It's also a fast way to the poorhouse, but I digress.
Carbon tax announced December 2020
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.
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.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.
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.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.
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.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
Yes there is a difference between following the science and following scientists or experts.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.
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.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
And the conflict of interest is........?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.
I'm sure it's an unbiased editorial.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
So fanblade is masks stop covid a scientific fact or theory?
And is carbon emissions change climate a scientific fact or theory?
And is carbon emissions change climate a scientific fact or theory?
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.
- RedAndWhiteBaron
- 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
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.
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
It might be a good description of how many pilots operate though.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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."
"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."
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.
- Attachments
-
- china is asshoe.jpg (58.04 KiB) Viewed 1264 times
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
Who cares about this China rant?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."
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.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.?
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
I think it should be, and will be. EV's are very rapidly becoming cost effective with ICE, they can pay their share.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.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.
Re: Carbon tax announced December 2020
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.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- RedAndWhiteBaron
- 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
Some of us were born to fly. But you do you.
(yes, I meant subluminal. silly spellcheck...)
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:37 pm