Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[furrowtickler]

On what basis are you making this claim about ROI being infinitely higher?

Common sense .. lol

[furrowtickler]

“ell me, where do you think the money for carbon credits was going to come from? Government? Taxes? or large emitters of carbon? If farmers are to get carbon credits, someone has to be paying for carbon. “

Lol , the same can be said , as the tables have turned on us farmers, if the average Joe will get a carbon tax rebate , someone has to be a net payer of the tax .
Guess who ?????? My guess is the only wealth creating tax payers left in Canada .... farmers . All these tax’s will be off loaded onto us with no way to pass them on .... time will prove that .
Who else in Canada besides farmers truckers and miners have no choice for the foreseeable future but to burn fossil fuels ??? No one . We are about to get raked over the coals .
I was at a meeting several years ago with an Ag Econ expert . When asked about farmers getting carbon credits he just laughed . He said “as long as the Liberals are in power there would be no way in hell the farmers will see a benefit from any carbon pricing even if we could prove again we store more than we burn . The Liberals will simply not alow that . Especially as long as Ralph is in play , he detests farmers , aka Bill Boyd and will do anything to keep that from happening. “
Not my words his .... and Ralph is pulling a lot of strings in Ottawa, don’t kid yourself.
Not saying that’s all true but as we witness things unfold now ...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

On what basis are you making this claim about ROI being infinitely higher?

I presumed you were better at math than Chuck.

A quick math lesson: Any positive number, regardless of how small or large it may be will be infinite times larger than zero. Zero is the best possible ROI that we can expect from the war on CO2, if we manage to restrict emissions so drastically that we only maintain CO2 levels, and crop yields will stagnate, zero benefit. Of course, it could be worse, and we cut emissions so far that CO2 levels drop, in which case the ROI will be negative, since crop yields will decline.

So, if we spend billions of dollars on reversing desertification instead of banning a beneficial molecule, and successfully revive even one acre of desert back into farmland, the value of that farmland divided by the billions spent will be a positive number, even if infinitesimally small. Whereas there will never be a financial benefit to limiting CO2 in the atmosphere, so it will be zero divided by countless billions spent, the ROI will be zero. The infinitesimally small number will always be infinitely larger than zero.

[dmlfarmer]

I presumed you were better at math than Chuck.

And I though you were an actual farmer, but by your answer you are just another politician. You make a sweeping statement with no basis of fact and when called on it you deflect with a more baseless generalizations and non-speak. You jumped to Fjilip's defense when I called him on his claim climate change destroyed entire civilizations but then responded to my question of you by insinuating that there is zero benefit to mitigating climate change. That is a big leap from zero benefit to the loss of entire civilizations and I truly hope you do not hurt yourself jumping from assumption to assumption.

You demand answers from Chuck yet refuse to answer the question I have posed to you a number of times about why are current CO2 levels at 100ppm higher than in the last 800,000 years though all climatic changes from ice ages to hotter climates, and what the impact of this levels of CO2 will have on climate.

I respect any opinion if it is based on evidence but when your only defense is to try and baffle with BS, then your reveal your true identity as nothing more than a grandstanding politician so tightly bound by ideology that you are unable, unwilling or afraid to even question your position and biases.

[chuckChuck]

I will ask again, can you point out some examples of where global warming is costing us money? Or any net negative consequences so far? Time to start living in the present instead of empty threats about some undefined point in the future. Are crop yields dropping globally yet? Health or life expectancies getting lower yet? Arable or habitable land areas decreasing? Areas being abandoned to sea level rise? Hurricanes getting worse yet? How about Tornadoes? Any unprecedented extreme weather events yet( please look up the definition of unprecedented before you trot out the usual diatribe)? What about polar bears populations collapsing, although that doesn't fit in the same category, since as their numbers keep expanding, it actually costs more to defend against them, not vice versa. Ski hills closing? What about pine beetles, can't use pine beetles as you poster boy anymore after this winter killed them off?

The only place I can see where global warming is costing you and I a lot of money, is in endless studies trying in vain to find some negative consequences, and in the lunacy that is the green energy industry. But you must have some better examples. But please remember what unprecedented means.

There is lots of information on the cost of climate change and the impact of carbon taxes. Below are some links to read from the USA and Canada on the subject.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-the-costs-of-climate-change-are-rising/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283757444_British_Columbia's_revenue-neutral_carbon_tax_A_review_of_the_latest_grand_ex periment_in_environmental_policy

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There is lots of information on the cost of climate change and the impact of carbon taxes. Below are some links to read from the USA and Canada on the subject.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-the-costs-of-climate-change-are-rising/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283757444_British_Columbia's_revenue-neutral_carbon_tax_A_review_of_the_latest_grand_ex periment_in_environmental_policy

Chuck, you are stuck in the future. I read through the 4 links. The last one doesn't say a thing about present costs of global warming. And you conveniently chose a paper from 2015, the last year before BC emissions started rising again, as they have every since. Here is another quote from 2018 showing how ineffective their tax has been. More critically, the emission level is only two per cent less than in 2007, putting the province a long way from its original legislated target of reducing emissions 33 per cent by 2020 over 2007

The first two articles are entirely in the future tense. The 3rd does make some baseless claims about insurance costs in the present day by comparing the 2010's to the 1980's, without adjusting for inflation or population growth, apparently they needed to skip over the 1990's and 2000's for obvious reasons. Then makes a bunch of more baseless claims about unprecedented weather events, which are obviously precedented, even in Canada's own very short recorded history.

