[Zipperfish]

THrag2K wrote:

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

My mistake--I came in late. Didn't read the back posts. Baaaad Zipperfish.

Quote:

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.

Touch-eeeee. Try not to get your panties in too much of a knot over it.

[THrag2K]

Zipperfish wrote:

Touch-eeeee. Try not to get your panties in too much of a knot over it.

Somewhat insulting =/= panties in a knot. It's a fancy way of saying "My good sir, I do believe you are trying to bait me". I've had many a troll who would do much the same as you did simply to get me to flame them. However, instead of rising to it, I just point out that what they've just done is an insult to my intelligence. Unfortunately, this path seems to act as bait of it's own to people who made a genuine mistake for whatever reason. My apologies on that regard, but I'm sure you'd rather much prefer "I've been somewhat insulted" as opposed to "come back later when you l2r, lolololol".

[dino_bobba_renno]

THrag2K wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Touch-eeeee. Try not to get your panties in too much of a knot over it.

Somewhat insulting =/= panties in a knot. It's a fancy way of saying "My good sir, I do believe you are trying to bait me". I've had many a troll who would do much the same as you did simply to get me to flame them. However, instead of rising to it, I just point out that what they've just done is an insult to my intelligence. Unfortunately, this path seems to act as bait of it's own to people who made a genuine mistake for whatever reason. My apologies on that regard, but I'm sure you'd rather much prefer "I've been somewhat insulted" as opposed to "come back later when you l2r, lolololol".

You're calling Zip a troll?????? Buddy, zipperfish has been on here a long time and trust me he is the furthest thing from a troll, in fact he's one of the better posters. He made a simple oversight and you got all in a tizzy, I recommend you go have drink or something and relax a bit.

[Zipperfish]

THrag2K wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Touch-eeeee. Try not to get your panties in too much of a knot over it.

Somewhat insulting =/= panties in a knot. It's a fancy way of saying "My good sir, I do believe you are trying to bait me". I've had many a troll who would do much the same as you did simply to get me to flame them. However, instead of rising to it, I just point out that what they've just done is an insult to my intelligence. Unfortunately, this path seems to act as bait of it's own to people who made a genuine mistake for whatever reason. My apologies on that regard, but I'm sure you'd rather much prefer "I've been somewhat insulted" as opposed to "come back later when you l2r, lolololol".

Well I wasn't insulting your intelligence so much as your emotional stability. (OK, for clarity, that was a joke; I do not seriously question your emotional stability.)

You seemed to have misconstrued my original remarks as some kind of personal attack on your point of view, which was not the intent.

[commonsense]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

National Post wrote:

Within specific countries, including Sweden, which the Green Shift Plan cites as a model, the role of green taxes is a mixed bag. Alleged boosts to new investment do not take place. And, most telling, the impact on carbon emissions has been limited.

The best and most sobering look at Europe's green tax experiments is a paper by the Centre for European Policy Studies titled The Political Economy of Environmental Taxation in European Countries. After more than a decade of rampant green taxation and regulation, a sort of lab test for every policy fantasy known to economists and politicians, Europe essentially ended up proving that the policies really didn't work.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=619074

True. However, I would propose that the impact on carbon emissions has been limited because Europeans have historically had a smaller carbon footprint than North Americans, and with energy rates higher there already because of higher levels of taxation, adding a green tax on top of that may be pushing too far. However, I have not researched this, and therefore cannot make a definitive statement at this time.

However, I can analyze it from an economic perspective, while incomplete, it may provide some answers as to why such a statement could be made.

If only one jurisdiction (especially one where the primary source of CO2 production is not from an industry like the oil sands) were to implement this type of shift, being a small player in the market, economics dictate that companies would uproot and move away. As well, if, as the article suggests, Europe were "a sort of lab test for every policy fantasy known to economists and politicians" then there could be too much overlap, and therefore the detrimental effects that some Conservatives espouse will happen. However, with a single unified policy across the whole state, that shouldn't be a concern.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Almost all taxes do that, but in progressive income tax those with higher income are taxed a higher percentage. That means, that a larger portion of the tax burden falls on the richer people than with consumption taxes. It's a matter of opinion whether that's fair or not. My personal opinion is that the tax system should be progressive to some reasonable degree.

You said in an earlier post that:

commonsense wrote:

GST, VAT's, Manufacturing Taxes, etc., they are by very definition progressive, equitable taxes.

Whether they are equitable or not is a matter of opinion, but they are certainly not progressive.

Consumption taxes have many pros, but they have cons also. A graduated income tax is kinder on the poorer people, so tax system shouldn't be based on consumption taxes alone (I know you weren't suggesting that, but I still wanted to say this).

If you look at what rich people spend their money on as opposed to poor people, they spend their money on items that have had more value imparted onto them. Whether it be food, transportation, entertainment, any other item purchased by a household. I never suggested, that a flat VAT by applied to all goods and services, however. I did suggest it for purposes of illustration, but in implementing such a tax (which I will add is not what is proposed in the Green Shift), there is definite merit in varying the percentage depending on the class of good in question. In our current GST this is already done. Basic items are not taxed. 0%. And in implementing such a tax, other taxes could also be tuned to fit the new reality. Investment taxes, or estate taxes could be modified to make the whole system more equitable and achieve the goals set out by a progressive tax system. Ultimately, I believe we can all agree that those that have the means to assist others should because, as I've stated before, welfare and other social programs cost more than if people did not need to use them in the first place.

Psudo wrote:

Sure, no system is eternally self-perpetuating, but plenty of systems are self-perpetuating for orders of magnitude more than will ever be relevant. The life expectancy of a star, for example, is about a hundred million years.

Our oil-society system isn't that polished, of course, but if it even lasts for a few hundred years it'll be plenty of time to find something else without any rush.

You can't dismiss all discussion because nothing can literally last forever. It doesn't need to. Environmental debate isn't about whether it will last forever, it's about whether it will last long enough. And traditional oil combined with oil from shale and coal could last us as long as we can reasonably imagine our future.

Along with all the negative externalities and inequality of access associated with that system.

EmperorLiam wrote:

"before they become too expensive"

FAIL. The whole point of Capitalism is that governments don't have to manage resources, the market place takes care of it. The only reason anyone in Canada can talk seriously about Carbon Tax is because we are chock full of clueless commies (glares at CanadianJeff), and this pointless meddling somehow is supposed to convince us that the government has control over the market. IT CLEARLY DOES NOT. So why are we still acting like it matters what they think?

Carbon Tax, FAIL.
Dion, FAIL.

Government serves three purposes in our society. 1. It is there to resolve disputes between individual members of society. 2. It is there to provide services that cannot be reliably provided by the market (ie. margins are too low or lacks profit entirely). 3. It is there to provide services that shouldn't be provided by the market.

The third point can be demonstrated by "health care industry" in the US; health care should not be provided by the market. Health care is a right, and everyone should have equal access to it.

As for resource management (vs. extraction) that is a role that government should manage. Making sure that everyone has equitable access to those resources, and making sure that they are not depleted too quickly are not tasks that the market can reliably do.

faile wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

EmperorLiam, in the case of carbon dioxide there's a negative externality involved. The companies that release CO2 in the atmosphere don't pay for the damage it causes. In a case like this free markets really don't work very well and there's a need for government involvement. I don't know how good Dion's plan is but we certainly can't rely on markets acting on their own.

Yes, the companies which release CO2 into the atmosphere should get tax credits for all of the "damage" increased crop yields farmers will get as a result. Such a scary, scary gas that CO2! Trace amounts of it have so much more influence on climate than those gigantic heat sinks covering 2/3 of the planet, or that gigantic fusion reactor in the sky.

The mercaptans that produce the scent from a skunk are detectable by the human nose in doses as low as 2 parts per million. And we can all agree that if you smelled skunk in a room, you'd get out of that room. The concentration of a chemical has no basis on its overall effect on the surroundings, except in so much as the more of it there is, the more the effect it will likely have.

Therefore, an increase in C02 by as little as 10 parts per million can raise the temperature of the entire planet by several degrees. (The last statement was not fact checked, so actual values maybe different than those indicated).

As well, substantially higher doses of CO2 can in fact damage plants. Ever heard the phrase "too much of a good thing can be bad for you". And, plants currently have enough CO2 to grow... there is no CO2 shortage for plants.

Finally, those gigantic heat sinks and that fusion reactor are relatively stable components and inputs respectively within our system. However, while CO2 levels may be not be a stable component in our system through time (ice ages, etc. do effect how much is absorbed and produced) humans are having a pronounced impact on the amounts of it in the air. There are significant records to indicate that starting from the time of the beginning of the industrial age, CO2 levels have been accelerating at levels far more pronounced than ever before.

I do not deny that CO2 fluctuates, and maybe we are currently living in a naturally produced warming trend. However, we are accelerating that warming trend far faster than it likely would have occurred naturally, and the natural systems that are in place to compensate for those natural trends may not be able to deal with it sufficiently if they occur at such a rate.

Humans are a part of that natural system as well. We naturally create CO2 as well as shape the landscape around us. The question becomes, when are we making a bigger impact than we need to. We are the only species on this planet that does things for reasons other than strictly what is needed for survival.

CanadianJeff wrote:

It's time to make things a bit better. Tax rebates arn't the answer either. Rules and laws are.

