Carbon tax announced December 2020

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by rookiepilot »

altiplano wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:26 pm That person woukd have bought a different car if you didn't sell yours, you're consumerism buying a new car every 3 years is bad for the environment. What is everyone bought a new car every couple years?
It's also a fast way to the poorhouse, but I digress.
---------- ADS -----------
 
montado
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by montado »

Ah I see so I your comments are not about EV specifically but just in general for all cars. So how is this an argument against EV?

For every car that goes to the wrecking yard a new car hits the road, whether it be EV or ICE. Lots of studies have shown the full life of vehicles from manufacturing, to operation to end of life recycling, and most times the EV comes out ahead as the more environmentally better option.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by Fanblade »

https://financialpost.com/opinion/learn ... ate-change

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change
Opinion: Before the prime minister gets 'straight to work' on economy-toppling policies, he should get his facts straight

Author of the article:Robert J. Muir, Special to Financial Post

Announcing his new plan for getting to net-zero on carbon emissions, Justin Trudeau told Canadians: “If we trust scientists with our health, as we do, then we must also trust their research and their expertise when it comes to other existential threats. And that includes climate change. There is no vaccine against a polluted planet. It’s up to us to act. Because there is a real cost to pollution. We’re paying the price already with record storms, wildfires, floods, and heat waves, which all carry real economic costs and real risks to our health. We chose to get straight to work on cutting pollution.”

We should indeed trust scientific research and expertise, and above all data. But so far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change.

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change

Has Canada experienced record storms? No. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s “Engineering Climate Datasets” show no overall increase in rainfall intensities. In Canada’s Changing Climate Report they clearly state, “For Canada as a whole, observational evidence of changes in extreme precipitation amounts, accumulated over periods of a day or less, is lacking.” Has the prime minister bothered to check this basic fact? Apparently not.

So far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change
Has Canada experienced record wildfires? No. Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian National Fire Database shows the number of fires and the area burned declining in recent decades. A Fraser Institute study shows fire activity peaking in 1989. Ignorantly stating that we have had record wildfires does not change the data. It needlessly panics the public.

Record floods? Yes. Due to records in the number of exposed people and runoff from urban growth, but not bigger storms. A record in insurance premiums, with 2019 personal property premiums approaching four times 1996 values, not surprisingly, results in a record number of flood losses. Effective policies to mitigate flooding must address the true causes, not pet policy goals.

Has Canada experienced record heat waves? Yes. In the 1930s and 1940s. The Climate Research Branch of the Meteorological Service of Canada published these trends in the Journal of Climate and stated, “No consistent trends are found for the higher percentiles of summer daily maximum temperature, indicating little change to the number of extreme hot summer days.” The data shows that minimum temperatures have increased, which increases averages, despite no increase in maximum temperatures. Is it time to have running fact checks on Trudeau just like they had on Donald Trump? It seems so.

Before the prime minister gets “straight to work” on economy-toppling policies to combat this existential threat, he should put some trust in scientific data and get his facts straight.

Robert J. Muir is a licensed professional engineer based in Toronto.
---------- ADS -----------
 
montado
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by montado »

I think climate change has the potential to be exponentially worse than covid. If we trust the experts with covid and follow all the guidelines, I don't see why anyone would question the experts when it comes to climate change.

Trusting experts in things we don't have an education in is the forefront of arguments made by anyone who thinks we need to wear masks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by Fanblade »

montado wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:10 pm I think climate change has the potential to be exponentially worse than covid. If we trust the experts with covid and follow all the guidelines, I don't see why anyone would question the experts when it comes to climate change.

Trusting experts in things we don't have an education in is the forefront of arguments made by anyone who thinks we need to wear masks.
Yes there is a difference between following the science and following scientists or experts.

Science is provable fact. Science is not an educated guess by a scientist. That is called Theory. An educated guess that needs further vetting to determine if it is Fact, fiction or partly correct. If partly correct we formulate another theory based on the new understanding and then get those results get vetted against the real world.

THEORY MUST MATCH THE REAL WORLD BEFORE IT IS CONSIDERED SCIENCE.

Interchanging the words science and theory is a manipulative slight of hand.

When someone has to resort to claiming science to justify what they are peddling, when in fact it is theory, start questioning everything they say. Particularly if a scientist does it. They know better.

Not suggesting Theory isn’t import. It is. It is how we learn. But never ever should science and theory be considered equal.