Please reread the rules. Please post some current actual costs of global warming. After all, we are more than 30 years into the Catastrophic phase of CAGW according James Hansen, and about 160 years into AGW according to many sources. Time to quit living in the future, and come back to the present. And, as you keep reminding us dumb farmers, weather is not climate. Please stop giving global warming credit for every flood, as the one article attempts, there is no scientific evidence to support that, nor any claims that they are unprecedented, the only thing unprecedented is the level of human infrastructure in the way of the inevitable floods.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And I though you were an actual farmer, but by your answer you are just another politician. You make a sweeping statement with no basis of fact and when called on it you deflect with a more baseless generalizations and non-speak. You jumped to Fjilip's defense when I called him on his claim climate change destroyed entire civilizations but then responded to my question of you by insinuating that there is zero benefit to mitigating climate change. That is a big leap from zero benefit to the loss of entire civilizations and I truly hope you do not hurt yourself jumping from assumption to assumption.

You demand answers from Chuck yet refuse to answer the question I have posed to you a number of times about why are current CO2 levels at 100ppm higher than in the last 800,000 years though all climatic changes from ice ages to hotter climates, and what the impact of this levels of CO2 will have on climate.

I respect any opinion if it is based on evidence but when your only defense is to try and baffle with BS, then your reveal your true identity as nothing more than a grandstanding politician so tightly bound by ideology that you are unable, unwilling or afraid to even question your position and biases.

As a farmer, I readily acknowledge the vast benefits we are seeing everyday due to the increases in atmospheric CO2. Countless studies showing the increased yields, water use efficiencies, stress tolerance etc. of plants when CO2 is increased. And the data is unequivocal, the climate, at least locally has been improving by all measures since the beginning of record keeping. See Murray Hartman's presenation on this issue as one very good example. We can endlessly debate the causes, and how much is natural vs. how much is anthropogenic, but that won't negate the benefits. What we do know is that while CO2 levels have gone parabolic, temperatures increases have remained linear at most, and the rate of increase decreasing to virtually none in the past 2 decades. Indicating that the relationship between CO2 and temperature follows the law of diminishing returns, and in fact appears to follow a logarithmic relationship, so unfortunately, pumping any more CO2 into the atmosphere at these levels, is going to have diminishing positive impacts on our temperature, unlike the first 2 to 300 ppm which had huge benefits.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Dml, Can you provide any example of how agriculture would benefit from lower CO2? Why are discussing.

[HITTGrapevine]

Regarding Canada's reduction targets
ie) Canada's commitment to reduce GHG emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels.
It's pretty hard to imagine why this goal would even be considered attainable, especially without negatively impacting economic activity
A more reasonable goal would be to attach GHG reduction targets to gross domestic product or to set reduction targets on a per capita basis.
Think about it.
If the global population is going to grow to 9 billion people by 2050, efforts to support all those extra bodies will obviously require a significant increase in GDP and productivity.
Can Canada or any country realistically be expected to increase productivity by 30, 40 or 50 percent, while simultaneously reducing total emissions?
Maybe in the land of leprechauns, unicorns and fairy dust (ie Parliament Hill)… but not in the real world.
Bottom line: If you want more buy-in from the general population, at least set a realistic target, and consider incentives for positive behaviours and innovative technologies instead of tax measures that discourage productivity.
That's all I got to say about that …

[furrowtickler]

Regarding Canada's reduction targets
ie) Canada's commitment to reduce GHG emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels.
It's pretty hard to imagine why this goal would even be considered attainable, especially without negatively impacting economic activity
A more reasonable goal would be to attach GHG reduction targets to gross domestic product or to set reduction targets on a per capita basis.
Think about it.
If the global population is going to grow to 9 billion people by 2050, efforts to support all those extra bodies will obviously require a significant increase in GDP and productivity.
Can Canada or any country realistically be expected to increase productivity by 30, 40 or 50 percent, while simultaneously reducing total emissions?
Maybe in the land of leprechauns, unicorns and fairy dust (ie Parliament Hill)… but not in the real world.
Bottom line: If you want more buy-in from the general population, at least set a realistic target, and consider incentives for positive behaviours and innovative technologies instead of tax measures that discourage productivity.
That's all I got to say about that …

Very well said , no more too say , that about sums it up

[sumdumguy]

[QUOTE=dmlfarmer;407216]

You demand answers from Chuck yet refuse to answer the question I have posed to you a number of times about why are current CO2 levels at 100ppm higher than in the last 800,000 years though all climatic changes from ice ages to hotter climates, and what the impact of this levels of CO2 will have on climate.


800,000 years - You may as well compare it to CO2 levels on Jupiter 800,000 years ago. That statistic would be as valid. Maybe you should make it your life goal to get vaulted into space so you could verify that stat.

[Guest]

Common sense .. lol

Common sense is not that common anymore as illustrated on here !

[mustardman]

Jazz There are places in Antarctica where ice cores can now be taken Back as far as 1.5 Million years
Almost twice as far as previous.
Sorry to burst your little bubble

[Robertbarlage]

Previous of what

[furrowtickler]

What Liberals are saying about Liberals....
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-liberal-party-has-morphed-into-a-cult