[Quantum_Wizard]

THrag2K wrote:

It wasn't long ago that global warming was called global cooling, and that the same type of scientists were predicting a coming ice age.

That's just false.

[Jabrwock]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

but if we start to charge these oil companies more to continue doing business as ussual why should they turn around and invest millions in carbon emissions reduction.

Tax credits for buying/developing greener solutions. Tax the polluters, but provide assistance for those that want to clean up.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Jabrwock wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

but if we start to charge these oil companies more to continue doing business as ussual why should they turn around and invest millions in carbon emissions reduction.

Tax credits for buying/developing greener solutions. Tax the polluters, but provide assistance for those that want to clean up.

Exactly, and that can be accomplished with in our existing tax regime. There is no need to "shift" taxes if the goal is to encourage "greener" behaviour.

But being "greener" is not what this plan is about. It's a tax that will hit the oil and gas producing sectors with in Canada and transfer their wealth to Ontario and Quebec. If Dion was truly serious about meaningful reductions even some of the revenue collected by his plan would be ear marked at "green" incentive programs.

[Jabrwock]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Exactly, and that can be accomplished with in our existing tax regime. There is no need to "shift" taxes if the goal is to encourage "greener" behaviour.

Really? I must have missed that one. I'm pretty sure you get a tax credit for *any* R & D, but as far as I know only homeowners and car buyers get tax incentives to "go green".

Quote:

But being "greener" is not what this plan is about. It's a tax that will hit the oil and gas producing sectors with in Canada and transfer their wealth to Ontario and Quebec. If Dion was truly serious about meaningful reductions even some of the revenue collected by his plan would be ear marked at "green" incentive programs.

Only if you emit a lot of carbon getting the oil and gas out of the ground. If the oil-sands built a nuke plant for steam instead of using fuel to get oil, they'd be better off. It's not the gas that's taxed, it's the burning of the gas. If they managed to get it out by using 100% solar (just for an example), and it was all shipped to the US via a pipeline, then the tax wouldn't apply, because it wouldn't emit any carbon during production. Obviously the emissions can't be completely eliminated, but any reduction results in a benefit.

Imagine what money they'd save if they managed to figure out how to increase the efficiency of the tar-sands extraction. Got it down to the point where they were emitting as much carbon as regular oil production. They could sell all that extra oil they would have used to extract the other oil...

[THrag2K]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

THrag2K wrote:

It wasn't long ago that global warming was called global cooling, and that the same type of scientists were predicting a coming ice age.

That's just false.

Incorrect sir.

There WERE scientists who were predicting an oncoming ice age (albeit, in the next thousand years or so) based off of ~30 years of cooling data. The media picked this up and ran with it. "These same type of scientists" refer to the ones who absolutely refuse to see if this is just a natural trend and start making doom and gloom predictions. These are the ones who get the media attention.

However, if you were thinking that I meant "the same scientists" or "the majority of the scientific community" your statement would be true. Unfortunately, that would be an incorrect assumption.

[Jabrwock]

THrag2K wrote:

There WERE scientists who were predicting an oncoming ice age (albeit, in the next thousand years or so) based off of ~30 years of cooling data.

The way I heard it was that we WERE in an ice age, but in a warm spell occurring in the middle of one, or something like that. So they expected the ice to come back, but it was because the warm spell was supposed to "wear off" eventually.

[THrag2K]

Jabrwock wrote:

THrag2K wrote:

There WERE scientists who were predicting an oncoming ice age (albeit, in the next thousand years or so) based off of ~30 years of cooling data.

The way I heard it was that we WERE in an ice age, but in a warm spell occurring in the middle of one, or something like that. So they expected the ice to come back, but it was because the warm spell was supposed to "wear off" eventually.

That sounds even more ridiculous. Albeit, from what I've heard we're due for not only another ice age, but a polar reversal. So hey, maybe the two are somewhat connected? I doubt it.

[Jabrwock]

THrag2K wrote:

That sounds even more ridiculous.

Not really. What about so-called "indian summers" where the winter chill is interrupted by a temporary warm wind? The ice age could be caused by one thing, and while that factor remains constant we "should" be in an ice age, but there's also some other factor that's causing a warming, which counteracts the cooling, and whatever it is, is more short-lived than the overall effect it's interrupting.

Like your furnace is broken and waiting to be fixed, so your house should be cold in the winter, but you were baking one day, and so for that day, you had a warm house instead of a cold one. Eventually the winter will end, but in the meantime you had a short-term warming of your local area.

[THrag2K]

Jabrwock wrote:

]Not really. What about so-called "indian summers" where the winter chill is interrupted by a temporary warm wind? The ice age could be caused by one thing, and while that factor remains constant we "should" be in an ice age, but there's also some other factor that's causing a warming, which counteracts the cooling, and whatever it is, is more short-lived than the overall effect it's interrupting.

Like your furnace is broken and waiting to be fixed, so your house should be cold in the winter, but you were baking one day, and so for that day, you had a warm house instead of a cold one. Eventually the winter will end, but in the meantime you had a short-term warming of your local area.