One is truth. One is moving toward truth.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by rookiepilot »

Fanblade wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:56 am
https://financialpost.com/opinion/learn ... ate-change

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change
Opinion: Before the prime minister gets 'straight to work' on economy-toppling policies, he should get his facts straight

Author of the article:Robert J. Muir, Special to Financial Post

Announcing his new plan for getting to net-zero on carbon emissions, Justin Trudeau told Canadians: “If we trust scientists with our health, as we do, then we must also trust their research and their expertise when it comes to other existential threats. And that includes climate change. There is no vaccine against a polluted planet. It’s up to us to act. Because there is a real cost to pollution. We’re paying the price already with record storms, wildfires, floods, and heat waves, which all carry real economic costs and real risks to our health. We chose to get straight to work on cutting pollution.”

We should indeed trust scientific research and expertise, and above all data. But so far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change.

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change

Has Canada experienced record storms? No. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s “Engineering Climate Datasets” show no overall increase in rainfall intensities. In Canada’s Changing Climate Report they clearly state, “For Canada as a whole, observational evidence of changes in extreme precipitation amounts, accumulated over periods of a day or less, is lacking.” Has the prime minister bothered to check this basic fact? Apparently not.

So far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change
Has Canada experienced record wildfires? No. Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian National Fire Database shows the number of fires and the area burned declining in recent decades. A Fraser Institute study shows fire activity peaking in 1989. Ignorantly stating that we have had record wildfires does not change the data. It needlessly panics the public.

Record floods? Yes. Due to records in the number of exposed people and runoff from urban growth, but not bigger storms. A record in insurance premiums, with 2019 personal property premiums approaching four times 1996 values, not surprisingly, results in a record number of flood losses. Effective policies to mitigate flooding must address the true causes, not pet policy goals.

Has Canada experienced record heat waves? Yes. In the 1930s and 1940s. The Climate Research Branch of the Meteorological Service of Canada published these trends in the Journal of Climate and stated, “No consistent trends are found for the higher percentiles of summer daily maximum temperature, indicating little change to the number of extreme hot summer days.” The data shows that minimum temperatures have increased, which increases averages, despite no increase in maximum temperatures. Is it time to have running fact checks on Trudeau just like they had on Donald Trump? It seems so.

Before the prime minister gets “straight to work” on economy-toppling policies to combat this existential threat, he should put some trust in scientific data and get his facts straight.

Robert J. Muir is a licensed professional engineer based in Toronto.
And the conflict of interest is........?
I'm sure it's an unbiased editorial.
---------- ADS -----------
 
montado
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by montado »

So fanblade is masks stop covid a scientific fact or theory?

And is carbon emissions change climate a scientific fact or theory?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1693
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by Fanblade »

montado wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:46 pm So fanblade is masks stop covid a scientific fact or theory?

And is carbon emissions change climate a scientific fact or theory?
Currently they are both theory.

Will either of them become science?

Maybe, maybe not.

My point was simply we should never lose sight of the difference.

If you want an example and you have Amazon watch Fat: A documentary. A perfect example of what happens when government begins to acts on theory before it is confirmed as science.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
RedAndWhiteBaron
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: In the left seat, admitting my mistakes

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by RedAndWhiteBaron »

Fanblade wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:36 pm If you want an example and you have Amazon watch Fat: A documentary. A perfect example of what happens when government begins to acts on theory before it is confirmed as science.
All science is theory. Some theories have stood the test of time, some have not. I am not wrong when I say that Newton's theories are wrong. It has been demonstrably proven that Newton's theories are wrong at speeds close to c. It therefore follows that they are also wrong at speeds significantly lower than c. But they predict subliminal flight well enough it's all we need. This changes with orbital "flight".

So unless you are willing to argue that Newton's theories are wrong, you cannot rightly argue that acting on theory is prima facie wrong.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by photofly »

RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:10 pmsubliminal flight
That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by Squaretail »

photofly wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:24 pm
RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:10 pmsubliminal flight
That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?
It might be a good description of how many pilots operate though. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by pelmet »

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... d=msedgntp

"Western greens are China’s useful idiots

For anyone under the illusion that China’s Communist regime was a force for good in the world, the past few years have been a wake-up call. Under President Xi Jinping, China has: incarcerated over a million Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps; allowed the coronavirus pandemic to sweep the world; violated its treaty with Britain by ending Hong Kong’s self-rule; and vowed to invade Taiwan.

As a result of these eye-opening actions, among others, public opinion throughout the West has changed dramatically. Where the majority previously saw China favourably as a benign giant, only 15 per cent of Australians, 14 per cent of Swedes, 22 per cent of British, 23 per cent of Canadians, and 22 per cent of Americans continue to view China favourably, according to a Pew survey. Most now recognize that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cheats and threatens to get its way and is hostile to rules-based institutions.

The big exceptions to those who have had their eyes opened are Western environmentalists and their funders who, rather than becoming more cautious about China’s role in the world, continue to lavish its environmental efforts with superlatives such as “herculean” and “momentous.” As recently as 2018, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Barbara Finamore wrote a laudatory book entitled Will China Save the Planet?