While I agree with the premise of your post, and I agree to a degree with the above statement, I don't think it will create the change needed within our society. You cannot make a rule or law that mandates people to change their behaviour. It is unconstitutional, not to mention unethical. The only way you can make people use less energy is to incentiveize them to do so. We've had some of those systems in place since the 50's. Whether it was government grants to insulate your homes (sadly with asbestos in most cases at the time) or grants and rebates to buy new appliances. But those voluntary programs can only go so far. In all cases the onus is on the individual to decide to use those programs. To this day, it is possible to build a house with negligible amounts of insulation, and use the most inefficient appliances imaginable. But if it costs more to do that, the likely hood is that people will begin to consider the long-run cheaper, more efficient option.

faile wrote:

THrag2K wrote:

@faile

Though that's all true, those heat sinks and that gigantic fusion reactor in the sky is entirely out of our control. Thus if there IS global warming (on the whole, this is undeniable) and it is being influenced negatively by humans (the jury is out on how large this influence is) then to compensate for this we have to adapt.

Fixed.

You're absolutely right! Adaption is part of it too. As I said above, the world does have a natural heating and cooling cycle to it that, try as we might, we would ultimately have little influence over. The question is, do we adapt to the slow pace of those natural cycles, or do we exacerbate the problem and force adaptation at a faster pace that we may not be ready for?

THrag2K wrote:

Note: I did use the statement of "influenced negatively by humans" with a qualifier of "how large the influence is". 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. This just leads me to believe that they've jumped to the most sensational conclusion to get research $$$, and that I can't really trust their data. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that the current trend isn't just a natural cycle, and as such I don't really care one way or another about CO2 reductions except in how it affects my wallet. However, if I were to be shown irrefutable evidence that this was true, and that the predicted results were certain, I'd jump right on board with the green-shift.

I don't think scientists are motivated by money to jump to unreasonable conclusions. True science, by its very nature, is relatively unsusceptible to sensationalism. There is a peer review process, meaning that the most sensational ideas are usually weeded out right away, then there is also the ever evolving nature of it, whereby scientists readily discuss and endorse those ideas that are shown, nay demonstrated, to be most accurate.

The burden of proof in science is also much higher, as a result. It's similar, in many regards, to the criminal justice system vs. the civil justice system. In the criminal justice system (Science) the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in the civil system (the media) it is "a balance of probabilities". That's why OJ Simpson could be found guilty in civil court, but innocent in criminal court.

As I've stated above, the current trend more than likely is a natural warming trend (on the balance of probabilities), however it is being exacerbated by our actions (beyond any reasonable doubt).

If you look at the graph that Al Gore uses to demonstrate his point, it clearly shows a cyclical pattern, and it clearly shows that we're about due for a warming period. It also clearly shows that the rate of acceleration and peaking is far in access of what has ever been measured. That is what scares me.

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.

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.

I've stated before, and I would like to state again, how can this be accomplished within our existing tax structure? It is remarkably easy to criticize, it's incredibly difficult to actually think of an alternative.

This is the alternative, as expressed by the Liberal Party. I don't hear one from the Conservatives. All I hear is rhetoric and criticism.

As for it transferring wealth to Ontario and Quebec, I fail to see that as well. Where we don't have the same number of large single source emitters of CO2 that Alberta has (in the oil sands), we do have many times more smaller source emitters in terms of a significantly higher population. Not to mention that, Ontario has the largest single source emitter in Canada, the third or fourth largest in North America, in the Nanticoke Generating Station.

As well, and I quote from the very same National Post article cited above, "aid for green corporate investment".

(As well, to address an earlier post in which someone stated that Dion does not have a target, I refer them to this quote from the same article "He is steadfast in his target - carbon emissions at 20% below 1990 levels by 2020"... although I do not believe it to be codified in the policy platform its self. However, I maybe wrong.)

Jabrwock wrote:

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...

Exactly, but companies have a natural tendency to want to stay the course unless something threatens their profitability. Look at GM. They maybe filling to bankruptcy because, despite every trend pointing to the unsustainablity of relying on light trucks for the core of their profits, they stayed the course because the money was good enough.

Lets make sure that Canada is not the next GM.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

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.

You're right on t his one; there were scientists who in the '70's were saying there was a cooling trend. And your statement on the media brings up another point, how they play into all of this.

The media, as any journalist will tell you is taught in journalism school, is obligated to give equal time to both sides of the argument, even if one side is 99% of the scientific community and the other is 1%. This can lead to the perception in the public eye that a scientific theory is much more hotly debated that is actually the case.

THrag2K wrote:

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.

My understanding is quite the opposite. The concern is that the large scale melting of polar ice caps will cause fresh water to be released into the ocean, messing with the salinization levels and interrupting currents which help to regulate global temperature. While we maybe warm now, it could become very cold very quickly, hence being close to an ice age.

THrag2K wrote:

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.

Again, I think that, to generalize, the scientific consensus is that it is part of a natural cycle that we are exacerbating. Getting a pimple is natural. Squeezing it is not, and only makes it worse.

As for "the real baddie of global warming (water vapour)" that, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, false. Water vapour, AKA clouds, reflect sunlight back into space, which prevents that solar energy from reaching earth.

As for a plan like this imposing economic hardship, I would say that is categorically false. This proposal aims to make our economy more efficient, using less to make more. How that can ever be considered an economic hardship, I don't know. That's like saying the economic hardship involved in the investment in standardizing time so that the trains ran on time and didn't crash was detrimental.

I do not believe our sense of importance on this issue is overblown. Humans have a much larger impact on this system we call earth than any other creature. I would suppose the closest things to us in terms of large scale impact are swarms of locusts devastating North Africa and Pine Beatles devastating Western North America, and even then there is usually a beneficial impact in the form of nutritional transfer for the former and new plant species prorogation and biodiversity for the latter.

You're right in that more research is needed, but once you've identified the trend society must decide when it is time to act. Ultimately, in our society, a critical mass of those people have decided it is time to act. Whereas policy development within the parties is tantamount to a poll on societies opinions on policy debates, an election is the census where the pulse of society is more accurately measured.

THrag2K wrote:

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.

But you don't factor in businesses adversity to risk and cost. Why go out and buy a new car if that 15 year old Civic is still working perfectly.

This program aims to aid another Con to the "stay the course" argument, and another pro to the "more efficient" argument.

THrag2K wrote:

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.

It does. a) It ramps up costs slowly, starting at $10 per ton of CO2 and going to $40 after 4 years, not to mention that no bill can be passed an implemented instantly and companies would quickly realize the coming changes. b) The market would take care of that. As I've stated earlier, the market is a self correcting mechanism, and those that already have an advantage would therefore have a further advantage and would therefore be more successful while those that are less efficient would have to shape up, or go bankrupt.

THrag2K wrote:

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.

Exactly!

[THrag2K]

Zipperfish wrote:

You seemed to have misconstrued my original remarks as some kind of personal attack on your point of view, which was not the intent.

Exactly. I wasn't calling you a troll. Rather that, due to my lack of knowledge of your past history, your mistake was seen as potentially a troll baiting. Thus, I responded accordingly.

However, I shall refer both you and Dino to this part of the post:

me wrote:

Unfortunately, this path seems to act as bait of it's own to people who made a genuine mistake for whatever reason. My apologies on that regard

to reiterate that I understood my mistake and offered apologies well before you both of you pointed out said mistake, .

Also, just because I'm responding to what I perceived as a troll baiting attempt does not mean I'm in a "tizzy". I actually find trolls quite amusing, usually because I counter-troll them by responding to everything they say without resorting to insulting them back. They find that quite frustrating.

[THrag2K]

commonsense wrote:

I don't think scientists are motivated by money to jump to unreasonable conclusions. True science, by its very nature, is relatively unsusceptible to sensationalism.

Ah, there we go, the concept I was looking for: True Science. True science is the camp that was researching global warming in the 60's/70's instead of global cooling. The same guys who are still researching how great our impact is instead of doom and glooming us. Unfortunately, you've got the nutbag pseudo-scientists who will claim virtually anything with little to no data to support them if there's some hope of money in it. A vast majority of the scientific community isn't motivated by money, I'm sure, but there will always be someone who will slip through the cracks and do whatever it takes to get themselves some moolah.

Quote:

As I've stated above, the current trend more than likely is a natural warming trend (on the balance of probabilities), however it is being exacerbated by our actions (beyond any reasonable doubt).

I agree, but the level of exacerbation is what is being questioned. How much would changing our habits actually do, and is it worth the immediate cost compared to a reduced future cost with some better research into making the changes more economically viable.here is no need to "shift" taxes if the goal is to encourage "greener" behaviour.

Quote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

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.

You're right on t his one; there were scientists who in the '70's were saying there was a cooling trend. And your statement on the media brings up another point, how they play into all of this.

The media, as any journalist will tell you is taught in journalism school, is obligated to give equal time to both sides of the argument, even if one side is 99% of the scientific community and the other is 1%. This can lead to the perception in the public eye that a scientific theory is much more hotly debated that is actually the case.

That actually was me, not QW. And this just goes hand in hand with my statement of some people will say whatever just to get some money.

Quote:

THrag2K wrote:

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.

My understanding is quite the opposite. The concern is that the large scale melting of polar ice caps will cause fresh water to be released into the ocean, messing with the salinization levels and interrupting currents which help to regulate global temperature. While we maybe warm now, it could become very cold very quickly, hence being close to an ice age.

