Discussions

Of course it won't if just a single person does it. But it's a much more practical plan of action than your idea of going back to how we lived in the 1800s.

What will it take to snap you people out of it. Simple minds are easily brainwashed. Everything we take from the earth goes right back into it, if you think humans can destroy the world, think again. We are only destroying our selves, and another tax will only make it worse. WAKE UP.

Carbon dioxide is really causing a problem let's put it back where it belongs, in the soil. Our farming practices have lowered soil organic matter severely. I don't have the numbers right here but only a small raise in soil organic matter worldwide would sequester all the carbon in the air that is causing so many problems. This cannot be achieved until we take a look at soil health. In turn we'll be rewarded with more nutritious food and more of it to feed the growing population.

Who does this carbon tax go to? This is just a tax grab so Justin and Leo can fly to the South of France and make themselves look big. The rich will still jet set around the world burning fuel like there is no tomorrow and us poor souls won't be able to drive across town because fuel is too expensive.

myhandleistrain said "Great question. Where does the tax go? Is it like a penalty and does the government use this tax to work out ways to stop carbon emissions? I believe most industries in Canada/U.S. have strict guidelines currently in place for various types of emissions, air, water, ground and if they go over these limits, there are substantial fines levied by the EPA and Evironment Canada. So, what's the tax for? "

carbon tax will be put in place to discourage middle class working serfs from driving. The rich will continue flying their private jets and sailing on their elaborate yachts. A little tax increase won't hurt them.  
 
It's another nail in the coffin of small town Canada.

myhandleistrain said "Doesn't the government already have an environmental tax on fuel? "

Yes, but this will be to fight climate change, so this can be in addition to and more!. If it is too fight climate change the pockets are deep.

The people in charge think they are

Sorbet said "    myhandleistrain said "Great question. Where does the tax go? Is it like a penalty and does the government use this tax to work out ways to stop carbon emissions? I believe most industries in Canada/U.S. have strict guidelines currently in place for various types of emissions, air, water, ground and if they go over these limits, there are substantial fines levied by the EPA and Evironment Canada. So, what's the tax for? " carbon tax will be put in place to discourage middle class working serfs from driving. The rich will continue flying their private jets and sailing on their elaborate yachts. A little tax increase won't hurt them.     It's another nail in the coffin of small town Canada. "

What do you think should be done to make it more fair so that all people are affected equally?

Simple.  
 
Develop real actual clean alternatives. Make them cheaper than burning fuel and every single person in this country will switch over in time.  
 
This is the only way. There is no alternative for many people now. You can't catch a buys in most Towns in the prairies.  
 
Even here in Brandon, buses won't go onto the property of grocery stores like the Sobeys area or the Corral Center, so i have to drive there to pick up groceries.  
 
Putting a tax doesn't solve carbon e emissions. It just brings financial hardship. It means buying Gere vegetables to keep our families healthy...which equals higher healthcare costs therefore medical supply waste as one -use items are thrown away in typical medical care. It means less money saved for kids education, hindering some ofthe innovation which could have happened in terms of c clean alternatives at the university level.  
 
It's not a tax, it's a huge attack on the way of life of people, the economy, and the country our parents & grandparents built.  
 

myhandleistrain said "If indeed humans are destroying the planet, my monies on Old Mother Earth! Look how she bounced back from that cataclysmic event that brought on the ice age!! She eventually healed herself. Humans? No match for her! "

Yes, indeed! Mother Earth healed herself from the last ice age. It only took a few million years to do it, but she succeeded. How do you think your descendants will manage to weather a few million years of catastrophic global climate change including flooding, earthquakes, new deserts and draught, etc?? Humans only have to tough it out for a few hundred thousand generations before Earth heals itself. -smh-  
 
A true hero is one who does something TODAY about climate change even though he/she won't be around to receive the thanks from future generations.

