Another ripoff by the BC Liberals

[rustled]

The environmental cost was vastly inflated by the catastrophic predictions around AGW.

Now that we can see the predictions were wildly inaccurate, we need to adjust our thinking.

It's not enough to replace one failed catastrophe narrative with another unproven one, just to keep us on the same path. We need to quit basing policy on emotionally-driven public opinion, and go back to basics: Why, exactly, do we need to move away from fossil fuels? What's the best way to do that without doing further harm through unintended consequences (to the poorest people in the world, to ordinary citizens of our own country, and to the environment), as we have done with our previous "green energy" policies?

With hindsight, we can see we acted rashly in response to a perceived danger that failed to materialize. We should learn from this mistake, and not repeat it.

With new understanding, the intended educational message should adjust accordingly, just as it did with cholesterol and so many other science-based theories which eventually proved to be incorrect. We really can't afford to keep getting this one so wrong.

[Smurf]

I have to ask, has anyone on here actually changed their habits because of the carbon tax. I know I have not. I do not believe a lot of businesses have either unless they got government money to pay for their improvements. If you are going to penalize a business for pollution then don't pay them to buy their way out of it. We cannot afford to help all the business's that get in trouble. On the other hand we have to be careful not to make those business's fail because they can no l;longer compete. I think the whole thing is a farce that is promoted to make governments etc look good. The same thing could be done with education without costing the poorest in our society more harm than we already have. I guess you can tell I am personally 100% against the carbon tax.

[fluffy]

It's not enough to replace one failed catastrophe narrative with another unproven one, just to keep us on the same path. We need to quit basing policy on emotionally-driven public opinion...

"Unproven" does not necessarily mean "untrue". The fact that the climate is changing is undeniable, the reason behind that is still a matter of considerable debate but from what I read the scales are tipping towards the thought that yes, atmospheric CO2 is having a definite effect. Global warming is not the only issue here either, and the amount of publicity it is getting from both sides of the fence is distracting the general public from other effects of the burning of fossil fuels. One huge one is the migration of atmospheric CO2 into the oceans thereby increasing the acidity of the water and throwing a delicate ecosystem out of whack.

One could also class the insistence that carbon taxing be abandoned simply because the science is still a work in progress as equally emotionally driven. At the very least, there is ample reason for caution.

[rustled]

You've identified a problem to be addressed: increasing the acidity in the oceans. The first thing to do is to determine what's causing the increased acidity.

Let's say for the sake of this example it's entirely caused by CO2.

The next thing to do is determine the source. Let's say for the sake of this example we discover the CO2 is likely coming from a combination of underwater volcanic activity, above surface volcanic activity, carbon migrating from our forests through fire and decay, natural combustion (other), and the human-attributable burning of organics, and the human-attributable burning of fossil fuels. As best we can, we determine the contribution specifically from each of these.

Our preliminary findings show our fossil-fuel related contribution of CO2 to oceanic acidity is, globally, a full ten percent. What shall we do to do to mitigate this?

Perhaps we should enact a policy to force up the cost of heating and transportation fuels, making them more expensive for consumers.

What exactly will this accomplish?

We know it causes some people to turn down their thermostats, and a few people will switch more fuel efficient automobiles or public transportation.

If we drive up the cost enough, a significantly large proportion of people turn down their thermostats, some (like those in our neighbourhood) will take to burning wood or pellets (affecting local air quality), some will try to save money by not maintaining their vehicles properly (further affecting local air quality, but reasoning the carbon tax they're paying is at work fixing the problem). We are all pending more for less at the grocery store, and we all have less disposable income. Many people are happy to do their share, though, because their money is being redirected to green energy solutions. Unfortunately, we discover, the wind farms and solar farms are negatively impacting the cost of energy. Worse, they are wreaking havoc with the environment we tried hard to protect from poor practices in resource development, but because it's "only" in places like deserts and on the Pennask Summit, too much of the public agrees this environmental destruction is really no big deal.

We monitor the ocean acidity, asking the all-important question: Does it work?

Has our effort actually reduced the amount of CO2 significantly enough to slow or reverse the acidity in the oceans?

Have we effected enough positive change to outweigh the all of the costs?