The argument there wasn't about whether we were heading for one, but rather whether we are IN one. I think it should be plainly obvious we aren't in one, right?

Quote:

Again, I think that, to generalize, the scientific consensus is that it is part of a natural cycle that we are exacerbating. Getting a pimple is natural. Squeezing it is not, and only makes it worse.

I agree, but metaphorically are we squeezing the pimple, or are we just rubbing the area with small amounts of pressure. We don't know how BADLY we are making it worse, and that in and of itself deserves some consideration.

Quote:

As for "the real baddie of global warming (water vapour)" that, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, false. Water vapour, AKA clouds, reflect sunlight back into space, which prevents that solar energy from reaching earth.

I'll field this: Water vapour is the primary contributor to global warming, somewhere between 30-60% responsible. More so, a single molecule of water vapor is far more harmful than a single molecule of CO2. However, a large portion of water vapor is natural, but the parts we are responsible for is still troublesome.

Quote:

As for a plan like this imposing economic hardship, I would say that is categorically false. This proposal aims to make our economy more efficient, using less to make more.

That would be a future goal. However, the immediate result would be higher prices for the taxed items (except for gasoline, but does that really need a reason to skyrocket anyways?), which would put a large strain on people who need them but can't afford much more (like the heating and energy problems in Alberta). Some might not be able to handle said strain, and as a result would break.

Quote:

I do not believe our sense of importance on this issue is overblown. Humans have a much larger impact on this system we call earth than any other creature.

Just because we have a larger impact than any other creature means nothing. By walking through a forest, I have a larger physical impact than, say, an ant. However, this doesn't mean I've really done anything to affect the forest. To continue with this analogy, we still have to determine exactly how much I am affecting the forest before I decide to curtail my trips through it.

Quote:

This program aims to aid another Con to the "stay the course" argument, and another pro to the "more efficient" argument.

It does, but not nearly enough, especially in the energy/heating departments. Said companies basically work (at least in Alberta) in a close to monopolistic environment. Anything levied against them they can simply pass on to the consumer, and we'll have no choice but to just eat it. They'll eventually get to becoming efficient in their own due time, and the program has done nothing but impact the people.

Quote:

b) The market would take care of that. As I've stated earlier, the market is a self correcting mechanism, and those that already have an advantage would therefore have a further advantage and would therefore be more successful while those that are less efficient would have to shape up, or go bankrupt.

A normal market would. But I'll refer you to the energy/heat market that I've been harping on.

[commonsense]

THrag2K wrote:

Ah, there we go, the concept I was looking for: True Science. True science is the camp that was researching global warming in the 60's/70's instead of global cooling. The same guys who are still researching how great our impact is instead of doom and glooming us. Unfortunately, you've got the nutbag pseudo-scientists who will claim virtually anything with little to no data to support them if there's some hope of money in it. A vast majority of the scientific community isn't motivated by money, I'm sure, but there will always be someone who will slip through the cracks and do whatever it takes to get themselves some moolah.

So are you proposing that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is a pseudo-science body? They are saying that we are having an impact. Many of the more respected scientists even conced that in order to achieve that consensus they needed to compromise on many of the points, watering it down the recomendations and conclusions.

If the true scientists have been researching since before the 60's and 70's, then wouldn't at least some of the work of their labours be visible and reportable today? How long does the time line have to be to satisfy you?

THrag2K wrote:

I agree, but the level of exacerbation is what is being questioned. How much would changing our habits actually do, and is it worth the immediate cost compared to a reduced future cost with some better research into making the changes more economically viable.here is no need to "shift" taxes if the goal is to encourage "greener" behaviour.

Isn't the fact that we are exacerbating at all enough? Given, we will inevitably have some impact on the earth, but shouldn't we strive to minimize that impact?

As well, as experience has taught us a million and one times, it is cheaper to act today than act tomorrow, both in terms of dollars and the consequences from inaction.

THrag2K wrote:

I agree, but metaphorically are we squeezing the pimple, or are we just rubbing the area with small amounts of pressure. We don't know how BADLY we are making it worse, and that in and of itself deserves some consideration.

Again, we know we're making it worse, why do we need to see how much worse. It is a psychotic bahviour to know that your actions will lead to personal pain and still continue.

THrag2K wrote:

I'll field this: Water vapour is the primary contributor to global warming, somewhere between 30-60% responsible. More so, a single molecule of water vapor is far more harmful than a single molecule of CO2. However, a large portion of water vapor is natural, but the parts we are responsible for is still troublesome.

While I cannot conclusively say that you are incorrect, I must respectfully disagree. I refer back to my could statement. My understanding, and I will endevour to research this further, is that CO2 tends to refract light back in to the earths atmosphere as well as act like a blanket. Watervapour, also has refractive properties, but in concentration becomes a coud which reflects light back into space.

THrag2K wrote:

That would be a future goal. However, the immediate result would be higher prices for the taxed items (except for gasoline, but does that really need a reason to skyrocket anyways?), which would put a large strain on people who need them but can't afford much more (like the heating and energy problems in Alberta). Some might not be able to handle said strain, and as a result would break.

And the plan adresses that. Those that would not be able to adapt quickly are the poor, and rural populations. Those are two groups that, to much criticism from Conservatives, would receive direct aid. The long term solutions are as follows, rural populations should move back into town. Until the 1950's populations living outside of major urban centres lived in small urban centres. Now you go to many of those former small urban centres and they are essentially suburban commercial strip malls for the poplations that drive in from many miles away. I look at cities like Sudbury and Thunder Bay who's population has been relatively stable (if not declined) and their foot print has expanded. That is neither sustainable, nor economically cost effective.

THrag2K wrote:

Just because we have a larger impact than any other creature means nothing. By walking through a forest, I have a larger physical impact than, say, an ant. However, this doesn't mean I've really done anything to affect the forest. To continue with this analogy, we still have to determine exactly how much I am affecting the forest before I decide to curtail my trips through it.

To use your example, Western culture isn't walking through the forest, it's cutting down the trees and building a 12 lane super highway. It's undeniable, you even admitted it, that we are having an impact. Now the question is, do we NEED that 12 lane super highway, or will a nice little path with benches here and there do?

THrag2K wrote:

It does, but not nearly enough, especially in the energy/heating departments. Said companies basically work (at least in Alberta) in a close to monopolistic environment. Anything levied against them they can simply pass on to the consumer, and we'll have no choice but to just eat it. They'll eventually get to becoming efficient in their own due time, and the program has done nothing but impact the people.

Yes, you will feel an impact, no question. But 1. a vast majority of the oil your produce is delivered to the Western USA, so the impact on you as a percentage of the overall cost will be relative to the proportion of the product you produce that you use. If anything, in that regard, it will be tougher for Ontario and Quebec, because the energy we consume is primarily produced in the North Eastern US which will not have those added costs, and our producers, refiners, processors will feel more pressure.

THrag2K wrote:

A normal market would. But I'll refer you to the energy/heat market that I've been harping on.

The operative word in your second paragraph is Market. It follows the same rules as any other market. It may be slower to react because there are fewer players, but it'll react non-the-less.

[faile]

THrag2K wrote:

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".

What on earth gave you the idea that the zealots on Wikipedia would be anything but the alarmist variety? Read some talk pages and it becomes clear who the wikinazis who want to suppress one side of the story are.

[Pseudonym]

Wikinazis!

*steals that term for later use*

[THrag2K]

commonsense wrote:

So are you proposing that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is a pseudo-science body? They are saying that we are having an impact. Many of the more respected scientists even conced that in order to achieve that consensus they needed to compromise on many of the points, watering it down the recomendations and conclusions.

Way to take my words and twist them. I didn't say the people putting out credible research are the nutbags, but of course that doesn't help your point one bit, now does it?

And I'll point it out again (and I guess again and again until the broken record finally gets through): It's not a debate whether we are having an impact. It's a debate on how much of an impact that is. Address that point, and stop dancing around the issue by insinuating I don't believe there's an impact at all.

Quote:

If the true scientists have been researching since before the 60's and 70's, then wouldn't at least some of the work of their labours be visible and reportable today?

It has become visible. They've determined that, yes indeed, we do have an impact. Now all they need to do is determine if it's a baseball or a meteor that's hitting the grass in terms of impact.

Quote:

How long does the time line have to be to satisfy you?

As long as it takes them to definitively state how large the impact relatively is, and if it's anywhere comparable to the natural increase.

Quote:

Isn't the fact that we are exacerbating at all enough? Given, we will inevitably have some impact on the earth, but shouldn't we strive to minimize that impact?

Everything we do as humans exacerbates some problem or another. Should we strive to minimize our impact? Let me ask you a question that illustrates my views on that. What the hell are you doing using your computer if you're such a proponent of minimization? There's any number of things you could do to reduce your impact, but I bet you don't do them because you KNOW the level of impact is not that high. The same could be possibly true of this issue, we just don't know how large it is.

Quote:

As well, as experience has taught us a million and one times, it is cheaper to act today than act tomorrow, both in terms of dollars and the consequences from inaction.

Yes, but in most, if not all, of those million and one cases it's something that was pretty much guaranteed to happen in that location, but they weren't sure of when until it finally happened. Well, our being a main contributor to global warming and it's results aren't guaranteed, and if it were to happen it's still a long time in the coming.