It is nothing but a tax grab. It will do nothing to Help ordinary citizens lesson their carbon footprint.  
All it will do is drive inflation, driving up prices from gas, food, utility bills, to goods and services. Most companies will simply transfer costs to the consumer, who`s wage will be playing catch-up. Preventing them from actually investing in greener technologies for everyday life.  
Why commit billions of dollars outside of the country when you could give grants to companies here that are making progress. Why not change insurance cost for vehicles that are fuel efficient so that it would be less to insure a truck+ a fuel efficient car than run a truck and pay for the extra in fuel. Maybe a 2 tier fueling system would work better. fuel efficient vehicles get a discount in fuel prices. I`m sure investing money in a system like that would have a greater impact than a carbon tax. Maybe a none-profit Tax on goods that are bad for the environment, but the profit of the tax is transferred to making environmentally friendly items cheaper. (example() add a tax to conventional light bulbs and transfer the profit to make LED bulbs cheaper) All a tax will do is set a new reality for prices of goods and services. It will not encourage anyone to make better choices as green technologies are more expensive than conventional. Thus it will only hinder the the average persons ability to live a cleaner and healthier life and will only serve as another income source for government and global agencies.  

rum, you are 100% right!!! As of now to live a cleaner and even healthier lifestyle is very expensive. Your example on light bulbs is right on. Take the average conventional light bulb, what $0.99 each roughly? An equivalent LED is $10. Which are ppl gonna buy. Dishing out more stupid taxes fixes nothing. These jackasses flying around in personal jets to promote climate change are affecting more than the average work commuter. Leo is a complete hypocrite. Came to alberta to film a movie and experiences a blizzard and holy chicken little. The sky is falling!! So i better take my jet all over and tell ppl about it!! Then i'll take a cruise on my ridiculously huge yacht to relieve the stress of the storm!! And people are buying into what this idiot is saying. Seriously.

myhandleistrain said "I remember reading about his cross Canada trip several years ago professing global warming, ozone depletion. If memory serves me, the convoy included several large custom buses, some with only a couple of people on them. The press made a pretty big deal on the irony of this. Also, what happened to the "carbon/methane" worst offenders people were blaming a few years ago? Not cars, COWS!! "

Okay, I'll enjoy my locally grown Kiwi's and mangos....

When in doubt; John Oliver  
 
https://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

thankful the Liberals respect the tax payer. They deserve a retreat though.  
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/22/trudeau-ministers-to-hold-second-pricey-cabinet-retreat-in-mountain-resort_n_9761400.html

If you (personally) want to do something more than "just talk", how about these ideas?  
- Plant a garden or eat from local farmers instead of buying produce grown thousands of miles away:  
- get a few solar panels or a wind turbine to supplement your energy usage:  
- get outside in the summertime so you don't have your lights, TV and A/C on all day every day:  
- walk to the corner store instead of driving the two blocks.  
 
Yes, it's good for Canada to step up as a country, but there is so much more we can do as individuals!

to the Ice Age David Suzuki predicted in the 70's  
 
and the Ozone hole that was supposed to melt the polar caps about 20 years ago

Here is an example of how climate regulations sometimes hurt. California has high pollution so all engines must meet their standard.western Canada has no smog at all but we have to use California engines.  
A new Diesel engine conforming to this standard burns 25% more fuel with 25% less emissions. I think burning 25% more of a non. Renewable resource is not helping the environment. Farmers cost go up, food is more expensive and when was the last time you saw smog in the prairies.

David Suzuki carbon footprint is a hundred times my farm. He is a poser. My farm feeds a thousand people and David Suzuki thinks I am evil. Just goes to show how the media has twisted the urban residents mind. Without fossil fuels cities are logistically impossible. All people would have to return to subsistence farming. No trips to the tropics,cabins at the lake or vacations just 16 hours a day of hard labor.

If the tax was revenue neutral, then it would be about the environment. That is to say, if every dollar taxed went toward creating more environmental forms of energy, then it is about the environment.  
 
But if the revenue is simply used as a form of taxation, and spent like general revenue on Liberal projects (remember adscam?) then it is not about the environment.  
 
