Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Greenpeace's view on Patrick Moore (Who was President of Greenpeace CANADA which was so "out there" that some other Greenpeace groups tried to squash it):

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

Moore’s claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that “clear-cutting is good for forests” and Three Mile Island was actually “a success story” because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying “my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn’t die.”

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Alberta kills coal, the world is building 1,600 new plants.

 

“ In the anti-reality, politically driven economy that has become Alberta in recent years, there is now another new hostage to politics: Witness the forced killing of coal towns by the provincial government.

On Monday, the province announced a new “transition” fund for Alberta’s coal-dependent communities. This follows up on previous government policy that decreed no electricity generation shall be fired by coal after 2030.

It chose that course rather than allow a mere five plants  to close down over the original planned life of the facilities, starting in 2036, with the last in 2061.

The taxpayer-financed fund is meant to help coal towns think about how to help the thousands of unemployed Albertans soon to end up that way because of political policy. Thus, the usual language about “diversification” is employed. So too the predictable government-speak about identifying “strategies to support worker transition.”

Reality check: Blue collar workers in mines and others with specialties related to minerals will not easily find employment elsewhere, not when Alberta already has 202,000 workers unemployed

 

Recall that Alberta’s main industry and employer, energy, is also yet sluggish due to the triple hit from low prices; government policy in Victoria, Edmonton and Ottawa; and anti-resource activists who seek to kill off this country’s forestry, mineral and resource sectors.   

On Alberta’s coal job losses, the province claims that new investment in electricity generation will help cushion that blow.

This belief mimics the famous economic fallacy where a broken window is said to create new economic activity. A vandal breaks a window and the shopkeeper pays a thousand dollars to replace it. Observers then see the window installer at work and assume an expanded economy.

Problem: Without a broken window, the shopkeeper had one thousand dollars to spend on something else, perhaps two suits worth $500 each. Now, some tailor has less work.

Lesson: The overall economic effect of the broken window is neutral.

It’s the same with provincial policy on coal-fired electricity. The province is breaking that mainly rural and blue-collar industry, which allowed for relatively cheap electricity. In its place, the province orders up new investment.

Problem: When the province decrees costly new power generation before the old plants were due to retire, someone pays twice: consumers, taxpayers and companies, or all three.

Evidence for the extra, government-mandated costs are not difficult to spot: Subsidies for renewables, compensation for companies with coal-fired plants and the cost of new, earlier-than-planned investment.

Everyone is familiar with the arguments for the forced shutdown: Carbon emissions and global warming, and coal pollution. The latter is a bit hyped: 21st century Alberta is not beset by 19th century London-style soot. Nor are Albertans suffering from Chinese-style pollution.

For the record, Chinese companies will continue to build new coal-fired electricity plants at home and abroad, 700 of them, according to the New York Times. As the newspaper summarized it in July, “China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.” 

Worldwide, 1,600 new coal-fired plants in 62 countries are planned. 

Even Germany has no plans to kill coal-fired plants by 2030. It even allowed new coal-fired plants to be built in the last decade. Also, it appears that if German coal-fired plants ever expire, it will result from economics and not policy. 

In Canada, the killing of coal communities is artificial because it is government induced. It is also expensive and will do little for global carbon emissions. 

Which begs this point: If Canada’s politicians were serious about carbon emissions, they would demand that 62 other countries — China in particular — first stop adding coal-fired power to their own grids before Canada does more on this file.

Instead, it appears Canada’s ruling politicians will sacrifice domestic blue-collar workers.

Recall that Alberta’s main industry and employer, energy, is also yet sluggish due to the triple hit from low prices; government policy in Victoria, Edmonton and Ottawa; and anti-resource activists who seek to kill off this country’s forestry, mineral and resource sectors.   

On Alberta’s coal job losses, the province claims that new investment in electricity generation will help cushion that blow.

This belief mimics the famous economic fallacy where a broken window is said to create new economic activity. A vandal breaks a window and the shopkeeper pays a thousand dollars to replace it. Observers then see the window installer at work and assume an expanded economy.

Problem: Without a broken window, the shopkeeper had one thousand dollars to spend on something else, perhaps two suits worth $500 each. Now, some tailor has less work.

Lesson: The overall economic effect of the broken window is neutral.

It’s the same with provincial policy on coal-fired electricity. The province is breaking that mainly rural and blue-collar industry, which allowed for relatively cheap electricity. In its place, the province orders up new investment.