Quote:

Again, we know we're making it worse, why do we need to see how much worse. It is a psychotic bahviour to know that your actions will lead to personal pain and still continue.

Don't act like the other option is pain free. It's not, as there is an economic burden to consider. Those under or around the poverty line will feel the impact of this. Maybe you won't feel it, but a lot of other people will. Is it so psychotic to want to at least determine which path will cause the least pain to humanity as a whole BEFORE we just leap into it?

Quote:

While I cannot conclusively say that you are incorrect, I must respectfully disagree. I refer back to my could statement. My understanding, and I will endevour to research this further, is that CO2 tends to refract light back in to the earths atmosphere as well as act like a blanket. Watervapour, also has refractive properties, but in concentration becomes a coud which reflects light back into space.

Go ahead and look it up then. You'll find all the research says "water vapor contributes more than any other greenhouse gas". That's not opinion, it's fact. Whether it reflects light when in cloud form is a moot point, as there are still large portions of the sky that have enough water vapor to act as a greenhouse, but not enough to reflect.

Quote:

And the plan adresses that. Those that would not be able to adapt quickly are the poor, and rural populations. Those are two groups that, to much criticism from Conservatives, would receive direct aid.

I'll bet you dollars to dimes that the support provided will either not be enough, or that the expenses of it will be so high that it's going to be the elephant in the room when talking about expense (like the gun registry).

Quote:

The long term solutions are as follows

I'll stop you right there. By the time a long term solution comes around the market will have corrected itself somehow. Whether with higher wages to cover the new cost of living, or by the cost of living readjusting to "normal" because the newer, cheaper methods have been implemented. Either case, the long term isn't a problem, but the short term. If that short term ISN'T handled right, then that long term problem becomes much harder to handle, if you catch my drift.

Quote:

To use your example, Western culture isn't walking through the forest, it's cutting down the trees and building a 12 lane super highway.

Nice sensationalism. Give me proof that our impact is comparable to cutting down the forest. Come on, I dare you. Oh wait, you can't, because you don't even fully know what the metaphorical forests natural cycle is. No one knows.

Quote:

It's undeniable, you even admitted it, that we are having an impact. Now the question is, do we NEED that 12 lane super highway, or will a nice little path with benches here and there do?

And who's to say our impact is a 12 lane super highway? Who's to say it's not just a little path with benches here and there? Neither of us can say, because there's no proof. But it's so much more attention grabbing to say it the way you have, isn't it?

Quote:

Yes, you will feel an impact, no question. But 1. a vast majority of the oil

Whoa whoa, I was under the impression from earlier that oil wasn't going to be the problem, as the tax on oil/gasoline is already higher than the proposed carbon tax. I was talking more about the coal power plants and the natural gas heating. You know, the stuff that's going to be receiving the new taxes that does directly affect us. Also, you know, the stuff that Klein foolishly delivered as a monopoly to our lords and masters at EpCor and AtCo, wherein they can set whatever price they please (they've been doing it for years) and there's no real form of "competition" to balance the market out. Nor is there the normal consumer right to simply not buy, as heat and power are both necessities, especially during those cold and dark winters where the prices mysteriously spike. That's why Alberta is going to feel this proposed tax up the yang, because sins of the past still burn us today.

[dino_bobba_renno]

commonsense wrote:

True. However, I would propose that the impact on carbon emissions has been limited because Europeans have historically had a smaller carbon footprint than North Americans, and with energy rates higher there already because of higher levels of taxation, adding a green tax on top of that may be pushing too far. However, I have not researched this, and therefore cannot make a definitive statement at this time.

However, I can analyze it from an economic perspective, while incomplete, it may provide some answers as to why such a statement could be made.

If only one jurisdiction (especially one where the primary source of CO2 production is not from an industry like the oil sands) were to implement this type of shift, being a small player in the market, economics dictate that companies would uproot and move away. As well, if, as the article suggests, Europe were "a sort of lab test for every policy fantasy known to economists and politicians" then there could be too much overlap, and therefore the detrimental effects that some Conservatives espouse will happen. However, with a single unified policy across the whole state, that shouldn't be a concern.

You seem to propose a lot of things. In fact that’s pretty much all you’re doing is throwing out proposals and theories.

You say “oh lets compare” so we do oh but that wasn’t the comparison you were looking for was it even if the “Green Shift” credits that example as being a template for Dion’s proposal.

You say that this tax won’t affect our competitiveness in export markets but completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary and pay no heed to the voices coming from industry who have forgotten more about being competitive than the government will ever know.

You say this plan will in theory reduce emissions but back that claim up with … well as far as I can tell nothing more than wishful thinking.

commonsense wrote:

As for it transferring wealth to Ontario and Quebec, I fail to see that as well. Where we don't have the same number of large single source emitters of CO2 that Alberta has (in the oil sands), we do have many times more smaller source emitters in terms of a significantly higher population. Not to mention that, Ontario has the largest single source emitter in Canada, the third or fourth largest in North America, in the Nanticoke Generating Station.

You say that this plan won’t take money from the west and disproportionately distribute it to the east but seem to leave out that fact that 40% of the revenue generated by this plan will be from Alberta and Saskatchewan but over 63% of it will be distributed to Ontario and Quebec alone.

You also seem to think that the banks and share holders will be more than happy to fork over the cash needed by companies to regain their competitiveness but as I remember when I was at my bank just last with my receivables and yearly in hand looking to cover my up coming wages the bank didn’t even mention their concern for global warming even once. In fact there wasn’t even a peep about the environment in general at all. There was however a few questions about my margins.

You can theorize all you want. I myself live in the real world. I don’t go by the philosophy of “would’ve, could’ve, should’ve” I go by facts. The facts are this is a tax, it will take more from the average person than it will give back in a time when many people are having a hard time making ends meet and proposes to raise the cost the cost of everything they buy. The plan has absolutely no set goals or benchmarks nor a mechanism to assess it’s effectiveness. It does not put money back into R&D to work towards the desired results, in fact it talks more about the so called “tax shift” than it does about GHG emission reductions. It will hurt our competitiveness on the global markets and it does nothing to address goods coming in from foreign countries which are big GHG emitters such as China and India (and it can’t due to the beloved Kyoto protocol). What about the fact that since 2002 global temperatures have been falling despite an increase of 15% in GHG emissions between 2002 – 2005.

The government takes enough of our money there comrade and there is no need for them to take more and waste it on some “anti-poverty” scheme they have cooked up simply to pander for votes in urban centers the east. If you want to pay more to save the planet I suggest you donate you’re entire earnings to the government and live off the land in one of your green houses for a year or two but please leave me out of it.

[commonsense]

THrag2K wrote:

Way to take my words and twist them. I didn't say the people putting out credible research are the nutbags, but of course that doesn't help your point one bit, now does it?

I will admit to a bit of selective response, however the IPCC, a group you've just said are not nutbags, stated in their report that A) humans are having an impact and B) that impact is enough to warrant such measures as the Kyoto Protocol, which is calling for reductions of CO2 output by approximately 6% below 1990 levels.

THrag2K wrote:

And I'll point it out again (and I guess again and again until the broken record finally gets through): It's not a debate whether we are having an impact. It's a debate on how much of an impact that is. Address that point, and stop dancing around the issue by insinuating I don't believe there's an impact at all.

As for the debate, unfortunately you would be one of the more open minded participants in the debate, because there are still a significant number of impact deniers out there... one of them is the President of the United States. While we are debating this here, there is a larger debate ongoing in which major factions of the Conservative party out-and-out deny that the climate is changing.

THrag2K wrote:

It has become visible. They've determined that, yes indeed, we do have an impact. Now all they need to do is determine if it's a baseball or a meteor that's hitting the grass in terms of impact.

Regardless of the size of the impact, we are having one, and a significant one at that. Again, it's expected that we will have an impact on the earth, but to have an impact necessary for survival vs. having a much larger impact because of our wants (SUV's that burn more fuel than is necessary to get from point A to point B, un-(or less than)-insulated homes, leaving the lights and taps on, etc.) is whats up for debate. The Liberal party is trying to make people think about how the live their lives and look into ways of making their lives more efficient.

Most Canadians don't even know what their electricity rates are. Most Canadians don't know the cost of many of the goods the consume. This plan hopes to address that. If a bottle of water costs more because the plastic used to make the bottle costs more, then maybe people will drink more tap water (which by the way, we are lucky to have clean drinkable water piped directly to our homes. Many people in the third world would think we're crazy that we ignore essentially free water in favour of often lower quality water which costs more and has a much greater impact). If it costs more to heat your home, maybe you'll consider getting a furnace that's a little above the 50% efficiency level that the average Canadian homes furnace is. If gas costs more (Again, indirectly), maybe you'll consider getting rid of that gas guzzling Explorer or F-150 and getting an Edge which sips fuel in comparison.

It's about basic behavioural changes.

THrag2K wrote:

As long as it takes them to definitively state how large the impact relatively is, and if it's anywhere comparable to the natural increase.

You've used a lot of qualifiers and meaningless statements in that sentence. How long is that? How many scientists need to agree? How big an impact do they need to find we're having?

I want definitive proof that crime has gone down as a result of the Conservatives crime legislation. Good luck proving it though... there is a multitude of reasons why crime goes up and down. The economy, the population, the number of people within each age group... to say 100% that Y has occurred as result of X is impossible.