Several of the provinces wanted to get in on this carbon taxation as a form of revenue, but the federal government is about to beat them to it. To get taxed at both the federal and the provincial level is not going to be palatable to the public.  
 
Canadians elected a Liberal government..... they are about to get what they asked for.  
 
As to what kind of lightbulbs you use, the bulk of Manitoba's electricity is created by hydro-electric, which is sold to us at a profit. In a way, you are already taxed based on what your choices are....either way you are simply using a renewable resource.

Hayfield said "Here is an example of how climate regulations sometimes hurt. California has high pollution so all engines must meet their standard.western Canada has no smog at all but we have to use California engines.   A new Diesel engine conforming to this standard burns 25% more fuel with 25% less emissions. I think burning 25% more of a non. Renewable resource is not helping the environment. Farmers cost go up, food is more expensive and when was the last time you saw smog in the prairies. "

Smog regulations are different from climate regulations.  
 
Cars had to go through the same thing in the early 70s and 80s. For a while they sucked while manufacturers learned how to deal with reducing smog emissions to new required levels. But now they have it figured out and we have 1000hp super cars that can be driven and still emit less smog than a 100hp car from the 60s that's not even turned on.  
 
Diesels are going through the same pain at the moment. Manufacturers will figure it out soon and things will improve.  
 
Edited by ultraguy, 2016-04-24 10:26:44

Yep, it's about time polluters pay, and if that's me, There's no reason I shouldn't.  
 
Climate change deniers, the debate is over.  
 
If you don't understand the greenhouse effect, it's time you learned.  
 
The greenhouse effect helps the planet maintain the planet's heat. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb outgoing solar radiation. Outgoing solar radiation is the heat emitted by the earth. The moon hardly has an atmosphere and so when the sun shines on the moon, the surface is very hot (123 degrees Celsius) and out of the sun, it is very cold (-153 degrees Celsius). The change happens immediately because there is no greenhouse effect on the moon. On Earth we have a stable climate because greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.  
 
As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, so does the amount of solar radiation absorbed, which increases the temperature of the atmosphere and alters the earth's climate. Warm air can hold more water, that means that we could get less rainfall less frequently causing drought and famine. That also means that when it rains, it's going to pour, meaning more floods.  
 
A group of scientists, lead by James Hansen, claim that a stable atmosphere must have between 300 and 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Anything higher and we're looking at an unstable climate and devastated oceans. The ocean absorbs about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which increases the acidity of ocean waters, causing the death of fragile aquatic animals that most of the sea life depends upon. Currently we at sitting at about 407 ppms CO2, and we are seeing large scale damage in the oceans.  
 
Please, climate change deniers, get your head out of the sand. Climate change is real and we need to do something about it. Everyone of us is responsible for decreasing our carbon footprint. We could have lowered it sooner, but we didn't, and so now we're going to have to pay for it, with money. It's an incentive to switch.

So our government says that it's time polluters pay for the damage we are doing, but who exactly are we going to be paying this money to ?  
 
The last time I checked, mother nature didn't answer my calls or emails as to where to send my carbon tax, and I'm not aware of any magical spray that makes pollution disappear :p  
 
From what I gather, this carbon tax scheme basically taxes first world, advanced countries like us here in canada and buys offsets from third world, undeveloped countries that have no industry or the work ethic to maintain one.  
 
Most of these third world countries seem to be in the news a lot for genocides and major atrocities against their civilian populations, are we just supposed to be fine with supporting dictatorships and regimes like them just so we can sleep better at night ?  
 
