Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

" Climate policies helped put 54 million Europeans into 'energy poverty.' Canadians are next. "

Oddly, in its 2015 study, the EU ignored one major factor in energy poverty: Its own role in killing off affordable power in attempts to meet ambitious carbon dioxide reduction goals in the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Such objectives have been a staple of both EU and member-state policies’ ever since."

Canada has its own examples of how forced transitions from cheaper energy sources to costly renewables sent power prices soaring — Ontario, where power rates have doubled in the past decade, being the most notable example. If Canadian governments adopt EU-style policies, Canadians can expect an increase in home-grown energy poverty."

 

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/climate-policies-helped-put-54-million-europeans-into-energy-poverty-canadians-are-next/wcm/36b177aa-55e2-4d78-b71c-f6a5bb51c144

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lived on the Point Pelee Monarch migration route for may years now. This beautiful little creature is in big trouble; at one time millions and millions passed through on their way south, but their numbers are so low now fewer than a couple dozen were observed passing through here last fall. Insecticides and the destruction of milkweed are causal factors in their decline for certain, but I think it's the reality of their slow motion crossing of countless east / west lying roads that is the real culprit.

  

Edited by DEFCON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that taxes are not the answer to the problem, but if people continue to ignore the obvious issues, the government has little choice but to "encourage" you to comply. It is said that humans don't react to much other than pleasure or pain.

If you want to avoid paying a lot of carbon tax, reduce your carbon generation. Simple. Once enough people reduce their footprint, the government will come up with another tax to feed their spending. But in the meantime, other people are giving money to the government... not you.

The bottom line is that the government needs more money for their out-of-control spending. They are going to get it from somewhere... if not from carbon taxes, then from income taxes (which is inordinately penal to many on this board) or by selling off more assets, costing future generations even more.  Governments have used taxes to sway public action, both as deterrent and encouragement, since their inception... tobacco, alcohol, investments, education, charitable donations, and now carbon. 

Reducing your carbon footprint by investing in things that reduce your consumption (insulation, efficient cars, efficient furnaces, solar technology, managing electricity and residential temperature) will not only save you money directly on fuel and electricity every day, but will mean you don't spend as much on carbon tax and will protect you from the extreme price hikes in electricity and natural gas over the next few years.

The government is giving you the answer... if you don't want to pay the tax, you know how to avoid it.

Oh... and you won't be complicit in handing your grandchildren a problem some people would rather deny. Even if you don't fully believe the concept of greenhouse gases and climate change, there has to be at least some uncertainty in your mind. Would you put your kid or grandchild on a bus if there was some uncertainty for their safety? Why won't you make minor adjustments in your lifestyle (and encourage others to do so) to ensure that they won't have to make even bigger sacrifices, or worse, for our selfish use of the planet and its resources? I'm not talking about selling your car and moving into a straw house with candles ... enjoy the things that are important to you and control the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That doesn't really address the primary, and more important, issue of this thread."

"if people continue to ignore the obvious issues, the government has little choice but to "encourage" you to comply. It is said that humans don't react to much other than pleasure or pain."

But the primary / more important & obvious issue, 'too many humans in Country', is a situation made worse every single day by the very government that seeks to 'encourage our compliance' with an impossible ideology.

Knowing little t is using immigration policy to ensure the continuity of his Party's power, a form of Canadian gerrymandering, and not to satisfy a national labour shortage etc. should inform the taxpaying public that the entire government position on carbon is nothing but an insult to the average Canadian's pocketbook & intelligence.

Edited by DEFCON
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A propaganda manual to fill readers with alarming images and claims

Fear, adds Al Gore the great climate fear-monger, can be promulgated using three techniques: repetition, misdirection and making the irregular seem regular. “By using these narrative tools alone, anyone with a loud platform can ratchet up public anxieties and fears, distorting public discourse and reason.”

 

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-al-gore-warns-us-to-watch-out-for-manipulative-fearmongers-like-him/wcm/3c6d937b-fff2-4764-a781-c25beab8aa0b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The techniques of repitition and statement without fact is used extensively by Trudeau. Listen to his speeches and see how many times he uses the phrase " we know "  as a method of backing up his platform.

Do we really know if Canadians are willing to pay for carbon?? Has anybody asked them if they want to pay another, say $1000 into a bottomless pit??? 

Dont think so!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And back in the "Real World""⸮". Since 1881, when record keeping began, this July ranks as the fourth warmest in Calgary’s history. Only 1914, 1936 and 2007 were hotter. 