So where's the yard stick?

Just like how I've asked everyone on this forum to provide an alternative to the Liberals plan within the existing tax system, I highly doubt this will be answered as well.

THrag2K wrote:

Everything we do as humans exacerbates some problem or another. Should we strive to minimize our impact? Let me ask you a question that illustrates my views on that. What the hell are you doing using your computer if you're such a proponent of minimization? There's any number of things you could do to reduce your impact, but I bet you don't do them because you KNOW the level of impact is not that high. The same could be possibly true of this issue, we just don't know how large it is.

I don't run my tap when I brush my teeth. I turn out the lights in my house when I'm not in the room. I don't own a car, I use public transit. I have CFL bulbs in all my conventional light outlets. While I'm aware I can minimize my impact further, I'm quite sure that my impact is negligible compared to the majority of Canadians.

Again, that is what this plan is attempting to address. The average Canadian lives in a single detached house, http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/oct14/hou.htm drives a vehicle that consumes 12.7 L/100Km http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070823/d070823d.htm, and uses 58,620 kilowatt hours of electricity a year. These figures should drop, if not for the environment, then at least because it will help make our economy more streamlined and efficient on the world stage.

THrag2K wrote:

Yes, but in most, if not all, of those million and one cases it's something that was pretty much guaranteed to happen in that location, but they weren't sure of when until it finally happened. Well, our being a main contributor to global warming and it's results aren't guaranteed, and if it were to happen it's still a long time in the coming.

I don't know about you, but I would like my children (because that's how soon the IPCC is saying the effects will occur) to live in a world where New York won't be the next Atlantis, or the country of Tuvalu exists.

THrag2K wrote:

Don't act like the other option is pain free. It's not, as there is an economic burden to consider. Those under or around the poverty line will feel the impact of this. Maybe you won't feel it, but a lot of other people will. Is it so psychotic to want to at least determine which path will cause the least pain to humanity as a whole BEFORE we just leap into it?

Aside from the fact that I question why Conservatives are suddenly concerned with the plight of the poor after raising the lowest income tax bracket 0.5%, the two choices are short term and minimal pain now which we can control and mitigate, or long term and extensive pain later which we cannot.

THrag2K wrote:

I'll bet you dollars to dimes that the support provided will either not be enough, or that the expenses of it will be so high that it's going to be the elephant in the room when talking about expense (like the gun registry).

I'm sure the support will never be enough. If the Conservatives complain that it's too much, the NDP will complain that it is not enough, and the number one rule in war and politics is that your enemy's enemy is your friend, so if the Liberals win out, I'm sure you'll see a Frankenstein alliance between the NDP and the Conservatives simply to attempt to debase this plan.

As for the gun registry, the police, who the Conservatives love to trumpet that they are the only ones who truly support them, don't want the registry shut down. Only the wacky gun nut faction of the Conservatives (the only party that caters to said faction) want it shut down. To be frank, I support a complete gun ban!

Guns are constructed for one purpose (as with land mines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles), to kill. Why should we as a society tolerate them? By that logic, I should be allowed to have a dangerous virus collection. But it's not allowed, because the potential harm to society is seen as too great. The same logic goes with guns.

Now, I know I've just opened a can of warms with the last statement... people are going to say stupid things like "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but let me tell you, if they didn't have a gun, the ability to kill would be substantially reduced, and as for the "well, I can kill with a (insert object like Knife here)", well the benefit provided by those objects far outweighs the risk of them being used as a weapon.

THrag2K wrote:

I'll stop you right there. By the time a long term solution comes around the market will have corrected itself somehow. Whether with higher wages to cover the new cost of living, or by the cost of living readjusting to "normal" because the newer, cheaper methods have been implemented. Either case, the long term isn't a problem, but the short term. If that short term ISN'T handled right, then that long term problem becomes much harder to handle, if you catch my drift.

So you admit, this is a good plan, but that the short term consequences are all that is at issue. Well buddy, sometimes we have to suck it up and deal with the short term. If you want to go swimming, your boy's'll have to hit the water some time, you can either run out of the water scared, or dive in!

THrag2K wrote:

Nice sensationalism. Give me proof that our impact is comparable to cutting down the forest. Come on, I dare you. Oh wait, you can't, because you don't even fully know what the metaphorical forests natural cycle is. No one knows.

To fully understand the cycle isn't necessary. If that were the case, then we'd have to map out the entirety of history from the big bang to the present, which is impossible. However, we currently have a sufficient understanding of the system to begin to identify (with beyond a reasonable doubt certainty) patterns and potential outcomes. Obviously we will never have 100% accuracy, but the certainty we currently have is enough to begin to make policy decisions that will have a societal effect.

THrag2K wrote:

And who's to say our impact is a 12 lane super highway? Who's to say it's not just a little path with benches here and there? Neither of us can say, because there's no proof. But it's so much more attention grabbing to say it the way you have, isn't it?

Whether it's 12 lanes, 6 lanes, or 2, doesn't matter. The metaphor doesn't matter. We are having an impact, an impact which is larger than it need be. Contemporary technology exists to minimize out impact to a degree that is far lower than we currently exert, and technology being developed today, and in the future, will reduce that further. However, in our current tax and economic model, there is no will to apply those technologies because we can simply externalize the negative consequences and pretend that they don't exist. This plan will resolve to correct that.

THrag2K wrote:

Whoa whoa, I was under the impression from earlier that oil wasn't going to be the problem, as the tax on oil/gasoline is already higher than the proposed carbon tax.

As you, or someone, has stated, and I fully agree, there will be no direct impact on GAS (not oil), but inevitably there will be an indirect impact.

THrag2K wrote:

I was talking more about the coal power plants and the natural gas heating. You know, the stuff that's going to be receiving the new taxes that does directly affect us. Also, you know, the stuff that Klein foolishly delivered as a monopoly to our lords and masters at EpCor and AtCo, wherein they can set whatever price they please (they've been doing it for years) and there's no real form of "competition" to balance the market out.

So, vote the Alberta PC party out of office for making said foolish decisions! In Ontario, while delivery is a monopoly, we have an open market system. Maybe this will be a reason to change your local system to one that is more sustainable and encourages efficiency.

THrag2K wrote:

Nor is there the normal consumer right to simply not buy, as heat and power are both necessities, especially during those cold and dark winters where the prices mysteriously spike. That's why Alberta is going to feel this proposed tax up the yang, because sins of the past still burn us today.

So, you propose to punish not just the rest of the country, but the whole of thw world for Alberta's sins of the past? I'm sorry, but that is just hypocritical!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You seem to propose a lot of things. In fact that’s pretty much all you’re doing is throwing out proposals and theories.

Well, this plan being a PROPOSAL, all I can do is propose. If it were reality, then I could rely on statistics and results.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You say “oh lets compare” so we do oh but that wasn’t the comparison you were looking for was it even if the “Green Shift” credits that example as being a template for Dion’s proposal.

The Green Shift PROPOSAL cites it as an example of some of the components of this plan. The Liberals are attempting to use the positive components that have been shown to work, while attempting to find solutions for the parts that were less successful. To simply copy another states plan and blindly apply it to our country, with different circumstances and conditions, would lead to abject failure. But, if they have something that works, and we are somewhat similar, then we can use their experience as a template for our plan.

Learn from others mistakes.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You say that this tax won’t affect our competitiveness in export markets but completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary and pay no heed to the voices coming from industry who have forgotten more about being competitive than the government will ever know.

If we are more efficient, we are more competitive, that is basic economic theory. Even if this plan results in 0 reductions in CO2 emissions (say because the population happens to grow at a rate equivalent to all potential gains) our per capita energy usage will have decreased, more for less (or as with my example, more for the same).

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You say this plan will in theory reduce emissions but back that claim up with … well as far as I can tell nothing more than wishful thinking.

Economic incentiveization is a proven method achieving systemic change on a societal level. Another is outright criminalization, but as I've stated before, to force behavioural changes through the criminal system is unconstitutional and unethical. So, prove to me that economic stimuli as a means of behavioural change on a large scale has ever NOT worked.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You say that this plan won’t take money from the west and disproportionately distribute it to the east but seem to leave out that fact that 40% of the revenue generated by this plan will be from Alberta and Saskatchewan but over 63% of it will be distributed to Ontario and Quebec alone.

I've never seen that statistic before... Where did you find it? Show me, I'll review it, and either respond or concede.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You also seem to think that the banks and share holders will be more than happy to fork over the cash needed by companies to regain their competitiveness but as I remember when I was at my bank just last with my receivables and yearly in hand looking to cover my up coming wages the bank didn’t even mention their concern for global warming even once. In fact there wasn’t even a peep about the environment in general at all. There was however a few questions about my margins.

Again, banks and shareholders don't have much of a say in this. Banks have 0, they just loan the money and expect returns based on a scheduled and contracted basis, and shareholder have only one concern, that being profit.

Therefore, faced with a new economic climate, shareholders would push the directors of the companies which they hold stock in to maximize their efficiency in order to minimize cost and maximize their profit. Yes, they wouldn't care about the environment, they'd care about profit, but a plan like this (at least minimally) ties potential environmental impacts with potential profits.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You can theorize all you want. I myself live in the real world. I don’t go by the philosophy of “would’ve, could’ve, should’ve” I go by facts. The facts are this is a tax, it will take more from the average person than it will give back in a time when many people are having a hard time making ends meet and proposes to raise the cost the cost of everything they buy.

