Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

So here in Ontario, the carbon tax added 4 cents a litre, however, the price of gasoline has gone up almost 40 cents a litre since the fall.  Where is the outrage over that?

We paid $1.40 per liter when oil was $140 per barrel.  We're now paying $1.30 per litre with oil at $64 per barrel.

Where are the conservative governments to protect us????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 5:31 PM, Fido said:

I live in Edmonton.

Every winter when I hear somebody bemoaning climate change and especially Global Warming I say "Bring it on".

 

 

Careful what you wish for.  While it may not be a spike in temperatures that everyone is carrying on about, all the extra energy in the atmosphere is bringing higher winds, stronger storm systems, and increased precipitation. Look at how many 'bomb cyclones' we've had in North America this spring.  I read that they are the equivalent of a 'hurricane over land'.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/13/bomb-cyclone-2019-michigan-what-is-definition-forecast-blizzard-colorado-midwest/3150197002/

Bad news if you live in a beautiful property on a flood plain, or if you have an older house with shingles that need replacing.  

Good news if you invest in insurance companies because someone else's calamity means everyone's insurance rates go up and that is profitable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, deicer said:

Careful what you wish for.  While it may not be a spike in temperatures that everyone is carrying on about, all the extra energy in the atmosphere is bringing higher winds, stronger storm systems, and increased precipitation. Look at how many 'bomb cyclones' we've had in North America this spring.  I read that they are the equivalent of a 'hurricane over land'.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/13/bomb-cyclone-2019-michigan-what-is-definition-forecast-blizzard-colorado-midwest/3150197002/

Bad news if you live in a beautiful property on a flood plain, or if you have an older house with shingles that need replacing.  

Good news if you invest in insurance companies because someone else's calamity means everyone's insurance rates go up and that is profitable.

 

Bull crap, I say. Do you really truly think a one or two year fluctuation is the result of "climate change"?

I've had it with this "sky is falling" narrative being brain-washed into our younger generation and being readily accepted by our scientific illiterate older generation.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

Bull crap, I say. Do you really truly think a one or two year fluctuation is the result of "climate change"?

 I've had it with this "sky is falling" narrative being brain-washed into our younger generation and being readily accepted by our scientific illiterate older generation.

 

56327E88-91A4-4C46-9790-69951AB4CE22.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B.C. tricked Canadian politicians into believing its carbon tax policy works. It doesn't

'Revenue neutral' carbon tax is not an accounting exercise for B.C. families. It’s an expensive reality

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government gets set to force a federal carbon tax on all of Canada’s provinces and territories, taxpayers across the country deserve to know what happened in the country’s carbon-tax test case, British Columbia.

The Trojan horse of the carbon tax was wheeled into the B.C. public square in 2008 with the government’s promise that it would somehow cost average people nothing and would be “revenue neutral.” But, that turned out to be a cautionary tale for the ages.

For years, the carbon-tax cheerleaders continued to laud the fee that’s been tacked on to carbon-emitting goods and services, urging the rest of the country to follow suit. It was touted as a magical formula that would somehow protect the environment and lower taxes all at once. Visions of hydrogen-powered buses and solar cars danced in the heads of the green bean counters. “Revenue neutral” they all sang.

The reality of government, however, is always duller and grift-ier than that. The current B.C. government has dropped the term “revenue neutral” altogether and now calls the carbon tax a “tool.”

Before the charade was abandoned entirely, this is what “revenue neutral” meant for the B.C. carbon tax: In 2016–17 the provincial government raked in $1.2 billion in the carbon tax from taxpayers. The amount is listed on page 68 in the budget document as a frame entitled: “Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Plan.” Then, the government scraped together 17 sundry tax credits and stuffed them into the carbon-tax frame, making the tax sum balance out to zero. Abracadabra: “revenue neutral.” That’s all it meant.

 

It was a crass puppet show. Every provincial and federal budget includes tax credits for things like home renovations, children’s fitness programs, film incentives, and business training tax credits. In B.C., however, there is an uncommon carbon tax taken from people, so these very common credits were just repackaged to make the tax appear neutral on paper. As a senior B.C. government official admitted during last year’s budget lockup, “this was always just an accounting exercise.”

The carbon tax is not an accounting exercise for B.C. families. It’s an expensive reality for any Canadian subjected to it.