The environmental gushing for China is reciprocated by the regime, with Communist Party media organs such as the China Daily dedicating full-page articles to extolling the environmental movement for its positive role in partnering with China.

Western environmental organizations enjoy a privileged position in China. While foreign advocacy organizations of almost all stripes, from human rights groups such as Amnesty International to legal aid groups such as Chinese Urgent Action Working Group, are extremely restricted, if not effectively banned in China, the environmental groups are sponsored by a designated state agency or department of the CCP government, as all acceptable NGOs now must be under a 2017 law governing foreign NGOs. The sponsor does not play a passive role, as the term implies, however. Rather, it is responsible for monitoring and supervising the environmental group’s work and often works hand-in-glove with it on joint projects.

As part of their supervision, foreign NGOs are required to submit annual plans for their projects and use of funds to their sponsor and, after being approved, must file these plans with the public security organs. Supervision also includes “regulatory talks” and onsite inspections of NGO premises. Failure to comply can result in seizure of assets, detention of staff, and a five-year ban on further work in the country.

The environmental groups’ embrace of China is understandable. They are often lavishly funded. One U.S.-based foundation, Energy Foundation China, has provided over US$330 million to U.S.-registered organizations operating in China. As a result, they can spare no expense pursuing their efforts to rid the planet of fossil fuels. Apart from the power and prestige they enjoy in this role, many doubtless welcome the opportunity to use their research to promote their progressive goals. Given the perceived urgency of their cause — saving the very planet — they can easily justify turning a blind eye to China’s aggression in the South China Sea or human rights abuses on the mainland.

China’s embrace of Western environmentalists is also understandable. To borrow a line attributed to Lenin, the environmentalists are the CCP’s useful idiots. The government not only monitors their activities to ensure their compliance with policy, it also directs the environmentalists’ agenda via its de facto control over their use of funds and even through its staff. Energy Foundation China, for example, is headed by Ji Zou, a Chinese national with a long career as a senior official in China’s government, including during its climate negotiations for the Paris Agreement. Zou, as a paymaster for the Western environmentalists, decides what projects to fund, thus enabling him to effectively solicit work desired by his former employers in Beijing from the Western environmental organizations, who give the regime their imprimatur of legitimacy.

While critics of China’s many malign activities give it a black eye, the environmentalists’ glowing reports about its environmental leadership paint China in a favourable light and put critics on the defensive. In fact, environmentalists have become the highest-profile cheerleaders for the communists, helping divert attention from the regime’s worrisome pursuits. Chief among these is China’s appropriation of fossil-fuel resources in the South China Sea and elsewhere in pursuit of its goal of displacing the U.S. as the dominant economic and national security superpower by 2050.

As virtually all students of China now appreciate, the West was foolish to trust Communist China to embrace democracy once it had access to Western markets and Western values. The implication is, or should be, clear. As Conservative MP Garnett Genuis says, “A government that is genocidal and totalitarian … cannot be trusted.” Or, as Bonnie Glaser of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies puts it, China “should not be a model for the rest of the world.”

For most of us, China is not a model for the rest of the world. For Western environmentalists, sadly, all too often it is."
---------- ADS -----------
 
dhc#
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by dhc# »

Greta and company only pick at the low hanging fruit (ie. Alberta Oilsands)...let her go to the PRC and tell them they stole her childhood, see where that gets her.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
china is asshoe.jpg
china is asshoe.jpg (58.04 KiB) Viewed 1264 times
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by rookiepilot »

pelmet wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... d=msedgntp

"Western greens are China’s useful idiots

For anyone under the illusion that China’s Communist regime was a force for good in the world, the past few years have been a wake-up call. Under President Xi Jinping, China has: incarcerated over a million Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps; allowed the coronavirus pandemic to sweep the world; violated its treaty with Britain by ending Hong Kong’s self-rule; and vowed to invade Taiwan.

As a result of these eye-opening actions, among others, public opinion throughout the West has changed dramatically. Where the majority previously saw China favourably as a benign giant, only 15 per cent of Australians, 14 per cent of Swedes, 22 per cent of British, 23 per cent of Canadians, and 22 per cent of Americans continue to view China favourably, according to a Pew survey. Most now recognize that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cheats and threatens to get its way and is hostile to rules-based institutions.

The big exceptions to those who have had their eyes opened are Western environmentalists and their funders who, rather than becoming more cautious about China’s role in the world, continue to lavish its environmental efforts with superlatives such as “herculean” and “momentous.” As recently as 2018, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Barbara Finamore wrote a laudatory book entitled Will China Save the Planet?

The environmental gushing for China is reciprocated by the regime, with Communist Party media organs such as the China Daily dedicating full-page articles to extolling the environmental movement for its positive role in partnering with China.