I too live in the real world, where people waste huge quantities of energy and resources. This is going to cost us more in the long run. So, while I will concede it may have some short term consequences, it will be easily mitigated by long run gains. Try to think beyond the fiscal year horizon. Yes, you may be in business tomorrow if we don't change, but who's to say you'll be in business next week? This plan aims to make sure that we are in business next week, next month, next century.

The only credible argument I've been able to come up with to oppose long-term planning is a fatalist mentality... something along the lines of "I'm retiring next week anyways, why do I care". If that's the case with you Dino, then just say that, and I will except it. But if you're planning on staying in business for anything greater than 5 years, you should seriously be analyzing this plan for it's long-term benefit vs. short-term pain!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

The plan has absolutely no set goals or benchmarks nor a mechanism to assess it’s effectiveness. It does not put money back into R&D to work towards the desired results, in fact it talks more about the so called “tax shift” than it does about GHG emission reductions.

The R&D argument has been addressed previously. Read past posts before you respond.

Set goals and benchmarks, too has been addressed previously. I explained the political climate in which the plan was unveiled and stated that the Liberals would probably release benchmarks and calculations during the summer... the elections isn't today, so we're only discussing a work in progress.

That being said, at it's core, it is an economic shift. I don't look at it in terms of its potential environmental impact... sure, there will be positive environmental impacts, and I use them to tout and support the plan, but fundamentally it is a shift in the economic system as a whole. Its not abandoning the market economy (as those saying this is some sort of a communist plot allege), it's not changing 99% of your daily life, all it is doing is imparting a cost/benefit to energy use/savings! Up until now, energy has essentially been free (you only paid for processing, shipping and handling), this plan aims to change that, add a cost to it and make people think "hmm... is there a way I can make my system (whether it be home, business, province) more efficient in its energy use".

This is a fundamental shift in thinking, one that the majority of the world already subscribes too to one degree or another, one that North America is going to eventually get dragged into, the question is, will we do it willingly, or will we go kicking and screaming?

Energy is not free, there is a negative consequence to its use, and until now we've been ignoring it! It's time that we see the light (or the smog in this case).

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

It will hurt our competitiveness on the global markets and it does nothing to address goods coming in from foreign countries which are big GHG emitters such as China and India (and it can’t due to the beloved Kyoto protocol).

Kyoto failed in that regard, I agree. But, those developing countries have a point as well, we've had a free ride since the 18th century. They've only had 30 or 40 years at a kick at the ball. Kyoto attempted to address that by giving them until 2012 to have their free ride before they would begin to have to comply.

However, because of political wrangling and in action in the Western world, they have a legitimate argument for continuing the old ways beyond that. If the West had stuck to its part of the agreement and began to cut, then developing world wouldn't have had an excuse to continue unabated. But that hasn't happened, and there is no point of crying over spilt milk. Instead, we have to face up so that we can prove to the developing world that it can be done.

Don't forget, as the leaders in this sort of shift, we will have a competitive advantage at developing technology to abate our externalities, as well as developing economic and political systems for said abatement. Think of the green collar jobs and potential consultancy jobs that will be created in supplying that technology and thinking to the rest of the world!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

What about the fact that since 2002 global temperatures have been falling despite an increase of 15% in GHG emissions between 2002 – 2005.

That is an outright fabrication. If its not, prove it. Every credible scientist agrees that the average global temperature has risen over the last hundred years, at an average of about 0.78 +- 0.18 degrees centigrade.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

The government takes enough of our money there comrade and there is no need for them to take more and waste it on some “anti-poverty” scheme they have cooked up simply to pander for votes in urban centers the east. If you want to pay more to save the planet I suggest you donate you’re entire earnings to the government and live off the land in one of your green houses for a year or two but please leave me out of it.

Like it or not, you're a member of society, and you have no right to harm me and my living standard. To disagree on the way the money is re-distributed is a completely separate argument, one which frankly I do not have a desire to discuss with you. However, to reject the plan based on its economic and societal goals is a different matter entirely.

As I've state before, it is about a behavioural shift, of increasing efficiency by adding a cost to what once was free and ignored!

[THrag2K]

commonsense wrote:

You've used a lot of qualifiers and meaningless statements in that sentence. How long is that? How many scientists need to agree? How big an impact do they need to find we're having?

Those qualifiers are necessary. And they are far from meaningless. Rather, I didn't want to waste the time and space fully outlining what I feel is necessary. However, I'll field your questions:

How long? I can't say how long because science moves at it's own pace. Sometimes it crawls, sometimes it makes astounding leaps. To put a definitive timeframe on it could either overshoot or underestimate how long it would take, thus "as much time is needed".

How many scientists need to agree? The majority we have now on whether we have an impact will do. They just need to agree on how big our impact is, and whether or not it will be irreversible if trends continue. That's the biggy, if they can say it's irreversible. If they do, no choice, gung-ho, fix it now before we reach that awful awful deadline. If it is reversible, we have time to find more economically viable methods to fix the problem.

Further, the current model may be nice and self-consistent, but so were the models of geocentric orbit. It's fits current data, but maybe there's some outside factor that we either don't fully understand or previously discounted as minor. If that were true, would it not be better to say "Wow, we were wrong, but at least we waited a bit to find more economically viable options before selling the barn"? More than that, that time frame of waiting would still end up with us addressing the issue in case this current model is correct.

Quote:

I want definitive proof that crime has gone down as a result of the Conservatives crime legislation. Good luck proving it though... there is a multitude of reasons why crime goes up and down. The economy, the population, the number of people within each age group... to say 100% that Y has occurred as result of X is impossible.

And there's a multitude of reasons why the global temperature, and global warming itself, goes up and down. How do we know the trend is primarily because of us? It's like the crime legislation, it could be a small effect, it could be a large one. We simply just don't know.

Quote:

So where's the yard stick?

That's what I want too. I want something that tells me whether this is a disaster that needs to be fixed NOW, or if this is an inconvenience that can still be fixed in the future before it becomes a disaster.

Quote:

Just like how I've asked everyone on this forum to provide an alternative to the Liberals plan within the existing tax system, I highly doubt this will be answered as well.

And I did. I outlined a few contingencies that would need to be directly addressed to prevent an economic downturn. The plan has merit, but they just need to make it an incentive to change instead of an incentive to pass the buck.

Quote:

While I'm aware I can minimize my impact further, I'm quite sure that my impact is negligible compared to the majority of Canadians.

And the impact that humanity has as a whole may be negligible compared to other factors. To ask humanity to minimize might very well be just as worthless as asking you to minimize further if there are other unexplored causes of the current trend.

Quote:

These figures should drop, if not for the environment, then at least because it will help make our economy more streamlined and efficient on the world stage.

Using the current plan, the money a consumer spends would either remain the same or increase, depending on whether they scale back their usage. Consumer cost increases, which is the opposite of economic efficiency. However, the environmental efficiency would go up, as their would be a drop in consumption. But don't pretend this will make things better for the economy, as that's just wishful thinking.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I would like my children (because that's how soon the IPCC is saying the effects will occur)

If left completely unchecked, if the current CO2 emissions follow the still increasing trend, if if if. There's a lot of if's in their scenarios, and most of these if's are completely out of Canada's control. Of the CO2 produced worldwide, how much of it is from us? Even if the human impact is as large as the IPCC is predicting then reducing Canada's emissions STILL wouldn't do anything as we aren't one of the grievous contributors.

Quote:

Aside from the fact that I question why Conservatives are suddenly concerned with the plight of the poor after raising the lowest income tax bracket 0.5%, the two choices are short term and minimal pain now which we can control and mitigate, or long term and extensive pain later which we cannot.

I'm not a Conservative, so don't go lumping me in with that crowd. I'm just more concerned with my, and the persons around me, bottom line. And frankly the current proposal does nothing good for that.

Quote:

I'm sure the support will never be enough.

Then why are you trotting out the support plan if you know it won't effectively solve the problem it was meant to fix?

Quote:

As for the gun registry, the police, who the Conservatives love to trumpet that they are the only ones who truly support them, don't want the registry shut down. Only the wacky gun nut faction of the Conservatives (the only party that caters to said faction) want it shut down. To be frank, I support a complete gun ban!

As do I, but the cost of it was far too much and would have gone far better/cheaper if the implementation was researched better. We need to learn from that mistake for this idea, hence my constant saying that we need to research it better.

THrag2K wrote:

I'll stop you right there. By the time a long term solution comes around the market will have corrected itself somehow. Whether with higher wages to cover the new cost of living, or by the cost of living readjusting to "normal" because the newer, cheaper methods have been implemented. Either case, the long term isn't a problem, but the short term. If that short term ISN'T handled right, then that long term problem becomes much harder to handle, if you catch my drift.

Quote:

So you admit, this is a good plan, but that the short term consequences are all that is at issue.

Short term consequences that could turn into really bad long-term disasters. Ones that your long term plan wouldn't even address. Hence why we need to make sure that the short term solutions are good enough to prevent this. I don't currently believe that the Liberal proposal or your's covers these adequately.

Quote:

Well buddy, sometimes we have to suck it up and deal with the short term. If you want to go swimming, your boy's'll have to hit the water some time, you can either run out of the water scared, or dive in!