To fill up an average Toyota Camry with a 70-litre fuel tank costs $6 in carbon tax

 
 

Under the federal formula at $35 per tonne, the carbon tax costs a lot of money at the gas station, approximately 8.55 cents per litre of gasoline with the GST tacked onto it, and 10.06 cents per litre for diesel with the GST. To fill up an average Toyota Camry with a 70-litre fuel tank costs $6 in carbon tax. A Dodge Ram pick-up truck costs more than $10 in carbon tax and a Ford Super Duty Diesel costs more than $17 per fill up. For tractor-trailer trucks, it costs $45 in carbon taxes to fill up just one of those cylinder tanks with diesel. Canadians bought more than 40 billion litres of gasoline and more than 16 billion litres of diesel fuel in 2016. Multiply that volume by the carbon tax per litre and the government haul is crystal clear.

It gets worse, though, because even with the carbon tax costing Canadians billions of dollars, it’s still not reducing emissions, according to environmentalists leading the carbon-tax charge. In January, the Sierra Club reported on the B.C. experiment: “emissions were higher in 2015 than in 2010 and have risen in four of the last five years. B.C.’s latest emissions data mark years of failure to reduce emissions by more than a token amount.” If taking billions of dollars away from Canadians doesn’t reduce emissions, then, what is the point of this forced carbon tax?

If taking billions of dollars away from Canadians doesn’t reduce emissions, then, what is the point of this forced carbon tax?

 

When the forced federal carbon tax is set at $50 per tonne in 2022, that means that gasoline will have a carbon tax of 11.63 cents per litre. Will that be enough? Not according to the Environment Canada bureaucrats who told Environment Minister Catherine McKenna that the country needs a carbon tax of $100 per tonne by 2020 and a tax of $300 per tonne by 2050 to meet the government’s promises under the Paris climate agreement. That would be 23 cents per litre on gas in 2020 and then 70 cents per litre by 2050 — about $50 extra in today’s money to fill up the family sedan.

People need to use oil and gas. The carbon tax doesn’t make people “reduce their use” of this modern lifeblood, it just costs them a lot of money while not stopping the emissions. Our economy and our modern way of life depend on oil and gas. We use them to run our power stations, till our soil, plant our food, mine our minerals, mill our wood, heat our greenhouses, manufacture all of our goods and haul those goods and food to market.

We use oil and gas products to travel to school, work and the beach. Planes, automobiles and transit buses all use oil and gas, and they were manufactured and shipped to us using oil and gas. All of these actions of everyday life depend upon the miracle of hydrocarbons, so, the carbon tax is a tax on everything.

Carbon taxes don’t just make gasoline more expensive, they make life much more expensive.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/b-c-tricked-canadian-politicians-into-believing-its-carbon-tax-policy-works-it-doesnt

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god for those 100% ++++ rebates. 🤣🤣At these prices Vancourites will soon all be zillionaires 

CF879E32-D348-4E67-91B7-91F1C8515CD7.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from a writer for the Globe and Mail:

But carbon taxes are on a losing streak. Too many people don’t like them, no matter how revenue-neutral they’re supposed to be. The central problem is that they’are either too low to be effective, or they’re so high that the politicians responsible for introducing them will get booted out of office.

As David Leonhardt writes in The New York Times, the record isn’t encouraging. Barack Obama tried to pass a climate bill and failed. The Australian Labor Party introduced a carbon tax and was swiftly kicked out. France’s Emmanuel Macron’s gas tax increase was rolled back after it led to a general uprising. U.S. Democrats’ sweeping Green New Deal proposal doesn’t even mention carbon taxes.

One often-cited exception is British Columbia, which introduced a carbon tax in 2008. For several years, the province’s emissions fell as the economy grew. “Does a carbon tax work? Just ask British Columbia,”gushed the Times, along with many others.

B.C. gets glowing reviews from carbon-tax enthusiasts. But in fact, the B.C. government has abandoned its famous revenue neutrality. And GHG emissions have started going up again. B.C. is now stuck with the highest gas prices of any province in the country and little to show for it............

 

 

Another skeptic is Jeffrey Ball, a former energy reporter for The Wall Street Journal, who’s written a similar piece for Foreign Affairs. Like Mr. Leonhardt, he believes climate change is a huge and urgent problem. But he also thinks the facts should drive the policies. “Even under the rosiest of circumstances, carbon pricing will produce only a fraction of the emission cuts needed to put the world onto a sufficiently low-carbon path,” he writes. He thinks there’s much more to be gained in phasing out coal plants, emphasizing nuclear energy, slashing fossil-fuel subsidies and toughening energy-efficiency requirements.