Problem: When the province decrees costly new power generation before the old plants were due to retire, someone pays twice: consumers, taxpayers and companies, or all three.

Evidence for the extra, government-mandated costs are not difficult to spot: Subsidies for renewables, compensation for companies with coal-fired plants and the cost of new, earlier-than-planned investment.

Everyone is familiar with the arguments for the forced shutdown: Carbon emissions and global warming, and coal pollution. The latter is a bit hyped: 21st century Alberta is not beset by 19th century London-style soot. Nor are Albertans suffering from Chinese-style pollution.

For the record, Chinese companies will continue to build new coal-fired electricity plants at home and abroad, 700 of them, according to the New York Times. As the newspaper summarized it in July, “China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.” 

Worldwide, 1,600 new coal-fired plants in 62 countries are planned. 

Even Germany has no plans to kill coal-fired plants by 2030. It even allowed new coal-fired plants to be built in the last decade. Also, it appears that if German coal-fired plants ever expire, it will result from economics and not policy. 

In Canada, the killing of coal communities is artificial because it is government induced. It is also expensive and will do little for global carbon emissions. 

Which begs this point: If Canada’s politicians were serious about carbon emissions, they would demand that 62 other countries — China in particular — first stop adding coal-fired power to their own grids before Canada does more on this file.

Instead, it appears Canada’s ruling politicians will sacrifice domestic blue-collar workers.

 

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/milke-while-alberta-kills-coal-the-world-is-building-1600-new-plants

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.iflscience.com/policy/trump-administration-forecasts-4c-global-temperature-rise-by-end-of-century/

The report was drafted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to defend the White House's decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and cars built after 2020 – if the temperature increase is inevitable, it reasons, what is the use of limiting greenhouse gas emissions?  

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the US Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Which begs this point: If Canada’s politicians were serious about carbon emissions, they would demand that 62 other countries — China in particular — first stop adding coal-fired power to their own grids before Canada does more on this file."

Really?

The global population is increasing by approximately 85 million souls each and every year, mostly in the third world.

And all the while the rest of us go on debating the legitimacy of carbon taxation and other equally useless planet saving proposals?

 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another nail in Trudeau’s Carbon tax coffin!

 

Manitoba backs out of planned carbon tax.

The Manitoba government says it is pulling out of its plan to charge a carbon tax and is joining some other provinces opposed to the federal government’s demands.

Premier Brian Pallister says Ottawa has not respected the province’s right to come up with its own plan with a lower rate.

The federal government has demanded provinces charge a tax on carbon emissions starting at $10 per tonne by the end of this year and rising to $50 per tonne by 2022.

 

Manitoba planned to charge a flat $25 per tonne that would not rise, starting Dec. 1, and obtained a legal opinion that it had the constitutional right to do so.

Pallister says Ottawa has refused in the ensuing months to back down from a threat to impose its own plan on the province.

 

As a result, he says Manitoba is backing away from any carbon tax and will focus instead on other efforts to curb emissions.

“We are standing up for Manitobans, by saying ‘yes’ to Manitoba’s green plan, and ‘no’ to a carbon tax,” Pallister said in a written statement Wednesday.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-manitoba-backs-out-of-planned-carbon-tax/

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Warming????

 

After barge cancelled due to ice, three Arctic communities left without year’s worth of supplies

 
‎Today, ‎October ‎3, ‎2018, ‏‎8 hours ago | The Canadian Press

A massive outflow of heavy sea ice from the High Arctic has cut three communities off from their annual resupply barge shipment leaving household groceries, construction materials and municipal equipment stranded on the docks in Tuktoyaktuk.

The ice is so impassable that Marine Transportation Services Ltd., owned by the Northwest Territories, will have to airlift more than 700,000 litres of diesel and gas to the community of Paulatuk to run the community’s generator.

“This is heavy ice,” said John Vandenberg of the N.W.T.’s department of infrastructure. “It’s unprecedented and it’s come down vigorously and early.”

Although they got their diesel shipments earlier this season, further shipments to the central Arctic communities of Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay were also cancelled. More than 3,000 people live in the three communities.

“All our total next year’s worth of supplies are on that barge — lifts and lifts of cabinet materials, rolls and rolls of Arborite and flooring,” said Peter Laube of Kalvik Enterprises in Cambridge Bay.

“We’ve got these huge jobs all over.”

The sea lift resupply is an annual rite all over the Arctic. Communities without land links order a year’s worth of everything — from diapers to canned pop to office supplies to dog food — from one of several barge companies that operate in the North.

