New Carbon Tax? Sounds like it's coming

[rugatika]

So. Not to go down the road of debating the science on AGW, I think we've clearly already established that it's a hoax. Be that as it may, a new round table on the environment and economy board discussion government bureaucrat thingy seeing a possibility for a new revenue stream and more cushy lunches and jet flights around the globe has decided that all people should be paying a tax for any carbon they emit. The other system would be a cap and trade system whereby those that emit less carbon would be able to collect money from those that emit more carbon.

Any chances the Conservatives will bring this in? Is it fair that we should be forced to pay for CO2 emissions which are beneficial to tree growth. Will we be taxed for the air we breathe out as it also contains CO2? Will larger people be charged more for emitting more CO2? Should people who exercise and do a lot of activity be charged more than someone who keeps his CO2 emissions low by sitting in front of the TV and not exerting himself? Will bums on the street be able to make huge fortunes by selling their carbon credits as they do not use them to heat a home for their children or drive a car?? What if a family cannot afford the carbon tax to heat their house to keep their tiny little children warm in COLD winter during global warming? Will they be forced to freeze to death?

Will Canadian companies now all move to China where they are not forced to pay for this?

Just some thoughts. Easy to say AGW is bad. Now it's time to pay for it. Open up the wallets boys, David Suzuki wants in.

[rugatika]

Just thought of a potential upside to this. Since deer and moose etc are also carbon emitters, I would imagine that the government would offer to pay people who would rid Canada of these "polluters". I guess some of you jumped on Moosehunter for killing those porky's for no reason. Well the reason was that they were blatanly ruining the planet with their CO2 emissions.

So the new scheme would work like this. If you want to drive a big truck, you will have to shoot 15 whitetail deer per year. If you want to live in a house over 800 sq feet you will have to kill an elk for every 100sq feet over that per year. Seems like a plan to me. I'll let the bureaucrats work out the rest of the details. You can thank me later. This should boost hunter ranks in no time.

[Don Meredith]

Clearly established in your mind, rugatika. Fortunately most of the rest of the world, and most of the powers-that-be have agreed with the UN, the Nobel Committee, NASA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, just to name a few, that clilmate change is real and largely human-caused. And that won't change no matter how many times you and the other deniers keep sayiong it aint' so. But then I forget that you still have your head stuffed firmly in the sand. That's a pity.

[Scott N]

I kinda of doubt a carbon tax is coming... John Baird was just on TV stating that no carbon tax is in the works. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are on the record stating that they do not want a carbon tax, so unless smirk'n Jack Layton wins the next election, I don't see one in the works.

[rugatika]

Don, this is a new topic. If you wish to comment on the validity of AGW then feel free to present any evidence you think you have in one of the previous threads, or start a new thread and present your evidence there.

Thanks for your comments anyway though. Perhaps you would care to comment on the topic of this thread regarding carbon taxes/credits.

[Bushmaster]

There are already companies running around trying to sign farmers up, as their crops are worth $$$ on a per acre basis.

[Don Meredith]

No, I'm afraid you opened the subject of the previous threads by your inane comment that "we've clearly already established that it's a hoax." So, I think my comments are ligit. If yoiu don't want me to comment on denials then don't bring them up.

With regard to a carbon tax, if that will reduce consumption and get industry to clean up itsact, then yes, I'm for it.

[TheClash]

global warming or not...i am all for conservation and responsibility.

[rugatika]

Don. That's exactly my point. You were unable to present evidence in any of the previous threads supporting AGW. Name calling and listing government agencies that want further control of our lives and money is not evidence for AGW.

Anyway, this thread is about the carbon taxes and cap and trade system as I stated in the opening comment. If you are now willing to actually debate actual evidence for or against AGW then start a new thread. If you are unable to scientifically demonstrate AGW then keep on with what you have been doing.

Best of luck and God bless.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by TheClash

global warming or not...i am all for conservation and responsibility.

I agree with you Clash. Conservation and responsibility are good things. Taxing a non-pollutant (CO2) is a bad thing.

[TheClash]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I agree with you Clash. Conservation and responsibility are good things. Taxing a non-pollutant (CO2) is a bad thing.

very true....

[Grizzly Adams]

Now, now, Don, you don't want to open this can of worms again. I noted that of all the letters in Outdoor Canada, a few months ago, yours was the only one supporting the magazines position. Professional courtesty? Science is never absolute, the world has been around for ever and the climate has been changing for every minute of that. I suppose you would have us believe that we are also responsible for the ice cap on Mars melting. Global warming, if it really is occurring , is a good thing. With our uncontrolled population growth,we are going to need every arable acre, we can farm. My fear is that by concentrating on this one highly suspect problem, we are going to neglect the real ones, like pollution, explosive population growth, over fishing of the oceans, loss of farmland, loss of forests, etc. etc.
Carbon Tax? if it ever comes, we'd better dust off those secession posters,if we wan't our economy to survive.
Grizz

[TreeGuy]

Rug, I think that a carbon tax being implemented anytime soon is unlikely. Here's why....

The US is beginning to enter a fairly significant recession, and like it or not, this will have an effect on our economy. The region of the country that will be hit hardest by this will be the manufacturing sectors that dominate the economies of our two most 'vote-rich' provinces.

Layton is Layton, and thus will never form a government. He's pretty much to say and stand anywhere he wants to because he will NEVER have to live up to his words.

On the other hand, Dion is boxed in by this. Unless he can form a majority (at this point HIGHLY unlikely) and impose such a tax on the big oil producers et al., it would be political suicide (on a scale that Lemmings would be impressed by ) to suggest such a thing. He knows this and his party knows this. This plan will be shelved strictly to save their own necks.

