Melting Arctic Sea Ice May Be To Blame For Endless Winter: Scientists It's an increas

[furrowtickler]

What the socialists fail to understand about a carbon tax vs oil price increase, is that the oil Price increase applies equally to all of our competitors, While the carbon tax applies only to us and not our competitors. Most capital is mobile and will go to where It is text the least. If the carbon tax applied equally around the globe then I am all for it. But such basic laws of economics are lost on socialists , Who can't fathom that wealth redistribution Only serves to shrink the amount of wealth left to redistribute. But it sure looks good on paper.

Yup and there is not one “government “ official that going to pay the price . The taxpayers will pay their “expenses “ , why would they not support this scam.

[chuckChuck]

What the socialists fail to understand about a carbon tax vs oil price increase, is that the oil Price increase applies equally to all of our competitors, While the carbon tax applies only to us and not our competitors. Most capital is mobile and will go to where It is taxed the least. If the carbon tax applied equally around the globe then I am all for it. But such basic laws of economics are lost on socialists , Who can't fathom that wealth redistribution Only serves to shrink the amount of wealth left to redistribute. But it sure looks good on paper.

With or without a carbon tax there is no level playing field in energy costs. Tax policy, currency, and other policy factors already have a significant impact on the varying energy costs around the world. Tax policy is only one factor in many that determines where production occurs. We have been at disadvantage to US producers for a long time because of higher fuel costs and lower subsidy and support levels for agriculture and many farmers seem to be doing very well here.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

With or without a carbon tax there is no level playing field in energy costs. Tax policy, currency, and other policy factors already have a significant impact on the varying energy costs around the world. Tax policy is only one factor in many that determines where production occurs. We have been at disadvantage to US producers for a long time because of higher fuel costs and lower subsidy and support levels for agriculture and many farmers seem to be doing very well here.

I think I follow your logic. Because we are at a disadvantage already, the best solution is to make it an even bigger disadvantage.

[Klause]

I think I follow your logic. Because we are at a disadvantage already, the best solution is to make it an even bigger disadvantage.

Makes perfect sense!

Until we can't sell anything, employ anyone, or feed, clothe, or heat ourselves.


Then we'll study what the heck went wrong.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Makes perfect sense!

Until we can't sell anything, employ anyone, or feed, clothe, or heat ourselves.


Then we'll study what the heck went wrong.

But at least this studies will employ lots of liberals from eastern Canada For years to come. Eventually they will arrive at the predetermined outcome that it was not enough taxes that caused the problem.

[Guest]

what we need is a country for liberals and a country for us working folks that don't have time to protest and make noise , because we're working a lot . they could live happy in their little country with no heat , cars , power , etc . shit I don't think they could even morally burn wood to heat their houses , and they could just eat grass and stuff like that , smoke a little grass . would be a really good setup.
they'd be happy , we would be happy , can't figure out for the life of me why we try to co-exist

[sumdumguy]

[QUOTE=dmlfarmer;376786]Farming101: If you really believe climate is changing, then you know we are going to pay for it. The lowest estimate I can find of number of people who will be displaced by rising sea levels by the turn of the century is 150 million (others predict double or even up to 1 billion people) The cost of moving 150 million and the infrastructure for this number is astronomical. And how many of these climate refugees would you want to see in Canada? Afterall, most of the risk is to 3rd world areas where people built close to sea in river deltas. Most of these countries are already over populated and have little room for resettlement so the demands on a country like Canada for resettlement could be a big issue. It could make the Syrian war refugee number look miniscule

Have you seen where people build their homes? Just drive from Orlando to Key West, then tell me I have to pay for their rebuilding when they are right on the ocean shore. Give me a break! Man is ultimately responsible to use his friggin head. You included!

[dmlfarmer]

Have you seen where people build their homes? Just drive from Orlando to Key West, then tell me I have to pay for their rebuilding when they are right on the ocean shore. Give me a break! Man is ultimately responsible to use his friggin head. You included![/QUOTE]

It will not be a direct payment from you. It will come in the form of higher insurance premiums when homes are destroyed by storm serge here or other countries (insurance companies cross borders and reinsurance is global). It will come in the form of higher lumber, wire, shingle, plumbing etc prices when building supplies goes in price because of demand to rebuild homes. It will come in the form of higher bank charges and interest as banks seek to recoup their losses on defaulted mortgages. It will come in disaster relief payments from governments which taxes pay for; including your taxes for forest fires in Canada, floods on the coasts, and severe storms elsewhere. It will come in the form of higher crop insurance premiums as a result of more hail, drought, severe weather. Oh, you will pay! And you are included in your last statement if you do not think costs will be passed on to you from weather disasters.