Yes, but I'd rather like to know if that water is polluted with toxic waste or not. That's how a short term consequence being dealt with poorly can result in long-term disasters.

Quote:

So, you propose to punish not just the rest of the country, but the whole of thw world for Alberta's sins of the past? I'm sorry, but that is just hypocritical!

First of all, I don't think that word means what you think it means. How is it hypocritical to say that I don't support this bill because, as is, it would create economic problems for me and the people immediately around me? If I were to be hypocritical I'd be saying "I'm all for this bill and it's downsides, as long as the downsides don't apply to me." I, however, am not saying that. I was proposing an addendum, addition, whatever you want to call it, that would make it so that the cost of the tax won't be fully passed on to the consumer, regardless of location. The fact that this passing on of the buck is a more immediate concern to Alberta doesn't apply here as I'm not asking for any special treatment just for us.

Secondly, declining to support a bill that would surely cause far too many economic hardships for me and my provincial fellows would not be a punishment to the world, simply due to how minimal a change said bill would produce. Rather, I should ask why you are so willing to pass hardships onto others for so very little in return.

[commonsense]

THrag2K wrote:

Those qualifiers are necessary. And they are far from meaningless. Rather, I didn't want to waste the time and space fully outlining what I feel is necessary. However, I'll field your questions:

How long? I can't say how long because science moves at it's own pace. Sometimes it crawls, sometimes it makes astounding leaps. To put a definitive timeframe on it could either overshoot or underestimate how long it would take, thus "as much time is needed".

How many scientists need to agree? The majority we have now on whether we have an impact will do. They just need to agree on how big our impact is, and whether or not it will be irreversible if trends continue. That's the biggy, if they can say it's irreversible. If they do, no choice, gung-ho, fix it now before we reach that awful awful deadline. If it is reversible, we have time to find more economically viable methods to fix the problem.

Further, the current model may be nice and self-consistent, but so were the models of geocentric orbit. It's fits current data, but maybe there's some outside factor that we either don't fully understand or previously discounted as minor. If that were true, would it not be better to say "Wow, we were wrong, but at least we waited a bit to find more economically viable options before selling the barn"? More than that, that time frame of waiting would still end up with us addressing the issue in case this current model is correct.

If I go camping, and I start a fire, then find out there is a fire advisory, the forest is dry and can catch fire at any moment, I can a) put out the fire... its not a good idea to have an open fire in such a dry forest, or b) wait until the fire escapes the fire pit. Why would I wait, just because I want to enjoy one more smore... that's just stupid! Put the fire out now before something seriously wrong happens!

On a more factual and less metaphorical basis, and I quote from the IPCC executive summary for policy makers:

IPCC Summary for Policy Makers wrote:

The key conclusions of the SPM were that:
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in). [commonsense note: that already puts a host of low lying countries in extreme risk of literally disappearing below the ocean]
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years [commonsense note2: note the lack of mention of water vapour, which while also a green house gas is not identified anywhere in the IPCC reports as either rising due to anthropogenic causes, or accelerating in concentration that alarm climate scientists]

In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.

THrag2K wrote:

That's what I want too. I want something that tells me whether this is a disaster that needs to be fixed NOW, or if this is an inconvenience that can still be fixed in the future before it becomes a disaster.

As the above states with at least a 90% likelihood, we're already in this. Our fathers and grand fathers have already screwed the pooch on this... having now identified the trend with decades of data gathering and observation, now is the time to act. How much more proof do you need? Does god him self need to come down from the heavens and say "stop spoiling my creation?"

THrag2K wrote:

And I did. I outlined a few contingencies that would need to be directly addressed to prevent an economic downturn. The plan has merit, but they just need to make it an incentive to change instead of an incentive to pass the buck.

Those points you mentioned are not a cohesive plan... just like the Conservatives "climate strategy". They are a series of stop-gap measures meant to address short term goals and silence the critics. Again, the only solution to this is a fundamental shift in behaviour. How do you change the behaviour of a society without infringing on their rights? You incentivize them. If the Conservatives came out with their own plan like this, but varied the way that the shifts in taxes occurred, then I would take a look at both plans and asses according to which I felt would be best for myself and society. But they haven't. All they do is use rhetoric, sensationalism and deceit to try to build a smokescreen in an attempt to change the subject and avoid a real debate!

As for "passing the buck" yes, I've said that will likely occur to a degree (in that companies will pass down some increased costs), however it is a short term pain caused by a fundamental shift in our economic system. Once the new normal is set, people will hardly notice.

When the GST was introduced, there was a huge uproar, merchants refused to include it in their prices (which is why it is a line item on most receipts today) because they wanted to let the consumer know that it wasn't them increasing the prices. They were passing the buck, instead of "hiding" it in their prices. But who even thinks about it today? A baseline increase in costs across the whole market (as the GST was) is shocking at first, but is quickly forgotten in favour of more pressing issues. However, it's a very usefull political tool to get people to ignore substantive debate, simply because of its shock value.

Frankly, I value the system every other country on Earth (with the exception of the US) uses, where the taxes are included in the prices. It makes shopping on a budget a whole lot easier!

And even thought merchants continue their silent protest to this day (which I don't think they even remember why) no one bats an eye at the expectation that prices advertised and the amount you pay are inevitably different by about one fifth.

THrag2K wrote:

And the impact that humanity has as a whole may be negligible compared to other factors. To ask humanity to minimize might very well be just as worthless as asking you to minimize further if there are other unexplored causes of the current trend.

Again, on the balance of probabilities, nay, beyond a reasonable doubt, we are having an impact far greater than even basic contemporary technology necessitates. As the only intelligent life on this planet (sometimes I question that seeing how we react to many of our most pressing issues) we are the stewards for its safe keeping and long term viability. Sure, we could have created a nuclear dooms day back in the '50's if we wanted, but we had sense enough not to. But that was a relatively short term problem of our own making, this is an intergenerational problem. We're in the process of creating (since about 1750) a more insidious ...I don't want to say doomsday... crisis than one we've ever created or faced before. Now its time to have the sense to say "we've identified the problem, now its time to enact the solution".

Sure, there maybe other unexplored causes of the current trend, but we're sure to greater than 90% likelihood that we're the cause, and we can be the solution.

THrag2K wrote:

Using the current plan, the money a consumer spends would either remain the same or increase, depending on whether they scale back their usage. Consumer cost increases, which is the opposite of economic efficiency.

I'll stop you right there. Economic efficiency is not just dollars and cents. Even Adam Smith said that money is intrinsically worthless. Economics is about inputs and outputs, money being a quick and useful way of measuring said inputs and outputs. It counted as an input and output by many, which is fundamentally incorrect. Economics is about productive uses of things like Labour, Raw Materials and Knowledge in the production of Material and Immaterial (ie. R&D) goods.

So the fundamental problem we are attempting to address is not in driving down prices (that can easily be achieved using monetary policy in a deflationary monetary strategy) but in driving down costs (our use of resources, and all those other inputs).

I've stated some statistics about the average Canadian home and family before. We use extraordinary amounts of energy in our daily lives and achieve a standard of living that is essentially no different than European societies that consume half our energy per capita.

How do we address that?

THrag2K wrote:

However, the environmental efficiency would go up, as their would be a drop in consumption. But don't pretend this will make things better for the economy, as that's just wishful thinking.

There is no such thing as environmental efficiency. There is reducing our energy density, there is efficient use of resources, there is reducing waste and negative externalities, that is what would make the economy better.

THrag2K wrote:

If left completely unchecked, if the current CO2 emissions follow the still increasing trend, if if if. There's a lot of if's in their scenarios, and most of these if's are completely out of Canada's control. Of the CO2 produced worldwide, how much of it is from us? Even if the human impact is as large as the IPCC is predicting then reducing Canada's emissions STILL wouldn't do anything as we aren't one of the grievous contributors.

First of all, as I mentioned in my previous post, if we had complied with Kyoto, then we would today have a reasonable, rational argument for getting developing nations like India and China to reduce their emissions in the next round of the Protovol.

But we didn't.

This is the fault of both the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government.

But just because we've missed one deadline doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say thats all! We have to start some time. Canada has always been a leader on the world stage, despite our size. We helped enact a ban on landmines which almost every country on earth complies with. It's not 100% success, but it doens't mean its a failure.

The same goes here, we need to lead by example, show other states that while there maybe some short term troubles, they can be dealt with and the long-term benefits outweigh them.

If we (the whole world) completely shutdown all CO2 emissions today, the lingering effects of our production of CO2 for the past several centuries will continue for, some estimates say, at least 100 more years. That means for the next 100 years we're still going to have to waste economic resources on mitigating the effects of the previous 3 centuries of CO2 emissions.

This is a matter of intergenerational tyranny. We are imposing future costs and problems in order to blissfully lead our lives today. That is wrong. We've finally identified, I would say conclusively but for sake of argument greater than 90% likelihood, that this is the case, now is the time to act. Again, this is a matter of looking beyond the next election cycle, even beyond the next generation. These are time scales that our society is uncomfortable in dealing with, and to simply dismiss it because of a few years (at most) of pain that it will cause is to sentence your children, and your children's children, and your children's children's children, and your children's children's children's children and so on to a standard of living that is less than yours today because economic resources will invariably need to be used in mitigating the effects of today.

