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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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

That increased cost was born by all producers around the world, therefore, we were no less competitive with them. As opposed to a tax which is only paid by producers in this country. The prices of all commodities adjusted to reflect the additional cost of production due to high energy prices. The world commodity prices will not adjust to reflect the fact that Canadian, and only Canadian farmers are paying additional taxes. The trouble with all socialists, is that their world exists in complete isolation to the rest of the world. All of these grand socialist/redistributionist concepts work great on paper when you ignore that the rest of the world exists. In reality, when you increase taxes in one jurisdiction, capital goes elsewhere, when you make producers less competitive, they will lose out to those without that burden.

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?

Have you seen the efficiency(or lack thereof) of government created jobs? Usually equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars per job supposedly created, all that capital came out of the productive economy to support the bureaucratic pseudo-economy. It is not a never a net neutral when redistributing wealth, it costs a lot in administration. If I had nothing better to do, I would find some articles about the horrendous cost of government created jobs and cut and paste them here for your perusal.

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?

And how do those jobs result in an exportable commodity which brings capital into the economy which we can use to pay the taxes? Renovating our own homes does not contribute to improving our balance of trade, quite the opposite. But that is typical socialist thinking, who needs the productive portion of the economy, we can all just borrow money to remodel each other's kitchens and the economy will be booming.

[chuckChuck]

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?

In what time period? By 2030, no measurable change. There is a long lag in the time between cutting greenhouse gases and the reduction in global temperature increases or temperature declines. You and i will be long gone before this process reverses.

This can only be done in cooperation with other countries who also cut their C02 emissions. The only holdouts to the Paris agreement are the USA, Iraq and maybe Nicaragua.

So even if Canada is a small national contributor, our per capita emissions are some of the highest in the world.

Just because we are a small national contributor, that is not an excuse to do nothing when almost every country is is working on the same goal. Even in the USA many cities, states are going ahead with their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of them are led by Republicans who disagree with their President.

[chuckChuck]

That increased cost was born by all producers around the world, therefore, we were no less competitive with them. As opposed to a tax which is only paid by producers in this country. The prices of all commodities adjusted to reflect the additional cost of production due to high energy prices. The world commodity prices will not adjust to reflect the fact that Canadian, and only Canadian farmers are paying additional taxes. The trouble with all socialists, is that their world exists in complete isolation to the rest of the world. All of these grand socialist/redistributionist concepts work great on paper when you ignore that the rest of the world exists. In reality, when you increase taxes in one jurisdiction, capital goes elsewhere, when you make producers less competitive, they will lose out to those without that burden.



Have you seen the efficiency(or lack thereof) of government created jobs? Usually equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars per job supposedly created, all that capital came out of the productive economy to support the bureaucratic pseudo-economy. It is not a never a net neutral when redistributing wealth, it costs a lot in administration. If I had nothing better to do, I would find some articles about the horrendous cost of government created jobs and cut and paste them here for your perusal.



And how do those jobs result in an exportable commodity which brings capital into the economy which we can use to pay the taxes? Renovating our own homes does not contribute to improving our balance of trade, quite the opposite. But that is typical socialist thinking, who needs the productive portion of the economy, we can all just borrow money to remodel each other's kitchens and the economy will be booming.

There are several advantages disadvantages in every industry depending on what country you live in. Energy price is only one out of many.

Since most of the provincial budgets go to education and healthcare I think it is pretty difficult to argue that these are inefficient unnecessary jobs.

How is it that capturing the suns energy and turning it into electricity not producing a useful commodity that adds value to an economy? Just one example.

Somehow you imagine a world with less carbon emissions not still producing goods and services which is completely out to lunch. We will still need commodities, materials, energy all of which create wealth.

This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done.

A bigger issue for jobs will likely be automation. It has already reduced a lot of jobs. Some are predicting 40% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years or something like that.

Under Conservative governments we still see wealth distribution and social programs like health care, education, pensions, Old age security, guaranteed income supplements, welfare, EI, subsidies to businesses, royalty and tax cuts, agriInvest, and the list goes on and on.

How can you support those programs if you are so against wealth redistribution?

[samhill]

Wealth distribution

So what is the purpose of immigrants? We don't need more farmers, miners, woodcutters all of whom create wealth. Increased population requires more housing, more infrastructure, more administration, more EI, more service economy.
I realize that a lot of the people at the top make money out of that, but guess who pays.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There are several advantages disadvantages in every industry depending on what country you live in. Energy price is only one out of many.