[sumdumguy]

what we need is a country for liberals and a country for us working folks that don't have time to protest and make noise , because we're working a lot . they could live happy in their little country with no heat , cars , power , etc . shit I don't think they could even morally burn wood to heat their houses , and they could just eat grass and stuff like that , smoke a little grass . would be a really good setup.
they'd be happy , we would be happy , can't figure out for the life of me why we try to co-exist

Right on the money Case!

[sumdumguy]

Have you seen where people build their homes? Just drive from Orlando to Key West, then tell me I have to pay for their rebuilding when they are right on the ocean shore. Give me a break! Man is ultimately responsible to use his friggin head. You included!

It will not be a direct payment from you. It will come in the form of higher insurance premiums when homes are destroyed by storm serge here or other countries (insurance companies cross borders and reinsurance is global). It will come in the form of higher lumber, wire, shingle, plumbing etc prices when building supplies goes in price because of demand to rebuild homes. It will come in the form of higher bank charges and interest as banks seek to recoup their losses on defaulted mortgages. It will come in disaster relief payments from governments which taxes pay for; including your taxes for forest fires in Canada, floods on the coasts, and severe storms elsewhere. It will come in the form of higher crop insurance premiums as a result of more hail, drought, severe weather. Oh, you will pay! And you are included in your last statement if you do not think costs will be passed on to you from weather disasters.[/QUOTE]


Hogwash dml, you know sweet buggar all. Go preach to your sheeple. 👏 i can’t hear you.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Consider that insurance companies do a lot of research Analyze statistically every possible detail, Have billions if not trillions in risk to manage, Yet people are still permitted to build and insure homes and businesses On these sites which are supposed to be underwater by now if not imminently. So back to your question about who should you believe, The apocalyptic doomsdayers, Or follow the Money Of those with the most to gain or lose. I can find no evidence that Investment dollars or insurance companies take this threat seriously in the least. By their actions, not their words. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share with us.

[macdon02]

Lol if watching people build houses in stupid spots pisses you off, it's the exact same feeling I have about safe injection sites and not hiring on competency over race or gender based quota. Cities have no issue zoning the area as residential they also have no issue selling bonds that will be repaid under the assumption the exact same lots will pay taxes into eternity.... theoretically it would be fraud if the city genuinely believes it's infrastructure is at risk, zones an area residential and is using that to back the bond .... just saying.

[dmlfarmer]

Consider that insurance companies do a lot of research Analyze statistically every possible detail, Have billions if not trillions in risk to manage, Yet people are still permitted to build and insure homes and businesses On these sites which are supposed to be underwater by now if not imminently. So back to your question about who should you believe, The apocalyptic doomsdayers, Or follow the Money Of those with the most to gain or lose. I can find no evidence that Investment dollars or insurance companies take this threat seriously in the least. By their actions, not their words. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share with us.

It is called the free market. If you want to build, and are willing to pay the costs of insurance, someone is bound to insure you. The insurance costs are not the same for everyone everywhere. But individual insurance premiums do not pay 100% of potential losses to an individual (at least in the short term - maybe over lifetime, and if there was no inflation). So if a loss occurs, everyone subsidizes the person who lost. That is how insurance works.

After the overland flooding in both Ontario and Alberta in 2013, insurance companies started offering overland flooding riders, and declining claims for flooding of people who do not have the rider. (It will be interesting to see how many farms in southern Alberta will find they have no insurance coverage for flood damage as a result of flood damage due to heavy snow this year)

Overland Flooding

Overland flooding is a very important topic in Canada. This is a type of flood that results from the level of water outside of your dwelling rising, allowing water to enter your home. That can be a result of water levels rising in the rivers due to rain or extensive volumes of melted snow, or overflow of dams and channels. This type of flooding is in general not covered in Canada and insurance companies will most likely decline your claims. Some government programs are in place to help homeowners deal with this kind of damage, but from the insurance perspective policy holders are quite unprotected.