By the time the Liberals form a majority, the fad will have passed, Gore will have 3 new mansions, science will prevail from it's blackest eye yet, and the eyes of the world will be on China and how all of the stuff we are buying from them is killing us. Fattening the calf before the slaughter, per say. Now that is something that IS scary!

My question is, if the intentions of cleaning up our environment are pure, why use a punitive tax measure? Why not use incentives for companies to clean up?

Tree

[unclebuck]

Don, I now know why I dropped my subscription to AO!!! I sit back and check this forum on a daily basis, however, have little to comment on because of attitudes like yours. I have a problem when I am told that the "science is in", when above all, science at the best of time, is not always conclusive, always open to new discovery. Perhaps you, Suzuki, and Gore should hop on your ponies and let the rest of the world know what science is about!!!!!

[Buckhead]

Yes, it seems kind of funny that no cared about global warming or carbon taxes when oil was $8 a barrel and the multi-national oil companies were NOT making any money. Now that the oil price is high you hear about it every day. Sound (and smells) a bit fishy to me.

Also, there is just as much scientific evidence that global warming is not caused by human activities if one is willing to keep an open mind and do a bit of research.

Let's face it. Bad news and fearmongering that the sky is falling sells a lot more newspapers and airtime and keeps more politicians employed than good news.

[rugatika]

You make a good point about using punitive taxes to curb CO2 output rather than using incentives. (ie: how about no taxes on houses that meet certain efficiency standards, high efficiency furnaces etc.) You don't think it might have something to do with this just being another attempt at thinning our wallets do you? Nahhhh, couldn't be.

Is it just me or is anybody else getting just a little bit sick and tired of working our balls off to pay not just politicians, but all the bureaucrats, artists, CBC "news" reporters, comittee chairs, human rights investigators, and so on and so on. The list of people with their hands out for government money (money from working people) seems endless. When will it end.

Sorry, got a little off topic with that rant.

[bagwan]

Jeez, I have a hard time getting one Elk a year. Now I gotta get 8 or chop my house in half. Thought it was time for some humour. Rug, I think you've got an idea for a new commercial to replace the bankers. Its that or sew the pockets.

[shedcrazy]

Is this the next sky is falling topic for you boys?? The next government secret plan???
There are always ways to beat the system with incentives programs and most are almost always taken advantage of. Isn't that way everyone is worried about paying the landowner for access? Don't trust the system or the landowner. Why trust the big business or Industry that says it's curbed CO2 emisions?
My only fear with most of the government/public concentrating on greenhouse gases is that some problems that were moving along quite good might be lost (i.e SARA).
I think the last rant you guys went off on was the increased fines for polluting. I thought after that happened my electric bill was suppose to go thru the roof! Never happened.
It seems a little funny that on the same forum I can read that goverment should not change any rules and allow a free market for access (keep government rules=no paid hunting) but also bash government for always interfering and taking all your money with a bunch of lazy government workers. I guess you only want government when it only benefits you!
As for the GW debate, you only see/read what you wanted to see or read.

[rugatika]

Shed I never thought I'd hear you admit that gov't workers are lazy. I don't think I'd lump em all in the "lazy" category the way you have though. I think there are some that work hard.

I really don't think it's any sort of a "secret" plan on the part of the government to take more money away from us. It is simply the nature of the beast. Gov't departments get paid to spend our money. If they don't spend all the money they're supposed to they get that money taken away. Therefore it is the interest of gov't workers to to spend all of their money and to lobby to get more. THe more people working under them the less they have to do and the higher their pay grade increases.

I really don't think any of us said anything about the end of the world or the sky is falling other than to point out that it is NOT.

Some things are good for government to be involved in like national defence etc. Some things gov't should leave to the private sector, like news broadcasting, and other things the gov't should just keep it's nose out of.

Welcome back, Shed. We missed ya.

[shedcrazy]

I actually wrote that I read it on this forum....again only read what you want...
Just let me know when you are losing money out of your wallet due to a carbon tax. I am just pointing out that for some reason anytime there is any new environment tax, protection or policy it always comes back to the government is stealing money. Like you say all the time...Let's see some facts?

Would you prefer government stay out of enviormental policy? natural resources?

How you described how mangers make money works for any business structure in the world......Industry, consultants, retail and yes governments. As for fiscal management sure it is far for from ideal but I have never had less of a budget one year due to not spending the prevous year. That is an old wives tale my friend (I hope your other data is more reliable)!!!!!!!! I did get in trouble consultanting for not using all the possible billable hours in a statement of work on a government contract though!!!!

[rugatika]

Hell Shed. The damn carbon tax is taking money out of my wallet already and they ain't even approved it yet. How much money do you think has been spent on fancy lunches, blackberries, pamphlets, steaks, and wine and flights all over the damn planet just talking about it?

As far as gov't enviro policy, they can fine offenders of certain limits, with the possibility of jail time for gross and blatant offences (like dumping mercury into a river). As far as carbon goes...it ain't no damn pollutant and the only reason to tax it as such is to line gov't coffers.

As far as gov't dept spending..that is how it works and I've seen it happen. There's just something about spending other peoples money that makes it so much easier than spending your own. Story after story I've heard. It's so easy to be a hero when you're playing Santa Claus with other people's money.

[bearbait]

no differant then the oil royalties....why shouldent the government get there fair share???alot of you supported the royalties increase....whats the differance here????ohhhh becouse now it affects you....i get it....

rob