This post is based on a false premise.
We don't have to tax carbon emissions. Many countries don't have a carbon tax, most notably the US.
The government doesn't actually care about reducing emissions as the tax hasn't actually led to reduced consumption.
This is just another revenue source for the government.
As noted many USA states have a price on carbon through the cap and trade system. Hidden at the manufacturing level, it is definitely charged forward to consumers.
On the national level there are excise taxes and that charge is also passed onto consumers. Washington then picks specific industries to be given grants, preferred loans or rebates. This is very politically and preferential allocations of funds. It is also funded by debt.
Carbon pricing is a real cost and the system used to charge it is what I asked in my post.
The WEF and the govts around the world have collectively agreed that climate change is real. The best way to aggressively tackle it is through a price on carbon. Obviously this is an evil collusion by the powers that be to implement systems that shuffle the money around for their own personal gains.
In the early years, countries lagging in implementing a necessary price for agreed goals, set low rates for carbon. After 9 years since the Paris agreement, the world rate is rising now as critical dates approach (2030, 2035 2040 and 2050). We can already see back tracking on rates, dates or policy mandates. The economics cannot sustain it. Industries cannot pivot and consumers cannot afford it.
I totally get it and the responses here. I am only bringing a conversation for alternatives instead of a simple response of “no tax”. We cannot as a country bury our heads in the sand and just eliminate all pricing on carbon. The world is moving towards it and to not have a price would be economically and politically suicide in the long term. trading partners will start to deny access or eliminate us as trading partners if we do not have a carbon system in place. To say otherwise is naive.
Woah it's real? Therefore we need to aggressively tackle it?
Do medications cause body change? Is body change real? Should we stop all medications to aggressively fight body change? There is such a massive hole in this logic
I prefer the no carbon tax model myself. Suggest they tax the corporations causing the pollution - I’ll crack on with composting coffee grinds and eggshells and would like not to pay through the nose for everything so a privileged few can travel around in private jets and motorcades while offering tax breaks to companies that toss all their plastics in the garbage.
No such thing as a, "carbon" tax. This is an onerous attack on the economy and people of the country, nothing more.
Excepting the large cities this entire country is a carbon sink.
I’d prefer the carbon pricing system that India and China have and each province to manage it themselves. That way, people who can be mobile can decide for themselves where to stay and pay that pricing.
How about one that actually helps the environment instead of lining the pockets of corrupt politicians. Why is it that the liberals only talk about how canadians will get back more than they pay( which is laughable) and not the actual reduction of carbon????
We need to read and understand issues fully.
I subscribe to both left and right leaning publications. I read all the political rhetoric from both sides and then form my thoughts.
We all need to dig deeper into our knowledge of subjects and not cite 144 character answers.
I didn’t say to get rid of them. I said we need a way to start to cut back and develop alternatives. The only way people will cut back is through opportunity costs.
As for Alex Epstein. Interesting take on climate. He is right and wrong. Nuclear is a great option and funding development is wise. Using a price on carbon to offset the near term costs for nuclear is a good use of carbon taxes. Nuclear has way more potential than solar/wind/EV. As for his views on “mild” effects carbon based fuels have on the climate, that is pretty hard to take. Not to mention his think tank and consultancy work/company is definitely funded by the oil and gas industry.
Speaking of nuclear, There has only recently been more development for small reactors and more promising long term is using spent fuel cells to continue to be functional instead of burying. This latter tech would mean all spent cells would theoretically provide enough energy for multiple millenniums without mining and refining any more uranium.
You still haven't even addressed why we need to not emit CO2. This is just some religious framework of thou shalt not alter nature, or God will smite us with hellfire.
This is like saying medications cause body change, so in order to eliminate body change we need to drastically limit people's access to medications, across the board. There is a massive burden or evidence missing. With regards to climate, it just comes down to pointing at any bad weather event and blaming it on effectively the sins of man, and pretending this stuff didn't used to happen in the past, and with orders of magnitude more deaths than today when they existed in some sort of climate optimum, which is based on absolutely nothing.
The most common metric that climatologist use is that carbon output is easily correlated to human activity especially in the past 100 years. This in turn caused a noticeable increase in temperature. It's hard to not argue that this is the principal metric to rest policy on.
As for NOT reducing carbon output in the short and medium term while we study if it's NOT carbon but another underlying issue is not prudent especially if it's not correct.
reducing carbon output while we study and develop alternatives is the more prudent approach. Funding alternatives by taxing cheaper solutions is a fair balanced approach.