If there were easy ways to tackle climate change, we’d have results by now. Instead, the world’s carbon emissions reached a record in 2017. Canada’s emissions were up, too. That is not an excuse for doing nothing. It’s simply an admission of the facts: We don’t yet have the tools we need.

In fact, carbon taxes have a downside, because they give you the illusion that you’re actually doing something that will make a difference. “A policy prescription widely billed as a panacea is acting as a narcotic,” Mr. Ball writes. “It’s giving politicians and the public the warm feeling that they’re fighting climate change even as the problem continues to grow.”

And that’s what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policy amounts to – a warm and fuzzy feeling dressed up as action. Its effect on carbon emissions will be non-existent. Its effect on interprovincial relations is already awful and likely to get worse. On top of that, Mr. Trudeau could soon have five premiers battling him in court, in what amounts to the greatest federal-provincial split in recent times. A carbon tax is better than doing nothing, people say. Or is it?

 

 

Carbon taxes are great in theory. If only they worked

MARGARET WENTE
THE GLOBE AND MAIL

April 20 at 8:00 AM ET

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The indoctrination continues....It’s like if they say it long enough, often enough and in as many different places in the world as possible, people might actually start to believe their fake news narrative. So which country will it be next Week? :whistling: :whistling:

2294F986-D7A4-4719-87C1-6AEE7AF0A66B.jpeg

C26D156D-8F42-405F-9D34-5335FAB67D36.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing this hypocrite does surprises me anymore

“ Seriously he posted this today for Earth Day. Meanwhile yesterday he was spotted surfing in Tofino, BC. Did he walk there? Oh that's right, the rules don't apply to him.”

 

C47AC09B-A328-4750-B3C4-1C66A718B20D.jpeg

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Netflix is lying about those falling walruses. It's another 'tragedy porn' climate hoax

Opinion: Netflix and the WWF are misleading the public in the name of climate change — just as National Geographic did with the emaciated polar bear

walrus.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=604

A scene from Netflix’s “Our Planet” documentary series of a walrus falling from atop a high cliff.Netflix/YouTube

 

 

Now that polar bears have failed to die off in response to a sea-ice decline as promised, climate alarmists are looking hard for a new icon. They think they’ve found it in the walrus. And for their purpose, walruses are more useful dead than alive, and best of all splattered against sharp rocks from a great height.

For instance, a now-famous episode of Netflix’s “Our Planet” documentary series, released this month and narrated by veteran BBC broadcaster David Attenborough, features walruses falling from atop a high cliff and bouncing helplessly over rocks to their deaths. The incident occurs after what’s called a “land haulout,” which is when large herds of walrus females and calves emerge from the water to gather and rest on a beach. The show blames the land haulouts — and the deaths caused by falling from cliffs — squarely on lack of sea ice due to human-caused climate change. “They’d be on the ice if they could be, but there’s no option but to come to land,” the episode’s producer says. The claim isn’t true. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined in October 2017 that Pacific walrus have not been harmed by recent sea-ice loss and are not expected to be harmed in the foreseeable future.

Still, the brutal death scenes horrified sensitive viewers (while some others shook their heads at the questionable claims). Film producer Sophie Lanfear has defended her inclusion of the sequence as an essential “truth,” although Netflix eventually issued a warning to “animal lovers” that they might want to skip the death sequence.

But animal lovers and sensitive viewers are the target audience. The sole intention of the footage of walruses falling to a splattery death is to spark outrage, to shock viewers into taking climate change seriously. Lanfear admits as much. “I would like people to think about their lives and the fossil fuels they use in their lives and be inspired to support renewable energies and to try and find solutions to this problem,” she told People magazine. And the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which partnered with Netflix for the series, is now busily promoting walruses as the “new symbol of climate change.”

The tactic is reminiscent of the infamous 2017 stunt when National Geographic magazine publicized a video of an emaciated polar bear, which it falsely blamed on global warming. This kind of disturbing nature film footage has become known as “tragedy porn.” It’s infused with a narrative that misrepresents or glosses over important facts for the sole purpose of manipulating emotionally immature viewers into feeling distressed and angry. And both the starving polar bear and the plummeting walruses count on viewers who are well connected on social media to vent their dismay and spread the climate-change alarm.

