on fire" blogger instead.
> 
> No proof that the data were tampered with to pursue an agenda.


Politifact is a known leftist site with an agenda.

NOAA still hasn't provided temperature data where they claimed the "pause" never happened to Congress even though a subpoena was issued last year.

You can't be reasoned with.


----------



## wraphter

bass player said:


> Lol. Because everyone who doesn't believe that the planet is headed for disaster must also not believe in vaccines or flu shots.
> 
> Liberal logic would be funny except for the fact that everyone gets punished by their warped thinking.


You didn't say whether you believe vaccines cause autism or whether people should get flu shots.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> Why do you have different data that you can compare to? Data get revised. That is part of statistics. If you've got evidence that they are fudging the data, you absolutely must share it. It would be almost criminal not to share such evidence on such an important issue. But since your case against the scientific community rests on nothing but unsupported accusations and aspersions, I won't hold my breathe waiting for it.


The historic hurricane drought must be Fake News.


----------



## bass player

Nelley said:


> The historic hurricane drought must be Fake News.


If you recall, they tried to call Sandy a hurricane, even though it didn't meet the accepted parameters.


----------



## Nelley

wraphter said:


> You didn't say whether you believe vaccines cause autism or whether people should get flu shots.


It is possible the injections cause widespread stupidity-just an observation.


----------



## bass player

wraphter said:


> You didn't say whether you believe vaccines cause autism or whether people should get flu shots.


Unlike liberals, I don't get my medical advice from Jenny McCarthy...


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> Politifact is a known leftist site with an agenda.
> 
> NOAA still hasn't provided temperature data where they claimed the "pause" never happened to Congress even though a subpoena was issued last year.
> 
> You can't be reasoned with.


So you don't have an objections to their analysts, but you still dismiss it. 

Two can play that game: Richard Goddard, if that's his real name, is a known climate change sceptic with an agenda to push. 

You'll believe any blogger who writes something that confirms your beliefs, but you won't believe thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers, 200 scientitic organizations, 80 national academies of science, 16 Nobel laureates or Stephen Hawking in a pear tree.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> So you don't have an objections to their analysts, but you still dismiss it.
> 
> Two can play that game: Richard Goddard, if that's his real name, is a known climate change sceptic with an agenda to push.
> 
> You'll believe any blogger who writes something that confirms your beliefs, but you won't believe thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers, 200 scientitic organizations, 80 national academies of science, 16 Nobel laureates or Stephen Hawking in a pear tree.


You forgot to mention Leonardo DiCaprio.


----------



## agent99

Davis said:


> So you don't have an objections to their analysts, but you still dismiss it.
> 
> Two can play that game: Richard Goddard, if that's his real name, is a known climate change sceptic with an agenda to push.
> 
> You'll believe any blogger who writes something that confirms your beliefs, but you won't believe thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers, 200 scientitic organizations, 80 national academies of science, 16 Nobel laureates or Stephen Hawking in a pear tree.


Davis - It is just not worthwhile trying to converse with these guys. I don't know what their agenda is, other than perhaps to ruin this otherwise useful financial forum. But i would give it up. Let them talk to each other.


----------



## Nelley

agent99 said:


> Davis - It is just not worthwhile trying to converse with these guys. I don't know what their agenda is, other than perhaps to ruin this otherwise useful financial forum. But i would give it up. Let them talk to each other.


Our job is to rattle the monkey cage and watch the chimps like yourself howl.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Playing along with the climate change cult is the in political correct thing to do.


----------



## Davis

agent99 said:


> Davis - It is just not worthwhile trying to converse with these guys. I don't know what their agenda is, other than perhaps to ruin this otherwise useful financial forum. But i would give it up. Let them talk to each other.


It does seem like they really want an echo chamber. There's precious little in the way of serious debate here. And there's not much point in arguing science with people who consider science to be a "cult".


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> It does seem like they really want an echo chamber. There's precious little in the way of serious debate here. And there's not much point in arguing science with people who consider science to be a "cult".


LOL-"Serious debate"-it is so because Steven Hawking and Mommy say so.


----------



## steve41

Nelley said:


> "Serious debate"-it is so because Steven Hawking and Mommy say so.


Well no.... there's David Suzuki and Al Gore.


----------



## Davis

Nelley said:


> LOL-"Serious debate"-it is so because Steven Hawking and Mommy say so.


How old are you?


----------



## lonewolf :)

Davis said:


> It does seem like they really want an echo chamber. There's precious little in the way of serious debate here. And there's not much point in arguing science with people who consider science to be a "cult".