No no, I mean that it's an "ice age" that's ridiculous. When I was talking ice age (and the scientists who predicted it) what was meant is full out glaciation. You know, the type that left Canada covered in ice....wait, bad example, that already happens, .

However, we are supposed to be on the tail end of the cool portion of the global temperature cycle. If that's what you meant by ice age then it's not ridiculous.

[Quantum_Wizard]

THrag2K wrote:

However, if you were thinking that I meant "the same scientists" or "the majority of the scientific community" your statement would be true. Unfortunately, that would be an incorrect assumption.

I see. However I think that the predictions of a small minority of climatologists some decades ago is not a good reason to be skeptical of the opinion of the majority of climatologists today.

[THrag2K]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

I see. However I think that the predictions of a small minority of climatologists some decades ago is not a good reason to be skeptical of the opinion of the majority of climatologists today.

That small minority has only made me skeptical of the small minority on the other extreme who have the devastating "Day After Tomorrow" predictions.

The reason why I'm skeptical of the majority is that it's part of good scientific procedure. I've heard all the evidence of global warming, and it gives plenty of proof that it's happening. However, their's no substantial proof that it's because of us. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, and lots of theories and conjecture, but the truth is we don't know enough about the big picture to conclusively state whether it is because of us.

Reducing emissions would probably help, more so if we focus on the real baddie of global warming (water vapor) in conjunction with it's relatively minor accomplice (C02). But what if it doesn't help, and the situation is entirely out of our control due to it being natural? Then we've induced economic hardships upon ourselves for nothing other than our overblown sense of importance in the big picture. I'm of the opinion that we should fully know that we CAN do something before we subject ourselves to that. Another 5-10 years of research on the matter to ensure that we aren't just giant egoists wouldn't do irreversible damage, and might actually produce more efficient and economically viable solutions than we currently have. Especially now that the problem has received tonnes of press and thus large amounts of funding/focus.

[Jabrwock]

THrag2K wrote:

Then we've induced economic hardships upon ourselves for nothing other than our overblown sense of importance in the big picture.

I'm always of the opinion that general increases in efficient resource usage are good no matter what the underlying motivation.

[Zipperfish]

THrag2K wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

THrag2K wrote:

It wasn't long ago that global warming was called global cooling, and that the same type of scientists were predicting a coming ice age.

That's just false.

Incorrect sir.

There WERE scientists who were predicting an oncoming ice age (albeit, in the next thousand years or so) based off of ~30 years of cooling data. The media picked this up and ran with it. "These same type of scientists" refer to the ones who absolutely refuse to see if this is just a natural trend and start making doom and gloom predictions. These are the ones who get the media attention.

However, if you were thinking that I meant "the same scientists" or "the majority of the scientific community" your statement would be true. Unfortunately, that would be an incorrect assumption.

The problem is that the whole "impending ice age" thing was a kind of flavour-of-the-month, flash-in-the-pan media love affair with a rather esoteric idea. Since ice ages are cyclical, it's kind of a given that an ice age is impending; the question is how impending.

Global warming, on the other hand, has been a serious scientific effort for several decades now. The number of papers related to climate change due to rising temperatures beggars the number of papers for a catastrophic and imminent ice age. I spoke with one researcher who said that even at the time the media was running wiht the ice age story, there was actually more research going on into global warming even at that time. Anecdotal, but there you have it.

[THrag2K]

Jabrwock wrote:

I'm always of the opinion that general increases in efficient resource usage are good no matter what the underlying motivation.

Ah, but it won't be more efficient, just more "environmental". If there was a more efficient way of doing it, they would currently be doing it as that would maximize output/profit. This current idea does nothing but punish the corporations, who will then pass it on down to their consumers who have no choice but to eat the cost. Sure, they'll have an incentive to find more efficient means quicker, but in the meantime it's us who pays for it.

My suggestion would be to alter the bill such that
a) it gives the companies a window to make necessary changes and
b) somehow prevents the companies from simply passing on the cost to the consumer.

While more profit is a motivation for companies to change (ala the companies that are more efficient will spend less on production but charge the same as others), LESS profit (maybe even a deficit) would be an even greater motivation. The window would be there to give them some time to work on it, but be set and firm so they have a reason to work on it.

[THrag2K]

Zipperfish wrote:

The problem is that the whole "impending ice age" thing was a kind of flavour-of-the-month, flash-in-the-pan media love affair with a rather esoteric idea. Since ice ages are cyclical, it's kind of a given that an ice age is impending; the question is how impending.

*Sigh*. I've been over this in subsequent posts, so your response is a little late and kind of silly by now.

Quote:

Global warming, on the other hand, has been a serious scientific effort for several decades now. The number of papers related to climate change due to rising temperatures beggars the number of papers for a catastrophic and imminent ice age. I spoke with one researcher who said that even at the time the media was running wiht the ice age story, there was actually more research going on into global warming even at that time. Anecdotal, but there you have it.

Yes, I know all of this. Hell, Wikipedia says as much, and I would have expected it to be full of denier propaganda saying that "all scientists believed in global cooling".

Further, I've stated numerous times that there is no denying global warming. I must let you know that it is somewhat insulting to me when you point out basic and obvious facts in a seeming effort to correct me when we already agree fully on that point.