July was one of the hottest on record for Calgary

 

  • Calgary Herald
  • 2 Aug 2017
  • ALANNA SMITH

If Calgary was competing against Edmonton — and when aren’t we? — for best July weather, then we enjoyed a landslide victory.

“They didn’t have it nearly as warm,” said Environment Canada meteorologist David Phillips.

“It seemed like you were living the charmed life there in Calgary. You had it warm, it was just enough rain to keep farmers and gardeners happy, the Stampede was comfortable … and generally, nature left you alone.”

Except, of course, for our recordbreaking hot temperatures.

The average temperature in May, June and July was 15.8 C, the highest it’s been since the 1936 record of 15.7 C.

Since 1881, when record keeping began, this July ranks as the fourth warmest in Calgary’s history. Only 1914, 1936 and 2007 were hotter.

“Calgarians noticed it was very warm. No question about it, the numbers verify the fact that it was one of the warmest Julys on record,” said Phillips. “What made the month so torridly warm, so unusual from that point of view, was the very warm afternoons.”

The maximum average for afternoon temperatures was about 27 C, the minimum average for the mornings was just above 11 C and the mean temperature was 19.1 C.

All numbers surpassed the normal average for July.

Six days went above 30 degrees, far surpassing last year when there were none. The highest temperature was 33 C on July 7.

Typically in Calgary, only two days a year top 30 C in July.

“The good news is you had enough rain so it wasn’t stressed,” said Phillips.

The city ended up with just over 55 mm of rain in July, 10 mm lower than the average. The interesting part was most of the rainfall fell on a single day, July 11.

There were 24 dry days, seven wet.

Although August is usually cooler, Phillips said it’s quite likely the warm trend will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice pivot. 

Interesting that you dispute data collected by multiple independent scientific bodies, yet believe some data that was collected by a writer for National Center for Public Policy Research ( a "conservative think-tank" (is that like "military intelligence"?)  It was collected "over the phone" and not corroborated. I notice on their site, they actually say that he used "34 times the average monthly usage for american homes". Of course, they use the yearly average for the average american home and use July numbers (if they are even right) only for Gore's Tennessee house (avg July temp - 89F) to trump up the headline. 

To be frank, the numbers are so large, it is not even possible for them to be correct, IMO. So his house is about 5 times larger than an average home. They say he used 30,000 kwh in one month. Let's think about that. Let's say it was a 15 ton air conditioner. One of those uses about 16 kw. In 31 days, it would use just under 11,000 kwh if it ran continuously, 24 hours per day. A pool uses about 500 kwh per month. Allow for three , 100 w bulbs for each room. That's 4,000 kw. Run a couple of dryers continuously... another 5000. 

So, if Gore ran a 15 ton air conditioner, 60 light bulbs, a pool pump and 2 clothes dryers CONTINUOUSLY, 24 hours per day for an entire month, it wouldn't even get to 20,000 kwh. So, I call bullshit. 

Oh... and he probably drives a Tesla which might bump up the numbers a bit, but even that, added to the rest, wouldn't add up to 30,000... he would have to drive 30,000 MILES to use 10,000 kwh of electricity in a Tesla.

I wonder how much electricity Trump uses at his empty estates? 

I'm not a Gore fan but dumping numbers by Trumpers and deniers is rampant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th hottest on record.. 4th?  so by that statement alone there is no need for alarm then.  The globe is not warming it is just a fluctuation in the climate. Perhaps when we experience the warmest on record for a few years in a row we can be alarmed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe one should consider that taxes are the stick to the carrot of changing your ways.  There are still those who stick to the mantra of a big V8 truck or SUV is the best way of hauling a single person around in the city. There are still those who think incandescent light bulbs are the best, and on and on.  So maybe they need to pay the taxes for their antiquated thinking.

Same goes for business.  One only has to look at the trillions that businesses are sitting on in profits while they are still operating antiquated factories because the cost of reinvesting in new technology will take away from the CEO's bonus.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is you will  pay the tax and you children and grand children will STILL be stuck with the same issue.  A carbon tax does exactly NOTHING to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Again I will state that Canada is a NET NEGATIVE producer of Carbon.  Canada cleans more carbon from the air than we produce primarily due to our size which is mostly wilderness.  Why should we pay for the rest of the world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A parallel to that is that since you don't have cancer, you shouldn't be paying for cancer facilities in our healthcare system. After all, you are a net neutral cancer producer. Or that since people in downtown Vancouver don't have forest fires, they shouldn't be paying taxes to fight forest fires in Kamloops. Why should they pay for firefighting... they're not contributing to the problem.