But the actual facts of what happened with the walruses would be obvious to anyone who took the time to look at what history and science reveal about the claims.

Along the Russian coast of the Chukchi Sea, records show that walrus land haulouts are a natural phenomenon going back to the 19th century, and have nothing to do with climate change. Recent haulouts are enormous because the total population is enormous.

Pacific walruses appear to have a cyclical “boom and bust” population history. A very large population soon outstrips its food supply, something that last happened with walrus in the 1980s. The starving population then declines dramatically and stays low until the food supply can recover.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/netflix-is-lying-about-those-falling-walruses-its-another-tragedy-porn-climate-hoax

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Netflix is lying about those falling walruses. It's another 'tragedy porn' climate hoax

Opinion: Netflix and the WWF are misleading the public in the name of climate change — just as

 

The IPCC has no credibility, nor shame. That was the beginning of the deep skepticism - the infamous "hockey stick."  This fear mongering by every agency under the sun is nothing but ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Huge money is to be made by those espousing this 21rst century hoax. Questioning of the premise is akin to heresy, punishable by removal of your funding.

What a sad legacy to saddle our grand children with - for those who choose to reproduce.  There is a rising sentiment in western culture to not have kids because the sky is falling.

Meanwhile, in other cultures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calculating the cost of a carbon tax

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan says crop sector could see costs increase by $2 to $4 an acre


Saskatchewan’s general farm organization has come up with an estimate of how much the federal carbon tax will cost the province’s grain and oilseed producers.

And the figure likely won’t sit well with farmers.

According to number crunchers at the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, average production costs will increase by $2 an acre in 2019 and rise to $3.85 an acre in 2022. The estimates were unveiled April 2 during the organization’s annual policy convention in Saskatoon.

“One of the frustrations that we’ve had through the whole discussion around the development of the (federal) backstop carbon tax is that we’ve never seen any numbers from the federal government on the indirect costs (to farmers),” said APAS general manager Duane Haave.

They have provided farm groups with their estimation of the direct costs for on-farm fuel, but we know that there are a lot of other costs involved.”

The APAS estimates are based on projected cost increases for a handful of key products and services that are used by almost all of the province’s 20,000 grain farmers.

Specifically, APAS is projecting 2019 cost increases of:

  • 28 cents per acre for consumption of propane or natural gas used to dry harvested grain, rising to 89 cents per acre in 2022.
  • 1.34 per acre to move harvested grain by rail from prairie delivery points to export position in Vancouver, rising to $2.03 per acre in 2022.
  • 16 cents per acre to move grain from Saskatchewan farms to elevator locations using contracted trucking companies, rising to 39 cents per acre in 2022.
  • 15 cents per acre for the delivery and consumption of fuel used to heat farm buildings, increasing to 39 cents per acre in 2022.
  • Six cents per acre for on- farm electricity consumption, rising to 14 cents per acre in 2022.

The APAS calculations are based on established carbon tax rates starting at $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019 and increasing to $50 per tonne in 2022.

The organization used theoretical scenarios assumed to be a reasonable representation of a typical grain farm in the province.

For example, rail cost increases for moving grain from Saskatchewan to export position in Vancouver were calculated from Melfort, Sask.

Custom trucking costs assumed an average one-way haul of 63 kilometres, from farm to elevator.

The calculations did not include cost increases linked to farm fertilizer consumption because of the complexity of taxation rates on fertilizers.

If the $2 per acre estimate is reasonably accurate, the total cost to the province’s crop producers would be in the range of $60 million per year in 2019, increasing to $120 million annually in 2022, based on assumed provincial plantings of 30 million acres.

That number would increase based on costs incurred by the province’s livestock producers.

“We know there will be other costs (in the crop sector) because fertilizer hasn’t been added,” Haave said.

It’s our best calculation … but if anyone out there has better numbers, we’re happy to see them.

“If there are any economists or government officials who think they can pencil this out better than we can, we’d be happy to know it, but we think producers really want to have a handle on what the potential impacts are.”

At their two-day policy conference in Saskatoon, APAS delegates heard presentations from a variety of experts involved in assessing greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector, calculating the value of carbon 

sequestering farm practices and devising policy recommendations that could help to offset the costs of a federal carbon tax.