Western environmental organizations enjoy a privileged position in China. While foreign advocacy organizations of almost all stripes, from human rights groups such as Amnesty International to legal aid groups such as Chinese Urgent Action Working Group, are extremely restricted, if not effectively banned in China, the environmental groups are sponsored by a designated state agency or department of the CCP government, as all acceptable NGOs now must be under a 2017 law governing foreign NGOs. The sponsor does not play a passive role, as the term implies, however. Rather, it is responsible for monitoring and supervising the environmental group’s work and often works hand-in-glove with it on joint projects.

As part of their supervision, foreign NGOs are required to submit annual plans for their projects and use of funds to their sponsor and, after being approved, must file these plans with the public security organs. Supervision also includes “regulatory talks” and onsite inspections of NGO premises. Failure to comply can result in seizure of assets, detention of staff, and a five-year ban on further work in the country.

The environmental groups’ embrace of China is understandable. They are often lavishly funded. One U.S.-based foundation, Energy Foundation China, has provided over US$330 million to U.S.-registered organizations operating in China. As a result, they can spare no expense pursuing their efforts to rid the planet of fossil fuels. Apart from the power and prestige they enjoy in this role, many doubtless welcome the opportunity to use their research to promote their progressive goals. Given the perceived urgency of their cause — saving the very planet — they can easily justify turning a blind eye to China’s aggression in the South China Sea or human rights abuses on the mainland.

China’s embrace of Western environmentalists is also understandable. To borrow a line attributed to Lenin, the environmentalists are the CCP’s useful idiots. The government not only monitors their activities to ensure their compliance with policy, it also directs the environmentalists’ agenda via its de facto control over their use of funds and even through its staff. Energy Foundation China, for example, is headed by Ji Zou, a Chinese national with a long career as a senior official in China’s government, including during its climate negotiations for the Paris Agreement. Zou, as a paymaster for the Western environmentalists, decides what projects to fund, thus enabling him to effectively solicit work desired by his former employers in Beijing from the Western environmental organizations, who give the regime their imprimatur of legitimacy.

While critics of China’s many malign activities give it a black eye, the environmentalists’ glowing reports about its environmental leadership paint China in a favourable light and put critics on the defensive. In fact, environmentalists have become the highest-profile cheerleaders for the communists, helping divert attention from the regime’s worrisome pursuits. Chief among these is China’s appropriation of fossil-fuel resources in the South China Sea and elsewhere in pursuit of its goal of displacing the U.S. as the dominant economic and national security superpower by 2050.

As virtually all students of China now appreciate, the West was foolish to trust Communist China to embrace democracy once it had access to Western markets and Western values. The implication is, or should be, clear. As Conservative MP Garnett Genuis says, “A government that is genocidal and totalitarian … cannot be trusted.” Or, as Bonnie Glaser of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies puts it, China “should not be a model for the rest of the world.”

For most of us, China is not a model for the rest of the world. For Western environmentalists, sadly, all too often it is."
Who cares about this China rant?

Nothing to do with this thread. I don't live in China.

Trudeau -- is right about the core issue. Period.

How to go about it, reasonable people can debate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
snowcone
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:02 am

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by snowcone »

With all the hype of EV, when will the electricity for EVs be taxed to pay for road infrastructure? When EVs out number gas cars, where will the road tax come from.?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by rookiepilot »

snowcone wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:18 pm With all the hype of EV, when will the electricity for EVs be taxed to pay for road infrastructure? When EVs out number gas cars, where will the road tax come from.?
I think it should be, and will be. EV's are very rapidly becoming cost effective with ICE, they can pay their share.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by CpnCrunch »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:30 pm
I think it should be, and will be. EV's are very rapidly becoming cost effective with ICE, they can pay their share.
They just introduced an EV road tax in Victoria Australia of 2.5c/km (on top of a cost of 1-2c/km off-peak for the electricity). Politicians want to extract identical amount of road tax from EVs, so they implement what is essentially a 250% fuel tax.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by photofly »

I think it's many decades since tax on motor cars was ringfenced for road infrastructure; I'm pretty sure the money goes into the general taxation pot. Reduced taxation on "green" vehicles is obviously only a temporary thing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
RedAndWhiteBaron
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: In the left seat, admitting my mistakes

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by RedAndWhiteBaron »

photofly wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:24 pm
RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:10 pmsubliminal flight
That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?
Some of us were born to fly. But you do you.

:smt040

(yes, I meant subluminal. silly spellcheck...)
---------- ADS -----------
 
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
Phileas Fogg
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:37 pm

Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020

Post by Phileas Fogg »

RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:16 pm *livelihoods*
---------- ADS -----------
 
Locked

Return to “General Comments”