Canadian Carbon Rebate

[chuckChuck]

Canada's forests actually emit more carbon than they absorb — despite what you've heard on Facebook

Our managed forest land hasn't been a net carbon sink since 2001


You might have heard that Canada's forests are an immense carbon sink, sucking up all sorts of CO2 — more than we produce — so we don't have to worry about our greenhouse gas emissions.

This claim has been circulated on social media ([url]https://www.facebook.com/lowell.green.56/posts/10160451918490534[/url]) and repeated by pundits ([url]https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/smith-a-net-zero-goal-may-be-what-it-takes-to-unite-canada[/url]) and politicians ([url]http://youtu.be/COfPiYl5aKI?t=12m34s[/url]).

This would be convenient for our country, if it were real. Hitting our emissions-reduction targets would be a breeze. But, like most things that sound too good to be true, this one is false.

That's because trees don't just absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn.

When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada's forests haven't been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to our country's greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15 years ([url]https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/report/disturbance/16552[/url]) on record.

[TSIPP]

Bunch of bullshit again chuckroach, what holds all these trees up, do you understand the immense cross loads a tree withstands in a wind? Roots, large roots gradually narrow down thinner than a hair, these roots are approximately 3 or 4 times the mass of the tree, these roots can be well over 20 feet deep, hence buried deep and full of carbon.

[TSIPP]

It’s almost like the lefty crowd doesn’t want the truth known! Yeesh!

[fjlip]

Perfect answer, YES the roots sequester, never burn, rot underground! Got you CC!

[furrowtickler]

Trudeau keeps bringing up that 8/10 Canadians benefit from the rebate .
interesting , even though a lie , overall cost is way higher, it follows the 80/20 rule
20% of the working population supporting the other 80% .
they even admit now

[blackpowder]

CC believes us all fools. And that's okay.
His hero flies in to Alberta and tells the oil industry workers that they are being fooled. Less jobs in the future if we don't take the path.
Similarities in attitudes and approach.
It's obviously gone but a concern now becomes, what are they going to replace the CT with? Are all hoi polloi seen as foolish?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

. By making life more expensive in Canada with a carbon tax we are only hurting ourselves!!!

Perhaps that's the point?
The more we learn about Chinese interference in our elections, and Chinese buying off our politicians, the less conspiratorial it sounds to believe that they could also be pushing policies to destroy Canada's industries.
Aided and abetted by useful idiots like Chuck who think they are saving the world from plant food by sending industries to China.

[seldomseen]

I like carbon. Natural likes carbon .
Why would we want to limit it?
If the levels drop below 200 ppm nature will start to die! We are just a little over 400 ppm. A nice green world would need 600-1000 ppm!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Trudeau keeps bringing up that 8/10 Canadians benefit for the rebate .
interesting , even though a lie , it follows the 80/20 rule
20% of the working population supporting the other 80% .
they even admit now

Any guesses as to which group Chuck belongs to as he vehemently defends the CO2 tax? As if that wasn't already obvious.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We could approach this topic from a different angle.
Since government programs (especially Liberal ) are always results based, with clearly defined and measurable outcomes, and since these benchmarks are precisely tracked throughout the program life, and the results clearly communicated to the taxpaying public. Based on these metrics, the success or failure of said program is then evaluated, and if it doesn't meet the predefined goals, the program is ended or adjusted, those in charge lose their jobs, politicians apologize, recipients pay back the largesse, lessons are learned and applied to the next attempt.
Now on a serious note...

Since the CO2 tax is being applied to resolve the climate emergency, what outcomes are being measured to declare the CO2 tax as a success or failure, and what outcomes would result in a lowering, or abolishing or raising of said tax?

Do we measure CO2 levels in Canada's atmosphere and when it drops back down to preindustrial levels we can lower the CO2 tax? That could take a while, considering it doesn't observe borders.

Do we measure Canada's CO2 output? That may be logical, but it won't fix the weather which is the claimed goal of the tax, because CO2 doesn't observe borders, so even bankrupting every business in the country with the tax will have been a failure, since it didn't fix the weather.

Do we take it a step further and measure the actual weather, and reduce the tax when the climate cools, or forest fires are reduced? Has this been predetermined, or is it a moving goal post, similar to Covid measures?