John Holland, senior administrative officer for the hamlet of Paulatuk, said the company didn’t even send official notice that the sea lift had been cancelled.

“We’ve heard nothing directly. I had $2,000 worth of groceries on that barge.”

Laube said he was counting on those supplies — for which he’s already paid — to build new staff housing. He’s since had to rent accommodation for his workers at $3,200 a month.

As well, his company won’t be able to finish homes it’s already sold and will have to rent something for those people at $5,000 a month.

If he also has to fly in supplies to meet commitments, he figures the cancelled barge will cost his company up to $400,000.

Holland said his community has badly needed heavy equipment on the barge. Hunters are waiting for ATVs they need to get on the land. Hotels have supplies they need for visitors. People are making loan payments on vehicles they can’t drive.

Vandenberg said the company will do what it can to get the supplies to communities. The barges are being moved to Inuvik, where a better runway will make it easier to conduct airlifts and the goods can be more safely stored.

“We’re going to be dealing with these on a priority basis. Some things are more important than others and we’re going to have to have those discussions. We’re looking at all options.”

The coast guard’s icebreaker Louis St. Laurent is in the area, but the ice is so heavy that it wouldn’t be safe to move a barge even with its escort.

“It’s kicking up pieces of ice bigger than Volkswagens,” Vandenberg said. “These things float around and they can cut a non-ice class vessel open.”

Vandenberg said an airlift will begin over the next few days. The fuel alone is likely to take 50 or 60 loads, he said.

“It’s going to take a while. We do understand the frustrations of the communities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LEFT...doing their best to kill Canada at every turn 

B.C. Greens will vote against LNG Canada going ahead.

 

Skeena MLA Ellis Ross said on Monday night that the B.C. Liberals would probably vote in support of LNG Canada going ahead to avoid a possible deadlock by the B.C. Green Party in the B.C. legislature.

He was responding to a comment made by Green’s leader Andrew Weaver earlier on Monday night that the party doesn’t support the decision and that the NDP would have to “work with the B.C. Liberal MLAs if they want this project to go forward.”

“I am confident the B.C. Liberals will vote in support as long as the deal that the NDP has struck is beneficial to British Columbians,” said Ross.

Weaver said he was disappointed that the NDP had supported LNG Canada in it’s bid to announce a positive FID.

 

https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/b-c-greens-will-vote-against-lng-canada-going-ahead/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau stands alone as Canada — and the world — abandons green energy

Wind and solar have become the fossils of the energy industry; oil, gas and coal remain the fuels of the future

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s repeal of the Green Energy Act and balks by premiers of other Canadian provinces at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate agenda aren’t rearguard moves by Donald Trump wannabes. They are part of a worldwide trend rejecting renewables, rejecting climate change alarmism, and embracing coal and other fossil fuels. Renewables and the high electricity rates they ushered in drove individuals into energy poverty and led industry to flee, putting the lie to the claim that wind and solar are the fuels of the future. Wind and solar, rather, have become the fossils of the energy industry; oil, gas and coal remain the fuels of the future.

China was once the poster boy of the renewable energy industry — just a few months ago Bloomberg stated, “China’s investment in renewables is leaving the rest of the world in its wake” thanks to its subsidy-driven growth. Now China has now begun to throw in the towel by cutting subsidies to renewables, an augur of the demise of investment in its renewables sector. With the cutting of subsidies to renewables in the EU, investment last year dropped to less than half of its peak six years earlier. Japan’s investment halved in just three years.

While China is pulling back from renewables, it’s plunging into coal. According to a BBC report this week, China is boosting its reliance on coal by 25 per cent through construction of hundreds of new coal-fired generating plants. Once completed, its incremental coal capacity will be equivalent to that of the entire U.S. coal fleet. Coal aside, China this year will become the world’s largest importer of natural gas, both via pipeline (up by over 20 per cent) and by ship (up over 50 per cent). It is already the world’s largest importer of coal and oil.

 

Germany, another renewable-energy poster child, is following the same unwinding, cutting subsidies to wind developers while upping gas imports and local 0. To extract that coal, Germany has decided to expand an existing open-pit coal mine, Europe’s largest, by subsidizing the razing of a 12,000-year-old forest. To round out Germany’s retreat from the demands of the country’s green lobby, it is relaxing regulations that would have required automakers to produce low-CO2-emitting vehicles.

