U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

[fjlip]

Unless the "climate" and "world Temp" get COLDER real fast...this bullshit will KILL Canadian industry including ALL OF US. Hoping/wishing/praying it is a LONG COLD WINTER to shut the F*ckers up! Let's make the hockey stick break downward!
Everyone STOP CO2 emissions right now... no engines, no home heating, no exhaling, and for heaven's sake NO FARTING!

[SASKFARMER3]

Yea chick your a typical liberal all will change and help the climate. Sprinkle fairy dust now.

Farmers will be exempt ha ha ha hahahahahah maybe day one but day three they hit us.

Industry will change and pass it on to us farmers who will pay way more,

[Klause]

Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.

Go copy and paste an article explaining the Haber-Bosch process will ya?

All costs - from fert and chem production - to freight of our grain to Port will increase.

[SASKFARMER3]

Not in chucks world it's all fairy dust sprinkles and magic all will change and not cost farmers a dime.

[Hamloc]

Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.

Where do I start Chuck2. First, farm fuel exemption from carbon tax. Yes you are correct, at present marked fuel is carbon tax exempt. Natural gas is not exempt, shop heat and drying grain are certainly users of natural gas. Our NDP government is planning on switching electrical generation over to natural gas, I have to assume this will apply. As for diesel, at $100 a tonne carbon tax this will amount to 26.75 cents per litre. Hard to believe we will still be exempt at this level of tax and I believe this will also make us a political target of the enviros. As for retail gas prices I believe in Alberta this weekend they were $1.27 a litre but oil is only $54 a barrel, someone is milking the system. The last price I heard this week in Montana was $2.55 a U.S. Gallon, converted to a litre in CAD that is 88 cents a litre, explain the differential.

Probably your biggest failing is your inability to see all the upcoming implications. Do you really believe that nitrogen emissions will not become a target of environmentalists. I recently read that Bill Gates et al have invested $300 million in research into growing meat in the lab. Grassfarmer this applies to both you and me, the end of farms raising beef, too much methane. As for lost jobs you didn't address the potential end of domestic fertilizer and cement powder production. Nor did you speculate on how high carbon taxes will go. In my opinion $100 a tonne by 2030 and that is best case scenario could be higher. I have no problem matching an U.S. carbon tax but at present there isn't one. Sorry Chuck have to quit the more I write the more pissed off I get. Look forward to your response.

[chuckChuck]

Where do I start Chuck2. First, farm fuel exemption from carbon tax. Yes you are correct, at present marked fuel is carbon tax exempt. Natural gas is not exempt, shop heat and drying grain are certainly users of natural gas. Our NDP government is planning on switching electrical generation over to natural gas, I have to assume this will apply. As for diesel, at $100 a tonne carbon tax this will amount to 26.75 cents per litre. Hard to believe we will still be exempt at this level of tax and I believe this will also make us a political target of the enviros. As for retail gas prices I believe in Alberta this weekend they were $1.27 a litre but oil is only $54 a barrel, someone is milking the system. The last price I heard this week in Montana was $2.55 a U.S. Gallon, converted to a litre in CAD that is 88 cents a litre, explain the differential.

Probably your biggest failing is your inability to see all the upcoming implications. Do you really believe that nitrogen emissions will not become a target of environmentalists. I recently read that Bill Gates et al have invested $300 million in research into growing meat in the lab. Grassfarmer this applies to both you and me, the end of farms raising beef, too much methane. As for lost jobs you didn't address the potential end of domestic fertilizer and cement powder production. Nor did you speculate on how high carbon taxes will go. In my opinion $100 a tonne by 2030 and that is best case scenario could be higher. I have no problem matching an U.S. carbon tax but at present there isn't one. Sorry Chuck have to quit the more I write the more pissed off I get. Look forward to your response.

But if the price of oil hits $100 plus per barrel or higher and drives up the price of everything causing hardship and lost jobs in many parts of Canada that's okay? Taxes can be used to pay for services in Canada. Excess oil profits leave the country through multinationals. Many of these companies receive subsidies and low royalty rates costing Canadians millions in lost revenue that belongs in Canada.

[chuckChuck]

It is kind of pointless to have this discussion about a carbon tax with people who don't believe in the science of human caused climate change and therefore are in complete denial about the costs and risks.

The interesting thing is this recent report was released while Trump is in power with little resistance. US agencies who are funded by the US government confirming human caused climate change! It becomes harder and harder to deny. And in reality the deniers are having little impact.

[blackpowder]

Some like to initiate winless arguments with the wrong crowd. Serves a personal need I guess.
Can we seperate the science from the policy? Righteous expounding reminiscent of the cwb wars ( of which the same culprits keep it going) serves only to ingrain resistance.
I'm not comfortable being reminded constantly that because I'm not qualifed, and very likely, nearly retarded, that I should just shut up. Goaded perhaps?
Lets all just drop the science for a moment. Can we then all agree the Wests' policies for change are sensible? Are they the best we can do? Feasable? Productive? Sustainable? Would you have the designers of all these policies run your business?? Because its the same thing.
We cant 'engineer' an Africa that can feed itself. We cant fathom Chinese culture. And yet we're going to lead the way. Using methods that have never worked in the past.
If enough people think the war on carbon is righteous then so it becomes. Once at proper war all interests focus on one goal.
But really, right now? Far too many are looking at the cash. What can we buy with all this new income? With no idea how to generate new. Or sustain the payers. Its magic.

[Hamloc]

But if the price of oil hits $100 plus per barrel or higher and drives up the price of everything causing hardship and lost jobs in many parts of Canada that's okay? Taxes can be used to pay for services in Canada. Excess oil profits leave the country through multinationals. Many of these companies receive subsidies and low royalty rates costing Canadians millions in lost revenue that belongs in Canada.

Instead of specifically answering any of my questions your basic response was $100 oil is bad and taxes are good.

I will make my question very simple: Chuck2 if Canada reduces it's yearly C02 output from 722 mega tonnes where it is today to 500 mega tonnes by 2030 as promised by our federal government will there be a measurable change to the earth's average temperature?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It is kind of pointless to have this discussion about a carbon tax with people who don't believe in the science of human caused climate change and therefore are in complete denial about the costs and risks.

Then why do you keep trying to convince all of us red neck, uneducated, neanderthal, knuckle dragging, backwards hillbilly hicks that we need to pay taxes to save the planet? Why lower yourself to our level when it is obviously pointless? Why would you spend so much time trying to convert people who are obviously so intellectually inferior to yourself that we cannot even begin to comprehend your cut and paste articles. Yet you keep coming back to every AGW thread with more cut and paste responses to questions which were never asked.

And science isn't something that is to be "believed in", science is based on evidence, religion is based on beliefs. I think you know where I am going with this.