 
 
Edited by hutchster, 2016-04-24 17:00:00

hutchster said "So our government says that it's time polluters pay for the damage we are doing, but who exactly are we going to be paying this money to ?     The last time I checked, mother nature didn't answer my calls or emails as to where to send my carbon tax, and I'm not aware of any magical spray that makes pollution disappear :p     From what I gather, this carbon tax scheme basically taxes first world, advanced countries like us here in canada and buys offsets from third world, undeveloped countries that have no industry or the work ethic to maintain one.     Most of these third world countries seem to be in the news a lot for genocides and major atrocities against their civilian populations, are we just supposed to be fine with supporting dictatorships and regimes like them just so we can sleep better at night ?         Edited by hutchster, 2016-04-24 17:00:00"

I don't know where the Liberals are saying their carbon tax money is headed, but other places that have carbon taxes in place funnel that money into programs to reduce emissions, such as retrofitting homes to be carbon net neutral, improving public transit, bike lanes, city walkability to reduce the need for private automobiles, or solar panels, waste reduction programs, education programs so people are educated and informed about emission efficient choices, et cetera.  
 
Basically the carbon tax money goes toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  
 
I don't really know which countries you're talking about in your last two paragraphs. Not every "third" world nation is a dictatorship. You can look at world bank figures for emissions from nations around the world. Canada ranks 7th in worst polluters in the world. Per capita, we rank 15th. The emissions from poor nations is negligible compared to ours.  
 
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-first&sort=asc

Diogenes said "Yep, it's about time polluters pay, and if that's me, There's no reason I shouldn't.     Climate change deniers, the debate is over.     If you don't understand the greenhouse effect, it's time you learned.     The greenhouse effect helps the planet maintain the planet's heat. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb outgoing solar radiation. Outgoing solar radiation is the heat emitted by the earth. The moon hardly has an atmosphere and so when the sun shines on the moon, the surface is very hot (123 degrees Celsius) and out of the sun, it is very cold (-153 degrees Celsius). The change happens immediately because there is no greenhouse effect on the moon. On Earth we have a stable climate because greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.     As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, so does the amount of solar radiation absorbed, which increases the temperature of the atmosphere and alters the earth's climate. Warm air can hold more water, that means that we could get less rainfall less frequently causing drought and famine. That also means that when it rains, it's going to pour, meaning more floods.     A group of scientists, lead by James Hansen, claim that a stable atmosphere must have between 300 and 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Anything higher and we're looking at an unstable climate and devastated oceans. The ocean absorbs about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which increases the acidity of ocean waters, causing the death of fragile aquatic animals that most of the sea life depends upon. Currently we at sitting at about 407 ppms CO2, and we are seeing large scale damage in the oceans.     Please, climate change deniers, get your head out of the sand. Climate change is real and we need to do something about it. Everyone of us is responsible for decreasing our carbon footprint. We could have lowered it sooner, but we didn't, and so now we're going to have to pay for it, with money. It's an incentive to switch. "

of North America was once covered by a sheet of ice about 1.5 miles thick. It melted before vehicles and cattle flatulence. Climate change is not a recent phenomenon. It's been happening, oh, .......forever.  
 
The debate is no where close to being settled.

Whenever I read someone say they are in favor of a scam like a carbon tax, I either think they are naive(10%) or that they have some way of trying to get in at the money trough (90%).  
 
Anyone that believes this nonsense, do you really, deeply 100% believe that the tax we will end up paying is actually going toward an eco friendly option ?  
 
Maybe I'm just cynical, but every "tax" the government piles onto us feels like it is just a general revenue scam.  
 
Take gas taxes, which I believe were originally supposed to go towards roads and infrastructure repairs, and it probably did for a year or two, then as soon as there is a budget shortfall it seems like the gas tax is used to plug the hole, then I assume it stays a part of that departments budget henceforth or does it get reverted back ?  
 
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading news articles about this exact thing happening a few years back, something to do with a major winnipeg repair or something.