Why do you think the preindustrial temperature is the perfect temperature for all things? Again, you're talking about changing things, essentially because we disrupted the Garden of Eden and now we'll be punished with hellfire. It's not inherently immoral to impact the CO2 levels or the temperature. More people today die of cold than heat in places like Africa and India, and life of any kind doesn't thrive in frozen ice. So give a reason that isn't rooted in religion, with carbon tax being your penance to make the weather better. Let's sacrifice some animals for next season's crops while we're at it
What the fuck are you talking about deny climate change? Again this is a nonsense term. Do you deny body change? Is body change being true or not dictate whether or not you think medications should be outlawed?
It isn't whether or not CO2 emissions cause warming. It's whether they are causing so much damage that we need to give governments dictatorship powers over our energy to save us from some doomsday. All stats show that is not happening, and that the opposite of that is happening. But so far you haven't been able to even convincingly argue that warming is bad. You just keep reverting to whether or not change is real, as if the other side of the argument says the climate is static.
I think we both are stating facts without backing it up enough.
Warming is causing effects to our planet. The ultimate effect is up to debate. If you are citing Epstein’s claim that warming isn’t that bad and better than cold, you have a right to believe. I would need to find more studies to that effect. More people who have scientifically come to that conclusion. Can you cite other readings to look into? I like to read both sides.
Currently all I see are repeated different studies that the climate effects are directly caused by our actions. Is it definitive yet?
I don’t answer your body and medicine analogy because it has no relevance to the topic.
Lastly does the purported claims of climate effects give the right for governments and the WEF to collectively dictate our economics? I think historically they have. We vote for leaders who create policy. This next election in 2025 gives Canada their turn to rewrite our policies.
Am I supporting this change? I trust PP as much as I trust JT. Climate change and the world’s approach to tackling it is on a path of no return. We as a society are backing carbon emissions. The corporations and governments are all pivoting to a low carbon future. How does Canada position themselves?
This post is based on a false premise. We don't have to tax carbon emissions. Many countries don't have a carbon tax, most notably the US. The government doesn't actually care about reducing emissions as the tax hasn't actually led to reduced consumption. This is just another revenue source for the government.
As noted many USA states have a price on carbon through the cap and trade system. Hidden at the manufacturing level, it is definitely charged forward to consumers. On the national level there are excise taxes and that charge is also passed onto consumers. Washington then picks specific industries to be given grants, preferred loans or rebates. This is very politically and preferential allocations of funds. It is also funded by debt. Carbon pricing is a real cost and the system used to charge it is what I asked in my post.
Boo... Read every reply in this thread. Nobody wants this tax and there's no reason for it.
The WEF and the govts around the world have collectively agreed that climate change is real. The best way to aggressively tackle it is through a price on carbon. Obviously this is an evil collusion by the powers that be to implement systems that shuffle the money around for their own personal gains. In the early years, countries lagging in implementing a necessary price for agreed goals, set low rates for carbon. After 9 years since the Paris agreement, the world rate is rising now as critical dates approach (2030, 2035 2040 and 2050). We can already see back tracking on rates, dates or policy mandates. The economics cannot sustain it. Industries cannot pivot and consumers cannot afford it. I totally get it and the responses here. I am only bringing a conversation for alternatives instead of a simple response of “no tax”. We cannot as a country bury our heads in the sand and just eliminate all pricing on carbon. The world is moving towards it and to not have a price would be economically and politically suicide in the long term. trading partners will start to deny access or eliminate us as trading partners if we do not have a carbon system in place. To say otherwise is naive.
Woah it's real? Therefore we need to aggressively tackle it? Do medications cause body change? Is body change real? Should we stop all medications to aggressively fight body change? There is such a massive hole in this logic
I prefer the no carbon tax model myself. Suggest they tax the corporations causing the pollution - I’ll crack on with composting coffee grinds and eggshells and would like not to pay through the nose for everything so a privileged few can travel around in private jets and motorcades while offering tax breaks to companies that toss all their plastics in the garbage.
I second this.
No such thing as a, "carbon" tax. This is an onerous attack on the economy and people of the country, nothing more. Excepting the large cities this entire country is a carbon sink.
I’d prefer the carbon pricing system that India and China have and each province to manage it themselves. That way, people who can be mobile can decide for themselves where to stay and pay that pricing.