Japan plans to remove its modest renewables subsidies while aggressively expanding fossil fuels — it is adding 40 coal stations to its existing 100. The U.K. is likewise turning from renewables, where investment is expected to decrease by 95 per cent by 2020, in favour of the development of the country’s immense shale-gas resources. And Australia is ending its renewables subsidy program altogether by 2020, giving its abundant coal resources a major lift.

The most consequential change of all, however, occurred in the United States, where the Democratic Party — adherents to the global warming orthodoxy — first lost control of the Congress and then the presidency to the Republicans under President Donald Trump, an outspoken critic of the global-warming lobby. When Trump abandoned the Paris climate accord in favour of coal and other carbon-based fuels, the world’s leaders rose up almost as one in outrage. Today, with the U.S. having revived its coal industry, having become the world’s largest oil producer and having propelled its once-moribund economic growth rates past the others, those world leaders are following America’s lead while falling silent on Paris. The once-powerful United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formerly a fixture in the news, is defanged and forgotten, having lost its U.S. funding and its relevance.

The decline of government funding for renewables follows years of public opinion polls that consistently show the public isn’t much fussed about climate change. Governments finally got the message that the green lobby wasn’t all-powerful. The most timid, least principled players in society — the corporate sector — may be next in showing some spine on the climate change file. According to an internal memo leaked earlier this month, BusinessEurope, the EU’s largest employer association, intends to counter EU plans to tighten carbon-dioxide emissions at their expense, albeit ever so mutedly. If it carries through with its plans and actually dares to publicly represent the interests of its members, it will be one more sign that environmental NGOs and their enablers — the mainstream media — have lost their power.

The global-warming cause won’t be completely expunged, however, until its last man standing, heading the last politically correct government, leaves the field. That would be the world’s finest, if most retrograde, exemplar of the global warming orthodoxy: Canada’s own Justin Trudeau.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trudeau-stands-alone-as-canada-and-the-world-abandons-green-energy

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that sounds about right if you want to modify behaviour to the point of it having a measurable effect on carbon production. This is what most well intentioned folks don’t understand, the cost of modifying behaviour enough to meet the targets is staggering. If you actually look at the numbers, we have to shut down huge portions of our economy. Light bulbs and nuisance taxes on carbon were never going to get us anywhere close to where the Liberals said they wanted to be, and what’s worse is…. they knew/know it, they used Mr Harpers plan so they could blame him when it didn't work. These guys are not dumb, they know it won't work. 

That meme is the first rational suggestion for a workable carbon tax I've seen in 47 pages, and I know you didn't intend it to be viewed that way.... cool huh? Do or do not.

PS: and look at this, right on cue. 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-climate-policies-are-about-wealth-redistribution

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

3 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Actually that sounds about right if you want to modify behaviour to the point of it having a measurable effect on carbon production. This is what most well intentioned folks don’t understand, the cost of modifying behaviour enough to meet the targets is staggering. If you actually look at the numbers, we have to shut down huge portions of our economy. Light bulbs and nuisance taxes on carbon were never going to get us anywhere close to where the Liberals said they wanted to be, and what’s worse is…. they knew/know it, they used Mr Harpers plan so they could blame him when it didn't work. These guys are not dumb, they know it won't work. 

That meme is the first rational suggestion for a workable carbon tax I've seen in 47 pages, and I know you didn't intend it to be viewed that way.... cool huh? Do or do not.

PS: and look at this, right on cue. 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-climate-policies-are-about-wealth-redistribution

I've been saying throughout those 47 pages that the only effective means of turning the alleged trend is for the entire globe to cease the combustion of GHG producing fuels, immediately and for the next 100 or so years. Re-Zero the clock, so to speak - let the atmosphere clean itself.

Does anyone in their right mind think that will ever happen?

Also buried in those 47 pages are repeated references to sea level change that has been happening for decades with nothing being done to address it. 50% of the world's population lives within 100 feet of mean sea level.

Then there's this "The Sky Is Falling" article:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-those-who-oppose-the-carbon-tax-should-reveal-their-plans-to-save-the/

"Those who oppose the carbon tax should reveal their plans to save the planet."

The last two paragraphs:

"But they are betting people are too stupid to figure that out. And they may be right about that, too.

"Yes, politicians will have blood on their hands when the seas start rising. But it’s not just politicians. It’s the people who voted them in knowing these so-called leaders didn’t care about trying to solve the greatest challenge facing mankind."

Puhhh,leeze.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only oppose an ineffective carbon tax, the UN assessment (above) sounds about right to me. So, if we are going to do it, lets do it right and stop pretending light bulbs and weak sister efforts are the answer. I’m convinced that the switch has been thrown and we are already past the tipping point, PNR as it were. But even allowing for the fact that I’m often overly pessimistic, I think you are right on both counts, reductions need to massive and they’re simply not going to happen.