Since most of the provincial budgets go to education and healthcare I think it is pretty difficult to argue that these are inefficient unnecessary jobs.

How is it that capturing the suns energy and turning it into electricity not producing a useful commodity that adds value to an economy? Just one example.

Somehow you imagine a world with less carbon emissions not still producing goods and services which is completely out to lunch. We will still need commodities, materials, energy all of which create wealth.

This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done.

A bigger issue for jobs will likely be automation. It has already reduced a lot of jobs. Some are predicting 40% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years or something like that.

Under Conservative governments we still see wealth distribution and social programs like health care, education, pensions, Old age security, guaranteed income supplements, welfare, EI, subsidies to businesses, royalty and tax cuts, agriInvest, and the list goes on and on.

How can you support those programs if you are so against wealth redistribution?

I doubt you are a fan of Zerohedge, but here is their take on job creation cost:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-30/average-job-creation-cost-2013-553000

That is $553,000 per job. That is an excellent ROI compared to leaving that capital in the hands of entrepreneurs to create jobs at their actual cost. I'm obviously not referring to the services we expect government to provide, I'm referring to schemes with the sole intention of job creation, such as the current green energy myth.

I don''t have to imagine a world with less carbon emissions where we are still producing commodities, we won't be we will be importing them. The rest of the world without the burden of carbon taxes will continue producing commodities at below our COP, while our producers have been driven out of business by this punitive wealth redistribution, Then we get to figure out how to pay for importing these commodities without any productive economy left. We are not isolated from the rest of the world.

Tax cuts aren't wealth redistribution, it is a reduction in redistribution, but of course when you view all income as belonging to the government, who decides what small portion we should be allowed to keep, that is the logical conclusion.

One of these green adherents was interviewed on CBC one day, and she pronounced, very proudly that for every job lost in the fossil fuels industry, three would be created in the renewables industry. Now I may not be smart enough to do such complicated math, but the only conclusion I can draw is that the energy costs must also increase by 700% to pay for those additional jobs, unless of course they work for 1/7th the cost of an energy industry worker. Yet in her mind, this was a positive for her industry, not a detriment.

[chuckChuck]

No doubt there are going to be issues and challenges.

But if you remember when our dollar was so high because of high oil prices, manufacturing jobs were lost that will never return because Mexico, China, India all have a competitive advantages. How are you going to change that?

All this doom and gloom about the economy is often overstated and political in nature as it is used as an argument against change.

Yep we know the oil industry is worried so are the workers whose jobs are threatened by low commodity prices, automation, and changing consumer demand.

Continued growth based on non-renewable energy was never an option because sooner or later it was going to run out anyway. Now we have climate change which also has severe costs that need to be accounted for.

So you dont like a carbon tax? Are you prepared to pay the taxes necessary to fix the problems caused by climate change?

Neither you are I are qualified enough, have enough inforamtion or have enough time to go over the details. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.

[Sharecropper]

No doubt there are going to be issues and challenges.

But if you remember when our dollar was so high because of high oil prices, manufacturing jobs were lost that will never return because Mexico, China, India all have a competitive advantages. How are you going to change that?

All this doom and gloom about the economy is often overstated and political in nature as it is used as an argument against change.

Yep we know the oil industry is worried so are the workers whose jobs are threatened by low commodity prices, automation, and changing consumer demand.

Continued growth based on non-renewable energy was never an option because sooner or later it was going to run out anyway. Now we have climate change which also has severe costs that need to be accounted for.

So you dont like a carbon tax? Are you prepared to pay the taxes necessary to fix the problems caused by climate change?

Neither you are I are qualified enough, have enough inforamtion or have enough time to go over the details. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.

Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.

Exactly, the entire scheme is based on the fallacy of catastrophic global warming. Keyword being catastrophic. Therefore all research is proving that global warming will be negative no one is looking at the positives. A recent quirks and quarks episode showed that life will grow bigger and faster in Antarctica with temperature rise. Then proceeded to decide that increased life must be a bad thing not a good thing.

[chuckChuck]

Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.

Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/

[Klause]

Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/

You mean like 50 and 100 year droughts?


We've had those on the prairies before.