Latest Liberal promise

[chuckChuck]

Many of you don't even believe climate change is happening. So believing a carbon tax is needed to influence energy use and reduce carbon emissions is a big leap. Debating the merits of a carbon tax is difficult if you don't believe there is a problem.
Taxes on tobacco have been effective in reducing consumption. It is widely agreed that smoking costs the healthcare system billions. The extra tax is good policy.

It is very difficult to have a discussion about the benefits of a carbon tax without all the details. How much will be collected? Where will be spent? What are the rebates? What is the impact on the economy? But most economists believe it is the best way to go. There are several jurisdictions that already have it. BC has it. What has been the impact on farming? Unless you have answers to all these questions it is difficult to debate the merits.
The transition to a low carbon future has already started. Toyota is planning zero emissions by 2050. They may not make it. But that is a pretty big change in a short time.
whether a carbon tax is a good idea is debatable but it is best to have as much information as possible.
The reality is most of us have opinions biased by our views. But almost none of us are experts on climate change or carbon tax policy.

[Hamloc]

Chuck2 nice political answer, but you still didn't answer the question, is Alberta's carbon tax the way it has been reported nothing more than income redistribution? In BC I believe the amount of carbon tax you pay is credited against your income tax and is therefore supposed to be revenue neutral.

[Klause]

Climate change is happening. Always has, always will.


Little ice age in the middle ages.

The "BIG" ice age thousands of years ago.

At some point it was warm enough in Northern Alberta for huge bugs, rubber trees and tropical fish (look at the fossils found).


Remember in the 70s when everyone was scared of the world getting cold? Now we're scared of it over heating.

1 Volcano. 1 forest fire... they release more CO2 in minutes than humanity releases in a year.

I'm not against fuel efficiency, alternate technologies, etc... but politicians and these organizations are using the environment as a catalyst for socio-economic reforms that will strip individual's rights, and property in the name of "common good"... Anyone remember what happened the last time somebody tried that?

[fjlip]

Climate change is happening. Always has, always will.


Little ice age in the middle ages.

The "BIG" ice age thousands of years ago.

At some point it was warm enough in Northern Alberta for huge bugs, rubber trees and tropical fish (look at the fossils found).


Remember in the 70s when everyone was scared of the world getting cold? Now we're scared of it over heating.

1 Volcano. 1 forest fire... they release more CO2 in minutes than humanity releases in a year.

I'm not against fuel efficiency, alternate technologies, etc... but politicians and these organizations are using the environment as a catalyst for socio-economic reforms that will strip individual's rights, and property in the name of "common good"... Anyone remember what happened the last time somebody tried that?

Totally agree with you, no problem saving fuel, trees, using less electricity if it does not cost more.
Society needs a carrot NOT the STICK of taxation to change.
The choking forest fire smoke certainly added years of CO2 this past July.

[chuckChuck]

Everyone knows that climate change is also a natural phenomena. Humans are rapidly accelerating the natural change with releases of fossil carbon. At some point it there is tipping point where all hell breaks lose and the oceans rise to the point where major disruptions occur. The costs to our world economy will be in the trillions. Check out the NASA web site for a mainstream view of the science. NASA is not a left wing think tank!
Harper also said a global warming and a carbon tax was a socialist plot. Income redistribution in other words. So is a progressive tax system, Gis, old age security, welfare, Medicare, subsidies to agriculture etc.
Hamloc how much will be collected in Alberta? Where will it be spent? Alberta and Sasktachewan are both investing in renewable energy. Wall is not a socialist. Why the increasing emphasis on renewables from a conservative? If a carbon tax is used to increase investment in renewables then that would be a good use? Wall invested in carbon capture. Perhaps not a good investment?
Governments often provide incentives like grants, low interest loans, tax breaks to steer the economy in certain directions. Farm safety nets are an example of investment in agriculture? Are they good or bad for the economy?

To have an informed debate on Agriville is almost impossible because the amount of detailed knowledge required is not readable in a few paragraphs. Governments rely on experts in science, taxation, public administration who have spent years studying and have years of experience. Do you do your own corporate year end? No you higher an accountant. Do you do your own surgery? No you go to a hospital. All for Now

[Oliver88]

In Alberta the carbon tax will go two directions:
1) subsidize R&D for a few oilsand companies to extract oil more efficiently from the sand
2) go into government coffers leading to more government spending

It is not a "neutral" tax as advertised by Notley.

[dmlfarmer]

Klause, could you please provide some peer reviewed scientific analysis to back up your claim that "1 Volcano. 1 forest fire... they release more CO2 in minutes than humanity releases in a year."

Contrary to your claim: A study by the USGS of 5 studies found "On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year" http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2827&from=rss_home#.VolxCDFIiUk

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-basic.htm

Effects of forest fire on carbon, climate overestimated http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2010/jan/effects-forest-fire-carbon-emissions-climate-impacts-often-overestimated-0

The CO2 released from fires, overall, is a small fraction of the estimated average annual Net Primary Productivity and, unlike fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the pulsed emissions of CO2 during fires are partially counterbalanced by uptake of CO2 by regrowing vegetation in the decades following fire. http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/2/1/10

[Klause]

Ya'll seem to forget something.

[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy]Universal law of Energy convservation[/URL]


Basically, Energy, mass, "things" can change state but never be created nor destroyed.


The CO2 from fossil fuels, at some point was in the atmosphere... I.E. "fossil fuels". These fossils were living things, thus their carbon was in the atmoshphere, I'm hazarding to guess the last time rubber trees grew in Northern Alberta.

Then, there's another theory.

Or wait, perhaps there is no such thing as a fossil fuel, and oil is actually created deep underground?

The fact that oil reservoirs continually replenish (see: Mendelev, Dr. Thomas Gold, Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) Kinda lends itself to theory #2.


Now, what do both of these theories tell us? Scientists don't have a clue what's going on. Which brings me back to the original point... All this climate histeria is being used for a completely different purpose... and it'll be too late by the time most people notice it.



Another FACT... the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of a plant, the larger the plant grows, the faster it gets there, and the healthier it is (read about BRIX). And, an inconvenient truth... the more CO2, the larger/healthier the plant, the more CO2 that plant sequesters.

Remember how animals used to get so large? Just like the trees and plants did in the pre-historic world? (Again, FACT... We have fossiles) I'd venture to guess it's from much higher CO2 levels.

Again, I don't see anything climate change is doing that will hurt anything? So what, water levels rise, places on the planet will be under water... Other places will become wetter and more productive. Quit trying to save low lying areas - the landforms on this planet are in a constant flux.

BTW, there is no way to actually measure CO2 or any other type of emission to any kind of scientific standard. it's all up in the air (pun intended).

Volcanoes put out 600,000,000 tonnes per year into the atmosphere, and almost that much more into the oceans which diffuse into the atmosphere (climate scientists forget about that fact).

Humans have an effect... but so do animals, so did dinosaurs...


Again, clean energy is great, but let's actually make sure it is clean, and efficient. Burning NH3 and diesel to grow corn to burn for fuel... it's retarded... Just burn the fuel.

Turning air and water into NH3 works as green energy if you want to store natural (wind, solar) power for later use.... Or for use as fertilizer....


BTW, that methane well leaking in California? It's putting out as much methane as 7 MILLION cars PER DAY.

Just think about that for a second... that 1 well pretty much cancels out all of California's climate change actions in the last 30 years.

[burnt]

Aww Klause, you just went and pricked their hysterical bubble...

[Hamloc]

Krause 2 great posts today:-). But remember Chuck2 said Agriville is no place for serious debate, can't get enough scientists and other experts involved, just a few farmers talking common sense lol