 Science is good though it has to be used correctly. I have a strong commitment to reason when the other planets orbiting the sun are also warming it just makes sense to me earth should also be warming. Of course warming & cooling goes in cycles. apparently green house gasses were 9 - 10 times higher & the earth was cooler. Man has a history of being egotistical. To many are putting faith in the so called ivory tower intellects. While back herd Nancy Grace say a witness was really credible because they were a priest. Someone that preaches of talking snakes is not credible. Just like the so called scientist that are not committed to reason are not credible.


----------



## bass player

steve41 said:


> Well no.... there's David Suzuki and Al Gore.


Don't forget the government..."just give us a little more money and we'll save the planet!!"


----------



## carverman

Got my Enbridge bill today. They hid Wynne's 3.518 cents per cu meter of gas in the DELIVERY PORTION of my bill.

The other issue is that HST is being charged on the entire bill *including the 3.518cents per cu meter of carbon tax they had* added on as of January 1.

*This represents double taxation..a tax on a taX and this tax represents a $1.12 windfall for Endbridge/Wynne.* on my Dec/Jan nat gas usuage of 262 cu M. 

I complained to Enbridge first, who said they couldn't do anything about the way their bills are setup, but I could complain to the Ontario Energy Board using the file #EB-2016-0300 in the subject line and lodge my complaint.

The Ontario energy board email is; [email protected]


----------



## Synergy

^ That sounds about right. I was told by Hydro One and my propane company that the carbon tax will be hidden inside the distribution charge and propane rates. So much for transparency!


----------



## carverman

Synergy said:


> ^ That sounds about right. I was told by Hydro One and my propane company that the carbon tax will be hidden inside the distribution charge and propane rates. *So much for transparency!*


The effect of hiding this current carbon tax inside other charges (Delivery) is that it is COLLECTED FROM THE CONSUMER of natural gas and therefore subject to double taxation as I mentioned.

With the carbon tax hidden, the Wynne fiberal gov't (and future Ontario gov'ts)can go ahead and increase the carbon tax levey as they need more general revenue.... and it will still be hidden inside other charges that paid by the consumer.

At least the old Ontario Hydro debt retirement charge was shown separately to indicate how much
each electricity user had to pay. 

The OEB should be notified by all nat gas consumers that this practice of hiding additional taxes is not acceptable.

For instance, I calculated that my carbon tax on 292 M3 at 3.518 cents/M3 of nat gas used was $9.20.
Add the 13% HST on top of this carbon tax and it's another $1.20 making it an effective tax of $10.40
or 3.5616 cents per cu metre NOT 3.518. A windfall for the corrupt Wynne Liberal gov't!

Now that may seem like much to some of you out there..but if your annual consumption of natgas for heating/hot water is say...1000M3; its, another $35.18 of extra carbon tax you as a consumer have to pay now + $4.57 of extra HST
on this carbon tax..a tax upon a tax!

I'm quite positive that there will be no real effect on global warming from charging this carbon tax by the Wynne gov't. It is just another tax to pad their coffers and either waste it, or use it to pay down their
created deficit.

The nat gas suppliers are in on it as well with this cap n trade scheme and they just pass on the tax to the consumers that have no choice but to pay it.

I sent in a protest to the OEB about the double taxation I discovered on my first gas heating bill.

I expect the Wynne gov't to financially rip us off wherever and whenever they can.

This is not transparent gov't but grabbing as much tax revenue as they can now and in the future!


----------



## andrewf

I don't understand why people get so animated by "double taxation". The government needs a certain amount of revenue, and the rates are set so that they get it. Would you be happy with a carbon tax that was set a bit higher, but exempted from HST?

The other thing to keep in mind is that the carbon tax will be built into the cost of everything since every business uses energy. The services they sell are, for the most part, subject to HST.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I don't understand why people get so animated by "double taxation". The government needs a certain amount of revenue, and the rates are set so that they get it. Would you be happy with a carbon tax that was set a bit higher, but exempted from HST?
> 
> The other thing to keep in mind is that the carbon tax will be built into the cost of everything since every business uses energy. The services they sell are, for the most part, subject to HST.


I don't like double taxation. The cap n trade scheme that the Wynne gov't is using doesn't concern me. What does concern me as a pensioner on a fixed income that Wynne and her henchmen have the audacity to double tax me.

Don't bury these double or even triple taxes on commodities that consumers use. List it out in the
open on the monthly bill like the HST.


----------