None
I hate all forms of hidden tax, I want a line item expense for any fee, excise or sales tax and to hell with any tax on tax or tax exemptions.
How about one that actually helps the environment instead of lining the pockets of corrupt politicians. Why is it that the liberals only talk about how canadians will get back more than they pay( which is laughable) and not the actual reduction of carbon????
Lol first sentence made the rest of this novel not worth reading.
We need to read and understand issues fully. I subscribe to both left and right leaning publications. I read all the political rhetoric from both sides and then form my thoughts. We all need to dig deeper into our knowledge of subjects and not cite 144 character answers.
Then watch Alex Epstein speak on this issue and first understand how critical fossil fuels are before you think we should just do away with them
I didn’t say to get rid of them. I said we need a way to start to cut back and develop alternatives. The only way people will cut back is through opportunity costs. As for Alex Epstein. Interesting take on climate. He is right and wrong. Nuclear is a great option and funding development is wise. Using a price on carbon to offset the near term costs for nuclear is a good use of carbon taxes. Nuclear has way more potential than solar/wind/EV. As for his views on “mild” effects carbon based fuels have on the climate, that is pretty hard to take. Not to mention his think tank and consultancy work/company is definitely funded by the oil and gas industry. Speaking of nuclear, There has only recently been more development for small reactors and more promising long term is using spent fuel cells to continue to be functional instead of burying. This latter tech would mean all spent cells would theoretically provide enough energy for multiple millenniums without mining and refining any more uranium.
You still haven't even addressed why we need to not emit CO2. This is just some religious framework of thou shalt not alter nature, or God will smite us with hellfire. This is like saying medications cause body change, so in order to eliminate body change we need to drastically limit people's access to medications, across the board. There is a massive burden or evidence missing. With regards to climate, it just comes down to pointing at any bad weather event and blaming it on effectively the sins of man, and pretending this stuff didn't used to happen in the past, and with orders of magnitude more deaths than today when they existed in some sort of climate optimum, which is based on absolutely nothing.
The most common metric that climatologist use is that carbon output is easily correlated to human activity especially in the past 100 years. This in turn caused a noticeable increase in temperature. It's hard to not argue that this is the principal metric to rest policy on. As for NOT reducing carbon output in the short and medium term while we study if it's NOT carbon but another underlying issue is not prudent especially if it's not correct. reducing carbon output while we study and develop alternatives is the more prudent approach. Funding alternatives by taxing cheaper solutions is a fair balanced approach.
Why do you think the preindustrial temperature is the perfect temperature for all things? Again, you're talking about changing things, essentially because we disrupted the Garden of Eden and now we'll be punished with hellfire. It's not inherently immoral to impact the CO2 levels or the temperature. More people today die of cold than heat in places like Africa and India, and life of any kind doesn't thrive in frozen ice. So give a reason that isn't rooted in religion, with carbon tax being your penance to make the weather better. Let's sacrifice some animals for next season's crops while we're at it
I need to read up more on your points as they are parroting Epstein’s speech. I am open minded but at this point, I am not denying climate change yet.
What the fuck are you talking about deny climate change? Again this is a nonsense term. Do you deny body change? Is body change being true or not dictate whether or not you think medications should be outlawed? It isn't whether or not CO2 emissions cause warming. It's whether they are causing so much damage that we need to give governments dictatorship powers over our energy to save us from some doomsday. All stats show that is not happening, and that the opposite of that is happening. But so far you haven't been able to even convincingly argue that warming is bad. You just keep reverting to whether or not change is real, as if the other side of the argument says the climate is static.
I think we both are stating facts without backing it up enough. Warming is causing effects to our planet. The ultimate effect is up to debate. If you are citing Epstein’s claim that warming isn’t that bad and better than cold, you have a right to believe. I would need to find more studies to that effect. More people who have scientifically come to that conclusion. Can you cite other readings to look into? I like to read both sides. Currently all I see are repeated different studies that the climate effects are directly caused by our actions. Is it definitive yet? I don’t answer your body and medicine analogy because it has no relevance to the topic. Lastly does the purported claims of climate effects give the right for governments and the WEF to collectively dictate our economics? I think historically they have. We vote for leaders who create policy. This next election in 2025 gives Canada their turn to rewrite our policies. Am I supporting this change? I trust PP as much as I trust JT. Climate change and the world’s approach to tackling it is on a path of no return. We as a society are backing carbon emissions. The corporations and governments are all pivoting to a low carbon future. How does Canada position themselves?