THrag2K wrote:

I'm not a Conservative, so don't go lumping me in with that crowd. I'm just more concerned with my, and the persons around me, bottom line. And frankly the current proposal does nothing good for that.

Well, I apologize, but you can understand why I would assume. Your argument and methodology greatly resembles that of the Conservative party, albeit in a much more intelligent and thought out fashion.

However, again, to appreciate this plan is to look beyond the short term inconvenience that it will cause and to look at the more long term goals that such a shift in our tax and economic system will create.

Besides that, you too can minimize the impact that it will have on you. (At this point, I speak about the average Canadian) Do you need to live in that 6 bedroom McMansion, or will 2 bedrooms do? Do you need that V8 super duty pickup tuck, or will the V6 do? In life, bigger is not better, but marketing and North American culture has taught us that it is! That's wrong! In Toronto, the fire department and the transit system are having a big fight right now because transit has installed trolley polls in the middle of the street car rights of way and the fire trucks are too big to navigate them. It didn't even occur to the fire chief "hey, maybe we don't need 45 foot long pumpers". Trucks in Europe are half the size they are here, but there aren't people dying from fires in great numbers over there.

They actually tried to solve that problem in the '80's, with the Toronto Fire Department purchasing some "European sized" pumper trucks, but the Unions opposed because they had some wacky calculation about the amount of space a fire fighter needs in the front cab. Have you seen those things, you could fit a full grown hippopotamus in there and still have room for all the fire fighters and their equipment!

My point is, bigger, more energy INefficient is not always better, in the long run its worse! Now, how do you go about creating such a shift in culture? Incentivize!

THrag2K wrote:

Then why are you trotting out the support plan if you know it won't effectively solve the problem it was meant to fix?

I know it will solve the problems it is meant to fix, my point was that the other two parties will inevitably say it won't, and will use it to try to kill the plan as a whole! Again, if the Tories and the NDP think the shift portion is a good plan, but simply disagree on the way the taxes and supports are assigned in the plan, then say so! Agree on the former, and propose your own plan for the latter! But that isn't the case.

THrag2K wrote:

As do I, but the cost of it was far too much and would have gone far better/cheaper if the implementation was researched better. We need to learn from that mistake for this idea, hence my constant saying that we need to research it better.

Bureaucratic mismanagement happens all the time. You can research how to implement something until the cows come home, leave again, drive back then start laying golden eggs, but invariably unexpected costs will occur.

Yes, I will concede, this was a particularly egregious example of costs balooning, but to propose to scrap the whole thing as a result of that (as the Conservatives propose, not necessarily you) would literally be flushing money down the toilet.

Darlington Nuclear in Ontario had costs far exceeded what was originally estimated (on the order of several hundred percent), does that mean we should shut it down? No, we need the power that it produces. The gun registry did too, should we shut it down? No, the police need the accounting and detabase mechanisms it provides. The only argument for shutting it down the the conservtives have is that they don't like bureaucray, and a significant faction within their party believes that it (somehow) impunes on their rights. That is the only legitimate argument they can provide, and the majority of Canadians would dismiss it. But when you talk money, and you mask your true intentions behind that, then people will perk up, take notice, and support you. Smokescreen!

THrag2K wrote:

Short term consequences that could turn into really bad long-term disasters. Ones that your long term plan wouldn't even address. Hence why we need to make sure that the short term solutions are good enough to prevent this. I don't currently believe that the Liberal proposal or your's covers these adequately.

What are those really bad long-term disasters? 1. Are they any worse than the alternative and even if they are, 2. what is our means of controlling and resolving them?

The short term issues that we've identified are that costs will go up (which in and of it self is self resolving in that employment contracts, when they come up for renegotiation, will invariably include wage hikes because the aggregate inflation of prices would warrant it) and that there maybe a slight shift in socio-economic levels of taxation because of the proposal (again, is that so bad? So the rich won't be able to afford one more ivory back scratcher).

Even the inflation in prices can be resolved over time with deflationary monetary policy, although the consequences of that would be more devastating to our economy, a classic case of the cure being more painful than the problem.

Inflation is a natural function of our economic system in that it helps to change the relative valuation of goods in services to reflect societal demands. As I mentioned above, the market self corrects. The absolute prices of everything will go up, but the relative prices would remain relatively unchanged or would reflect the new norm (over all... prices of more energy intensive products would go up faster than less energy intensive products).

Now if that effects you because you, as a choice, lead a particularly energy intensive life, then fine, you have a legitimate gripe with this plan.

THrag2K wrote:

Yes, but I'd rather like to know if that water is polluted with toxic waste or not. That's how a short term consequence being dealt with poorly can result in long-term disasters.

Just as I was guilty of sensationalizing your walking through the forest metaphor, so to are you with mine!

To metaphorically address your criticism, this would be tantamount wanting to know if someone has pee'd in the lake before you; at most, if someone defecated in the water.

THrag2K wrote:

First of all, I don't think that word means what you think it means. How is it hypocritical to say that I don't support this bill because, as is, it would create economic problems for me and the people immediately around me?

I apologize, upon closer inspection hypocritical was not what I had intended to mean... words failed me in that instance. Bigot would have been more appropriate, although sounding a little harsh. I had meant to mean that your thinking in isolation rather than in the bigger picture was unfair to those that are affected by your actions and choices, because it's not just you that deals with the consequences, your neighbours, us here in Ontario, people in France, Tuvalu, as well as your children, their children, their children, etc.

THrag2K wrote:

I was proposing an addendum, addition, whatever you want to call it, that would make it so that the cost of the tax won't be fully passed on to the consumer, regardless of location. The fact that this passing on of the buck is a more immediate concern to Alberta doesn't apply here as I'm not asking for any special treatment just for us.

Well, not just to you but to all of Alberta, any (and I hesitate to use this word) pain that this plan generates will be felt equally across the country as a whole. Just because the average Albertan is better off than the average Ontarian does not mean that Ontario is seeking to take money and resources away from you. It is a testament to the majority of you being better off than the minority of us.

Lets look at some facts. According to StatsCan http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a.htm in 2006 the median family income in Alberta was $78,400 vs. in Ontario where it was $66,600. Now, assuming a normal distribution of income (which is not the case in real life, but for argument sake we'll assume it is) the social aspects of this plan aim to trim a little of the top and give it to the bottom. Yes, because of normal distribution, more people in absolute terms will be affected in Alberta, and the net benefit will be delivered to people in Ontario, but thats because the average person is simply better off.

Now, statistics can be misleading. Yes the average family in Alberta is better off, but (moving away from a normal distribution) maybe its because of a few outlier figures, ie. a few REALLY REALLY rich people. In that case, they alone would feel the majority of the impact, where as the average middle class Albertan would feel no impact (or in the case of the plan, would actually get between 1% and 0.5% income tax decreases).

So let us further analyze that in the political context. Harper and the Federal Tories, who's base is centred in Alberta, can use those statistical tricks to persuade Albertans that this tax is bad for them because ON AVERAGE they make more and ON AVERAGE the money would be going to Ontario (that tactic of which, as an Ontarian, I'm really sick and tired of consistently being the target of). Of course, reality is completely different. The middle class Albertan would still receive the same benefits as a middle class Ontarian, there is no regional disparity in this plan.

So the argument that the majority of Albertans (individually) will be worse off is wrong!

So we then go to the second regionally based argument, that being that since Alberta's industry uses more energy, they will be negatively affected. Again, no regional disparity there, if energy prices across the entire country go up, it'll affect all industry at the same level, including aluminum smelting in Quebec, including arc-steel production in Ontario, including manufacturing in both provinces, etc. etc. etc.

The only statistics I could quickly find go back to 2001, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/57-601-XIE/10302/tables_html/T2_11a_en.htm, however, in 2001, total primary and secondary energy use in terajoules for Ontario was 2,469,665 whereas in Alberta it was 1,215,862. Both figures have undoubtedly gone up since then, with Alberta accelerating faster than Ontario, but I highly doubt it has surpassed it, so the overall effect of energy prices in Ontario is higher than in Alberta.

Now, one hole in my argument is per-capita energy use which, because of a smaller population in Alberta is higher. That too has a (relatively) easy solution. The majority of your energy use goes to a system which can much more efficiently generate that electricity. As someone previously posted, building 1 nuclear plant in or around Fort McMurray would substantially reduce your carbon footprint, and hence costs that would increase under this plan.

So pressure your provincial government to fast-track the Environmental Assessment for the Bruce Nuclear plant that is proposed there. Or else, pressure them to create a standard offer program for green energy as we have here in Ontario. Or else, pressure them to impose their own restrictions on carbon producing energy use in the oil patch ahead of the Liberals plan being implemented.

THrag2K wrote:

Secondly, declining to support a bill that would surely cause far too many economic hardships for me and my provincial fellows would not be a punishment to the world, simply due to how minimal a change said bill would produce. Rather, I should ask why you are so willing to pass hardships onto others for so very little in return.

After my previous response, this maybe a bit of a moot point, but what hardship would I be passing on that I wouldn't feel myself? And as for the returns, again, I would like my children to be able to visit Tuvalu (although that may already be a lost cause), to visit New York, to be able to see ice sheets and snow capped peaks.

Said proposal would produce huge changes, in the very least within our own economy, at the very most on the whole planet.