Now is the time to look at contingencies and create a plan to manage the population upheaval and migration that will accompany those sea level rises. But I bet we won’t do that... we have seen the effects and geopolitical fall out from desertification and we can't even get water access and land use right on a regional basis, getting it right globally would be a tough sell.

We may have hastened this climate  process a bit but it would have happened anyway. We know that because its happened before. Places that were underwater once surely will be again… and then they won’t be… and then they will be. As a species, we are less important and more fragile than we think, this cycle will continue with or without us. Nature will prevail even if we don't.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic Rex:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-un-climate-change-panel-that-cried-wolf-too-often

"The UN climate-change panel that cried wolf too often -

You can't set multiple deadlines for Doomsday. It’s a kind of one-off by nature. Do it too often and people cease to take notice or even care..."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The darker side of solar power

 

“Solar power is still a marginal energy source, accounting for about 1 per cent of global electricity production. Yet, its environmental impact is already considerable, according to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. The San Francisco-based group started out three decades ago tracking the e-waste produced by high-tech industry. It now produces an annual Solar Scorecard on panel manufacturers that depicts an industry that has got worse over time. Most producers refuse to provide any environmental data on their supply chains or manufacturing operations at all.”

Solar power; it’s not the clean energy it’s been cracked up to be!

 

The Saudi Arabian oil minister's recent comment that the world's largest petroleum producer sees a postfossil-fuel world in which his country becomes a solar-power superpower must have comforted climate activists that even the worst offenders can come around. After all, what could be more redemptive than turning abandoned oil fields into solar farms?

Solar power's image as "clean" and "limitless" has led princes and politicians alike to dole out huge subsidies to bask in its glow. Under the 2009 Green Energy Act, Ontario agreed to pay solar power operators as much as 10 times the market rate for the electricity they produce under 20-year contracts.

Not satisfied with risk-free deals that will make many solar players rich at consumers' expense, Ontario's solar industry is now lobbying for even more. And it's leveraging solar's apple-pie image to press politicians into giving it what it wants.

 

On Tuesday, the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) released a poll purporting to show that three-quarters of Ontarians "would like to see the government invest more in solar powered electricity and in technologies that enable solar power." The same proportion apparently supports reserving revenue from Ontario's proposed cap-and-trade scheme for more solar power and related technologies.

The folks at CanSIA are no fools. They hired the chief strategist behind Premier Kathleen Wynne's 2014 re-election to do their polling. And David Herle put just the right spin on the results, saying, "Those who voted Wynne's Liberals into power are looking to government to pursue opportunities presented by the solar industry."

 

It's not clear if these voters would be as gung-ho about solar power, however, if they considered the environmental implications of its expansion. The industry doesn't talk much, or at all, about the downsides of manufacturing solar panels or where all these panels will end up when they conk out. Think of how much toxic waste is generated by consumer electronics and you get a small inkling of what a world lit with solar power, and the batteries needed to store their energy, might look like.

Solar power is still a marginal energy source, accounting for about 1 per cent of global electricity production. Yet, its environmental impact is already considerable, according to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. The San Francisco-based group started out three decades ago tracking the e-waste produced by high-tech industry. It now produces an annual Solar Scorecard on panel manufacturers that depicts an industry that has got worse over time. Most producers refuse to provide any environmental data on their supply chains or manufacturing operations at all.

"We need to take action now to reduce the use of toxic chemicals in [photovoltaic production], develop responsible recycling systems and protect workers throughout the global PV supply chain," the coalition said in its latest report.

The main factor behind declining costs for solar panels – the shift in production to China – has also made their environmental impact harder to track and regulate. Manufacturing solar panels is energy intensive. Depending on where they're made, the panels need to produce emissions-free electricity for quite a long time to make up for the greenhouse gases generated by their manufacturing. Their components, which include several so-called conflict minerals, are often mined in countries with weak health and safety regulations.

Panel production also generates highly toxic byproducts. Chinese panel makers used to just dump silicon tetrachloride on fields near their factories. China now requires panel makers to recycle almost all of this waste, though San Jose State University environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney says, "It remains to be seen how well the rules are being enforced."

 

 

Imagine a world, then, in which solar power actually accounted for a major, rather than marginal, share of electricity generation. And consider the massive increase in battery production that would be needed to store all this energy, since the sun only shines intermittently.