Thus it is important to carefully consider the location for your home when buying or building it to avoid areas with a history of overland flooding. Large areas of Alberta (e.g. Calgary) and Ontario (e.g. Toronto) were hit in 2013 by strong overland flooding, resulting in enormous damages.

"Overland flooding should not be mixed with other types of flooding at home, such as sewer backup or flooding via neighbours. These types of flooding are typically covered, either through a home insurance policy or additional riders that can be purchased for an extra premium.
Read more: https://insureye.com/home-insurance-glossary/overland-flooding/#ixzz5DOzYhejf"

Another example: After the High River Flood, the Alberta government told people they could rebuild in the flood zone, but in the case of a repeat flood, they would not receive government compensation again.

Ask people in Kelowna what happened to their fire insurance rates after the Kelowna fires 2 years ago.

Crop Insurance is adjusted annually for risk. People on here complained about the loss in value of crop insurance after repeated floods. So you pay more for less coverage. It is a cost.

The US has paid out 650 billion in disaster relief for storms and forest fires over the last 10 years. I do not know what the costs were for Fort McMurray, Slave Lake, and the BC forest fires last year to the Canadian government, but it would be significant and it is your taxes paying for that.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You will have to remind me what forest fires in grossly mismanaged forests, and overland flooding due to high snowpack (when climate change is promised to cause drought, the end of snow and glacier fed rivers)have to do with climate change?

There must be multitudes of examples of ski hills unable to get financing to expand, Oceanfront property unable to be sold or or raise financing for development, Farmland irrigated by Snowpack run off which is on marketable, land values in southern Alberta must be plummeting as farmers and investors prepare for the end of irrigation. The panama canal must be getting prepared to close it's doors when all the ships go through the Northwest passage, not expanding to accommodate bigger ships. Property values along the northwest passage must be exploding. We should be seeing the giant polar bear buses coming to the nearest Ritchies auction for pennies on the dollar as they try to get some value from the business before the polar bears are completely extinct. No military must be investing in ice breakers, and the existing fleets should be sold for scrap shortly.

Smart forward looking investors will be taking advantage future opportunities, and getting out of future disaster areas, since this information is so wide spread. I don't see any sign that they are doing these things. And if insurance isn't available, it will only excaberate the process.

[dmlfarmer]

You will have to remind me what forest fires in grossly mismanaged forests, and overland flooding due to high snowpack (when climate change is promised to cause drought, the end of snow and glacier fed rivers)have to do with climate change?

There must be multitudes of examples of ski hills unable to get financing to expand, Oceanfront property unable to be sold or or raise financing for development, Farmland irrigated by Snowpack run off which is on marketable, land values in southern Alberta must be plummeting as farmers and investors prepare for the end of irrigation. The panama canal must be getting prepared to close it's doors when all the ships go through the Northwest passage, not expanding to accommodate bigger ships. Property values along the northwest passage must be exploding. We should be seeing the giant polar bear buses coming to the nearest Ritchies auction for pennies on the dollar as they try to get some value from the business before the polar bears are completely extinct. No military must be investing in ice breakers, and the existing fleets should be sold for scrap shortly.

Smart forward looking investors will be taking advantage future opportunities, and getting out of future disaster areas, since this information is so wide spread. I don't see any sign that they are doing these things. And if insurance isn't available, it will only excaberate the process.

Are you actually trying to argue that all buyers are rational and will only pay what a property is worth? Apparently you have not seen any farmland priced at more than the productive value. I mean if people are as rational as you claim, why would anyone pay more than its true value?

And for your argument to hold any water, people must have total knowledge of the risks. Do you honestly think all buyers are 100% informed about risk to property?

Plus occasionally real estate agents have misrepresented the value of property, or risks to it. Don't believe me, do a google search of real estate misreprentation, or fraud.

Florida is one of the area most at risk for flooding. Read this article about the slow down in growth of the real estate market in coastal areas in Florida. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean it is not occurring. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html

And I have a question for those who keep demanding 100% proof that climate change is occurring to which I keep giving examples. Why do you never have to show me with 100% certainly it is not happening?