War on Carbon vs. War on Cigarettes

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It has occurred to me that these two issues have much in common. Cigarettes have been known to kill people for decades, yet instead of outlawing them, the government instead chooses to collect very lucrative taxes on them, a hypocritical act to be certain, which as you may have noticed, has not succeeded in stopping people from smoking yet.

Now they insist that releasing carbon dioxide will kill us all and mother earth too, and the solution of course, is to tax it. If I were brainwashed into believing that Al Gore's fairytale was completely true, and I had a majority government able to do as I please, I would take the opportunity to save the world from imminent demise by outlawing CO2 immediately, anything less would be irresponsible and would lead my detractors to believe that I'm not committed to saving the world, only in revenue generation, in the name of the cause du jour. To use the case of the Alberta NDP( still seems strange to see those two in the same sentence), they obviously know that this tax is political suicide, and that they had nothing to lose regardless, so why not do the right thing, and outlaw burning fossil fuels in Alberta completely, save the world, and be heroes to hippies the world over forever more, instead of looking like hypocritical politicians who put money and political ambitions ahead of principles? If, as they claim(or wish), this tax will have no net cost to consumers, and will not negatively affect economic growth, then that is admitting that it won't cut CO2 emissions either, can't have it both ways. Therefore will be completely ineffectual for the intended purpose of saving the world.

If I were one of the faithful followers of this religion, I would be extremely disappointed that the messiah's I elected to save the planet from evil CO2 would waste such political capital on a completely ineffective strategy, while simultaneously turning most voters against them making it unlikely that they will get another chance to enforce their agenda for another generation or more till the voters forget the epic economic disaster they caused with their ineffective half measures. So, Mrs. Notley, and Mr. Trudeau, assuming that you are both reading this, as I'm certain you must be, otherwise, why would all of us farmers waste our time and energy telling you how we feel, do the right thing, ban CO2, forget baby steps, this issue is obviously far too important for incremental gestures. Put our money where your mouth is. And I know this issue is this important because a highly qualified Hollywood actor says it is.

If we discover tomorrow that cell phones cause cancer 100% of the time, should we ban them, or tax them? It really should be this black and white.

[oneoff]

Oh you'll pay all right. It will be built right into each and every price (except for some token exemptions). Plus GST that is not all returned to you.

[farmaholic]

Sarcastic logic....

[checking]

Oh, I so agree with you. AF5.

Just in Trouble's neutral carbon cost solution will not win a declared Canadian war on carbon. It's nothing but fence sitting when you declare neutrality.

How do you win a war by putting lipstick on an 800 pound hog, and believing you have slaughtered it?

[Hamloc]

AF5 well written. I like the part where you state the Alberta NPD the the carbon tax will be no great cost to consumers, won't hurt economic growth and therefore won't lower C02 emissions. I think at 20 dollars a tonne the cost won't be huge except on carbon intensive products like concrete powder and coal. Our Prime Minister is not shy about the fact that after 2022 he wants the level of the carbon to continue to rise. Imagine at 100$ a tonne carbon tax. That would be 5$ per gigajoule on natural gas, 15 cents a litre of propane, 22.5 cents per litre of gas, it would add up very quick.

As has been shown in Ontario the biggest threat to economic growth is the elimination of affordable electric power. The Premier can tell us how she is going to limit the price of power to 6.8 cents a kilowatt. My understanding in Ontario that it is the global adjustment fee that really bites. I believe this covers the higher electrical cost of green energy and the capital cost.

AF5 as for your theory on smoking. I quit when it hit 10$ a pack. When I started it was a dollar a pack. Do you think in 20 years the carbon tax will raise energy costs that much?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5 as for your theory on smoking. I quit when it hit 10$ a pack. When I started it was a dollar a pack. Do you think in 20 years the carbon tax will raise energy costs that much?

Answer, no. By attempting to increase incrementally, it will be impossible. The economic carnage will ensure that no party will be voted in again to continue this policy, and their supporters will be disenfrachised by the lack of real progress. All or nothing.

[furrowtickler]

Well said af5

[mustardman]

Well said af5

If there's a paradise for environmentalists, this Nordic nation of 9.2 million people must be it. In 2007 Sweden topped the list of countries that did the most to save the planet - for the second year running - according to German environmental group, Germanwatch. Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.

[mustardman]

And more recently:

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions to*talled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon di*oxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction. Meanwhile, Sweden’s GDP grew 58 per cent during this time period.

[mustardman]

MORAL of Story is don't let one man (Brad Wall) Define what a carbon "tax" is.

Do your Own Research

[sk_wheatking]

I ain't paying no carbon tax !

Politicians can get off there ass and clean up Canada's inner cities garbage and filth if they are worried about the environment !

# cheap energy grows an economy !

# all out war against politicians who want to tax to the Max !

# get rid of politicians that are no good !

You nailed it! Especially the inner city garbage and filth. Also along with the growing population of drug users who are useless to society but get tax funding for needles and injection sites along with food and clothing etc. As far as drugs go I'm with the guy who ripped Obama a new one. He was from Indonesia. Obama didn't like it that when they caught the trafficking guys and the producers they were knocked out permanently. ...right then and there! Drug issues. .....solved!

[chuckChuck]

sk wheatking
It was the president of the Philipines.

And apparently there is no rule of law in the Philipines. If you are a supected drug user or trafficker the cops act as judge, jury and executioner.

Fortunately most Canadians believe in a fair trial and conviction before penalties. Apparently you want to go back to middle ages.

Why not bring back stoning, beheading and burning at the stake?

[grassfarmer]

AF5, Here is the research on smoking and tobacco taxes.

[URL="http://fjc.people.uic.edu/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf"]http://http://fjc.people.uic.edu/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf[/URL]

Here is the crucial info as I know most don't like reading lengthy articles.

Question asked: How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?

Answer: The review of the literature clearly shows that the answer to the question posed in the title of this chapter is 'very effective'. Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use.

It works, so will a carbon tax.

[SASKFARMER3]

Chucks when the liberals take us down this path and business leaves plus jobs unemployment grows we do become a third world country and that is where he is taking us.

Why would you kill the golden goose oil just to pretend solar and wind are the next best thing.

Why not milk oil and gas and watch the rest of the world and when a alternate is found then switch.

Not kill one to go the other way really makes sense especially when your number three in the wold.

Real genius

[may-be]

And more recently:

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions to*talled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon di*oxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction. Meanwhile, Sweden’s GDP grew 58 per cent during this time period.

What changes did they make for higher reductions than us? Besides not burning their garbage to heat the towns homes and water...We have been reducing our emissions by zero till, more environmentally friendly vehicles, equipment ,appliances, led bulbs, more insulation in our homes, recycling, etc. As new technologies get better I'm positive we will embrace them also. The carbon tax thing to me is just another smoke screen to raise taxes so our so called leaders can throw more cash to certain people for votes.