Canada is a net positive producer of food. So, we should ship everything extra to net negative producers of food for free. After all you want to use our net negative carbon position as a free pass.

We have the privilege of living in a country with lots of trees (a few of which you own personally, I must assume). But you take credit for ALL of them as an excuse to add to the problem.

If you want to break it down to net carbon for trees, you should only take credit for those that you own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO... Those things are all something that you pay for and the money actually goes towards.  It is something that is actually done.  A Carbon Tax does nothing to curb the production of Carbon.  if that were the case I would gladly comply but the money goes into General Revenues to be wasted like the rest of it because there is nothing they can do further to curb the production of carbon.  It is a fools errand in this country.

China? yep,  the USA?  Yep  Other big producers?  Yep.

Canada (at least Ontario) has done away with coal and started producing Wind Energy (wasted Money) Solar Energy (better but poorly implemented) and Hydro Electric.  All renewable and all zero emmision producers.  Yes we still have Natural Gas plants but they are backup and peak requirement producers.

With all of that, Where exactly is my Carbon Tax going? Public Transit?  Not likely.  To get internal combustion engines off the road?  Doubt it when they won't even license an electric car that is produced here for the road.

Carbon tax is a cash grab and everyone knows it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All tax is a cash grab. The government needs money to build roads and bridges and a bunch of useless projects. They will get it from somewhere. If not from a carbon tax, from income tax or sales tax.

The government uses tax to steer public action. They gave tax breaks to encourage investment in the Canadian film industry. It worked. They gave tax breaks in the 70s to build MURBS (essentially condos to rent out). It worked. They tax alcohol and cigarettes, yet many would argue that that doesn't affect consumption. Personally, I know many people that have quit smoking and the price was at least part of it. So, it worked. And, there was a tipping point where about 60% of people weren't smoking when it became socially unacceptable to smoke and that helped about 20% more join the movement.

I do believe that a carbon tax, at least at the consumer level, will reduce consumption. And at a manufacturing level, it will encourage companies to use solar, wind and geothermal energy. As deicer said, without some incentive, businesses will stay in their easy ruts and profits.

Canada, all by itself, is not going to have much of an effect on world GHG production. Just like my individual donation to the Red Cross means anything in the big picture. I get that. But we can't sit on our high horse saying "We have lots of trees, so we don't have to contribute". We need to say "Despite our great privilege of having lots of trees, we recognize our global responsibility in this issue and we're willing to take the lead". Hopefully, if enough countries, and once the US gets some real leadership, they will join, we can sway global "social" responsibility and there will be a shift in thinking towards not destroying our atmosphere.

Why have companies spent millions and developed efficient engines for aircraft? Mostly because of the price of fuel. If jet fuel was still 20 cents, would airlines care about how much fuel they were burning?  Because of the price of fuel, entire industries have spent billions of dollars on wing and engine design and flight planning and on-board software to save just a few litres at a time. They don't do it because it's good for the environment. They do it for the pennies that it saves. But it all adds up. 

Why did car makers spend billions to develop engines and lighten cars so that they could boast about their gas mileage?... because gas is expensive. If gas was cheap we'd all still be driving V8 musclecars. 

 So a carbon tax will have an effect. Price (pain) drives change. And the biggest users of energy will make changes to avoid paying that tax.

The other benefit to being on the forefront of this issue is that the alternative energy business will congregate in countries where there is public and government support for alternative energy. We can take advantage of this and get some great high-paying jobs here or we can wait and suck the hind teat. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boestar...you are making the same mistake I used to and that's trying to use logic to communicate with people that have very little....only ideals ....and view problems by peering through a rainbow looking glass....Everything looks so much better when viewed through that glass except the problem is their only solution is to outright bully the opposition and bankrupt the world in the process to achieve their lofty goals as they have no affordable way of implementing those ideals.

I have no doubt there are doable and affordable solutions out there...problem is the Trudeaus of the world would have to divert funding from their pet social programs first....and the chances of that happening is zero.

Personally I would prefer not to live in such a world where socialist misery takes precedence over good old common sense....but it is 2017 after all....for a while anyhow...Voters are beginning to wake up to the utter rip off and stupidity behind the Carbon taxation  process,....and not a moment too soon.

The next few years will tell the tale in Canada. I predict all 3 women still in power in Canada, Wynne, Notley and Trudeau, will all be toast come election time.

 

 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...