MDG said "    beefer39 said "    MDG said "that if the powers that be in the Western world genuinely believed something should be done re: climate change, then China for example would be included. China can no longer be seen as a " developing nation" & half of the time their citizens have to walk around with face masks on because of the pollution. Just my opinion. " I was told by a gentleman who teaches Environmental Studies at the university level that the Western world's per capita carbon footprint is approximately 500 times that of Asia's.     We (the Western World) are very guilty of ignoring the impact our lifestyles have on the planet.   Before we point fingers at parts of the world which also have extreme environmental challenges, we should be cleaning up our own back yards. " so much as looking at realistic inclusion to problem solving. I recall that motor cycle parts came ashore on the west coast long after the tsunami that devastated part of Japan, including a nuclear plant so it's not a stretch to think that pollution from that area reaches here too - that's all I was trying to say. "

My friend, its not just the pollution but worse, the radiation from the nuclear plants since the tsunami has long reached beautiful BC shorelines, apparently this is common news all over the world on media outlets, even BC local media has talked about it on local news-but why it hasnt been broadcasted to the rest of Canada at all one can only imagine...  
 
To the naysayers on this thread on climate change, earth pollution and the dire situation the trees animals and planet are in I call you fools. I see you as worse then evil itself. This is the worst kind of human in my eyes

Sorbet said "    Diogenes said "Yep, it's about time polluters pay, and if that's me, There's no reason I shouldn't.     Climate change deniers, the debate is over.     If you don't understand the greenhouse effect, it's time you learned.     The greenhouse effect helps the planet maintain the planet's heat. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb outgoing solar radiation. Outgoing solar radiation is the heat emitted by the earth. The moon hardly has an atmosphere and so when the sun shines on the moon, the surface is very hot (123 degrees Celsius) and out of the sun, it is very cold (-153 degrees Celsius). The change happens immediately because there is no greenhouse effect on the moon. On Earth we have a stable climate because greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.     As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, so does the amount of solar radiation absorbed, which increases the temperature of the atmosphere and alters the earth's climate. Warm air can hold more water, that means that we could get less rainfall less frequently causing drought and famine. That also means that when it rains, it's going to pour, meaning more floods.     A group of scientists, lead by James Hansen, claim that a stable atmosphere must have between 300 and 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Anything higher and we're looking at an unstable climate and devastated oceans. The ocean absorbs about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which increases the acidity of ocean waters, causing the death of fragile aquatic animals that most of the sea life depends upon. Currently we at sitting at about 407 ppms CO2, and we are seeing large scale damage in the oceans.     Please, climate change deniers, get your head out of the sand. Climate change is real and we need to do something about it. Everyone of us is responsible for decreasing our carbon footprint. We could have lowered it sooner, but we didn't, and so now we're going to have to pay for it, with money. It's an incentive to switch. " of North America was once covered by a sheet of ice about 1.5 miles thick. It melted before vehicles and cattle flatulence. Climate change is not a recent phenomenon. It's been happening, oh, .......forever.     The debate is no where close to being settled. "

No one denies that the climate fluctuates over time. We know drivers of climate change can be a number of things, one of those things is the greenhouse effect. The amount of cooling or warming that occurs in the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect is determined by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  
 
Humans are digging up buried carbon (carbon removed from the carbon cycle) and releasing it into the atmosphere. The concern is that the rate in which buried carbon is being added to the carbon cyclie through industrialization is much faster than could possibly occur naturally. That gives species little or no time to adapt (adaption occurs over many generations), causing mass extinction. Ultimately that's going to make things like food very difficult to come by.  
 
But obviously you're uninterested in the science of the climate, so what's the point of continuing this discussion?

Climate changes by events that don't involve humans. Volcanoes and forest fires have a far greater effect. Swamps give off more methane than a million Buffaloes did. No one is suggesting that swamps should be drained to control greenhouse gas. The year Mt St Helens erupted we had the coldest summer on record. A tax on carbon won't change people's habits, only a will to change has a chance. Taxing carbon will make the poor poorer and the rich people will continue to fly around the world on their jets. The tax money will fill the Liberal slush fund for four years from now.

You know what? Go with whatever you want. That's not going to change a thing. At least there are informed people in the world and they have a lot more influence than the people of eBrandon.  
 
And here, I'll join the Club of Quoting,  
 
"[200 million tonnes of CO2 annually from volcanoes] seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."  
 
Link: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html