Delegates also discussed a variety of mechanisms that could potentially be used to compensate grain and livestock producers for reducing emissions.

Those mechanisms included soil carbon credits, financial incentives for the retention of grasslands and wetlands, and policies that discourage deforestation and encourage the use of prairie shelter belts.

Haave said efforts to calculate the financial impact of the federal carbon tax are an important step in designing fair and effective government policies.

“They (Ottawa) can’t ignore the impacts that they’re putting on the farm sector,” Haave said.

APAS president Todd Lewis said attaching a per acre cost to the federal tax is an effective way to help the province’s growers understand the financial impact of Ottawa’s environmental initiatives.

He said the Saskatchewan agriculture sector is frustrated that Ottawa has not provided an estimate of potential costs on prairie farmers.

Documents acquired by The Western Producer through access to information provisions show Ottawa learned as early as January 2017 that farm production costs would increase by an average of 1.45 percent in Western Canada with the implementation of a federal carbon tax.

However, those numbers were not shared with provincial farm leaders.

The APAS estimate of $2 per acre or more will come directly off the farmer’s bottom line, said Lewis.

On his farm, that will amount to $20,000 this year, based on expected 2019 plantings of 10,000 acres.

“There no way we can pass that cost along to our customers because we operate in a world market and our competitors don’t have a carbon tax, whether it’s the United States, Australia or Eastern Europe,” Lewis said.

“The ironic part of this is that farmers need to invest in new technologies if we’re going to improve our carbon footprint … but (the tax) leaves less money in our pockets to invest in these new technologies.”

Lewis said Ottawa needs to expand the number of carbon tax exemptions offered to the prairie farm sector or provide larger rebates to mitigate the impact on primary producers.

“The average Saskatchewan farm family is going to get $660, we’re told, as a rebate,” Lewis said.

“Well, that won’t even begin to cover what we’re going to pay in additional agricultural costs.”

 

https://www.producer.com/2019/04/calculating-the-cost-of-a-carbon-tax/

1F68FB7D-9590-41E8-A46C-6DE730395355.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure the farmers have crop yields down to the last penny.....unfortunately, the Libs could care less about yields...they are more worried about sound bites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing new about extreme weather in Canada

 

It's part of the new religion. Too much rain. Climate change. Not enough rain. Climate change. Of course insurance claims are higher, houses are far more expensive than they were decades ago. Maybe we should stop building on flood plains and then act shocked when they flood .  :Scratch-Head:

"But there’s nothing new about it, which also means it is unlikely such flooding is the result of climate change. Trudeau, who is a shallow, fashionable thinker, sees every unexpected cloudbank as a sign of environmental catastrophe requiring a new carbon tax or a stack of economy-choking regulations and laws.

However, this is Canada. It’s spring. It’s gonna flood somewhere. Maybe several somewheres.

There is no statistical proof that there are more floods than ever before or that the floods are more devastating. There are no more hurricanes or tornados or droughts.

Yes, some years there are more bouts of extreme weather than usual in some places. But if we are supposed to fear climate change because it is “global,” then extreme weather events should also be global (and probably increasing), but they’re not."

 

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-theres-nothing-new-about-extreme-weather-in-canada

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-finally-its-safe-for-the-whistleblowers-of-corrupted-climate-science-to-speak-out?fbclid=IwAR38OuRx_RiDNQI0Wt5uLcqPhLQq5OOV8fBzCna2NHvOziWI205TdvsmCII#comments-area

Lawrence Solomon: Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

The greatest scientific fraud of the century will be laid bare, along with its corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media

Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.

Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated?

Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation.

[more...]

Edited by Moon The Loon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading but it is dated feb 2017......the government’s agenda continues....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My carbon tax portion on fuel will cost me approximately $374 this year.  Just on fuel.  The government will (maybe) give me $307 back.  How is this putting more money in my pocket exactly?

Liberal Math.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reacting to the news, Trudeau now considering another new “Perma - nent Tax “ in the hope the glaciers will rethink their positions on thawing.

.  FYI...satire

“ Permafrost rapidly thawing in Arctic means sinkholes, damage to infrastructure and more greenhouse gases “

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-ground-thaws-and-swallows-study-says-permafrost-melting-faster-than-thought

 

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this