Making electric batteries is even dirtier than making solar panels. Ask the poor Chinese folk whose crops, air and water have been ruined by the "graphite rain" generated by nearby mines. The average smartphone contains about 15 grams of graphite, but an electric car battery contains 50 kilograms of it.

Solar power surely has a role to play in combating climate change. But it is not the angelic solution to the world's energy problems its backers suggest. It could even create a whole new set of environmental woes that will require a new set of elusive global protocols to tackle.

Who's polling Ontarians about that?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-darker-side-of-solar-power/article24649804/

2D613651-0E22-4616-A0CD-B0DF71241B17.png

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of sad isn't it for Jaydee to have posted the article found at the top of this page and not one 'good job' Donnie has followed?

I going to assume, Deicer being the model, that people that don't like Trump will never acknowledge the man for 'any' of the great things he's accomplished.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau minister promotes group that wants 500% carbon tax increase.

“ Catherine McKenna recently Tweeted out promoting a group that not only wants a gigantic carbon tax hike, but also actively opposes all pipeline development.

McKenna put out the Tweet earlier this week regarding “Put A Price On It Canada”.

 

 

https://thenectarine.ca/business/trudeau-minister-promotes-group-that-wants-500-carbon-tax-increase/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that carbon tax supporters don’t see how weak their proposals are, $100 a ton is not nearly enough… it needs to be much higher, like about $300 a ton minimum.

Enchanted lightbulbs are not going to propel us to the proposed targets. It’s actually all pretty simple, a bit like traditional recurve archery is simple.The trouble is, simple doesn’t equate to easy, in fact simple often qualifies as thirsty work. It's another case of do or do not and $10 a ton is just a tax grab.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

How is it that carbon tax supporters don’t see how weak their proposals are, $100 a ton is not nearly enough… it needs to be much higher, like about $300 a ton minimum.

Enchanted lightbulbs are not going to propel us to the proposed targets. It’s actually all pretty simple, a bit like traditional recurve archery is simple.The trouble is, simple doesn’t equate to easy, in fact simple often qualifies as thirsty work. It's another case of do or do not and $10 a ton is just a tax grab.

the tax could be $1000 /ton but unless that tax money is used to specifically fund projects that actually have an effect then even that is just a tax grab.

I have ZERO faith that any government can take that kind of revenue and actually spend it on its intended purpose.  like the road tax on our gasoline it will never be used to actually fix roads.  We Canadians are suckers for all the touchy feely "give us money to make it better" crap.  We are over taxed and under supported.

Carbon tax is a misguided program doomed to failure and far from good for the average canadian.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the Liberal carbon tax goes ahead, and it meets expectations of reducing ghgs by say, 20%, what have we achieved??? Important to note, that this is only a starting point. 

We have succeeded in paying more in taxes, a price on pollution in current liberal speak. All of the citizens will have their standard of living reduced, less money for food, clothing, post secondary education, whatever. The government will have raised huge revenues at the expense of a slowly economy and industries will close or leave the country for reasons of a competitiveness globally.

Canada will have reduced their output of total global ghgs from 1.8% to 1.6%.....Trudeau and McKenna can hold their heads high on the world stage saying we are doing our part and clean tech is just around the corner.

China, the US, Russia, and India will yawn and continue with their economys.

Will it really have made a difference?? And if, as Trudeau and Morneau have said, that the money will be returned to the people....

WHAT IS THE POINT???

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, st27 said:

WHAT IS THE POINT???

The real point here is that using carbon taxation to moderate consumption and encourage efficiencies is doomed because it needs to be so draconian that the very people who say they want it won’t be willing to pay the bill, they will abandon the effort when they see the cost of it… a bit like green energy and a host of other things people said they want.

Even after we have shivered in the dark for years and wrecked our economy, our contribution to global reductions would be so low as to make the effort itself ridiculous. When you consider the carbon scrubbing our landmass provides (more than we produce BTW), the entire effort borders on insanity. However, should we wish to pursue this insanity, $300 a ton needs to be the target. Keep in mind though, if you actually want to hit the accord targets, carbon taxation is only one piece of a larger effort. In addition, we would need to shut down at least the equivalent of our entire energy sector. The scale here is pretty large, I don’t believe for a second that the lightbulb warriors will suck it up and dig deep, it’s not in their nature. I also don't believe the rest of us will let it happen. I have repeatedly asked the lightbulb fairies to articulate which industries or sectors of the economy they want to eradicate... they won't do it.

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...