So, using the example, how much change in oceanic acidity would you expect to see after 20 years of green energy policy, or after 5 years of carbon taxes, in order to deem it a success? What if we become aware our entire global contribution was only actually only 5 percent, or less? Or that the acidity isn't rising as rapidly as expected, and much of the negative outcome we expected isn't materializing? Do we continue?

This is vitally important, because we need to know: Should our provincial government be focusing their efforts, and our resources, elsewhere? If we cannot exert significant control over oceanic acidity (or the many other problems associated with our changing climate), where should we be focusing our resources?

[fluffy]

This is just the beginning. Studies indicate that carbon taxation won't show significant results until they reach the $200/tonne range, when fossil fuel use gets expensive enough that alternative fuel sources will become more attractive. Right now people either don't believe the problem is real or simply don't care, but when it gets to the point where the cost gets high enough then people that are able to will move away from fossil fuels. The smart people who will have difficulty making that move should be working on the problem right now. The yes/no/right/wrong of the science is not really an issue any longer, the general public for the most part has made the fossil fuel=bad connection so that's what is driving the political engine right now. What we are seeing is not so much a denial that the problem exists as it is people grasping at reasons to resist the cost. This is really something we should have been thinking about thirty or forty years ago.

[rustled]

fluffy, there's no proof, none, that we can exert any real influence over the climate by reducing or even fully eliminating fossil fuel consumption.

There's still no proof we've ever exerted significant influence over the climate. The models scientists set up to scientifically prove that influence have failed. We now have decades worth of data and failed models disproving that theory.

This isn't about grasping at straws or denial or myopia or any of the things people toss about when "discussing" this issue.

You say taxation won't show significant results until... but what I'm asking is, what exactly are the results you want to see?
Do you want us to significantly impact climate change? Halt global warming? There's no evidence we can.

So what you're supporting now is truly nothing more than a forced reduction in carbon emissions just for the sake of reducing carbon emissions.

Right now, based on what we do know, we're being asked to support a theory that has been proven very, very wrong. You're asking us to pour vast resources into fighting a problem that was vastly overstated, with a proposed solution that is proving to be dubious at best. Fossil fuel=bad just doesn't cut it.

How can we continue to say "fossil fuel=bad=we must have a carbon tax to make people stop using fossil fuels" while completely ignoring what the data actually shows?

Why would we want to continue to support policy driven by public opinion when that support was based on what has proven to be failed theory?

Shouldn't we expect our politicians to focus their efforts and our resources more effectively? Reducing particulate pollution, improving air and water quality? Keeping costs of food and housing and transportation reasonable?

[fluffy]

What you say may well be true, but my point is that in the public eye the battle has already been lost. The burning of fossil fuels has been effectively demonized. How do you go about turning that around without coming across by the equally demonized climate change deniers?

[rustled]

What you say may well be true, but my point is that in the public eye the battle has already been lost. The burning of fossil fuels has been effectively demonized. How do you go about turning that around without coming across by the equally demonized climate change deniers?

I'm not sure I understand your question, or the statement preceding it. I think you mean the battle to demonize fossil fuels?

For that, I'd point you back a couple of decades to the demonization of fats and cholesterols. Based on unproven scientific theory, the general public was convinced to change our eating habits or risk dying. We were told to quit eating eggs, and to substitute margarine for our butter.

Interestingly, we can trace a sudden uptick in obesity and diabetes levels to that time.

We now know eggs are a terrific source of nutrition, margarine can actually be much worse for you than butter (small surprise to those of us who skeptically said "I'll take this stuff that comes pretty much directly from my cow over your factory-produced "food", thanks) and some margarines even increased our risk of heart disease. We now know some fats are healthier than others, and understand we actually need some fat in our diet to be healthy. You get the picture.

There's still a lot of misinformation out there about cholesterol and fat, but people are certainly allowed to talk about the health risks without being labelled deniers. And I think we all understand this on some level: we each need to take some responsibility for ensuring public policy isn't driven by unproven theory, and we all need to embrace skepticism, not demonize it. (Einstein welcomed skepticism. Beware anyone who claims to be a scientist and tries to shut up the skeptics!)

Bottom line, simplistic and unsubstantiated theories were adopted and dietary policy was put into place which, for a great many people, did more harm than good. We know this. We know the early theories were wrong. We can learn from mistakes like this, and if we don't learn, we're doomed to repeat them.

I'm not in the least worried about the climate deniers, nor should anyone be. Many people here have accused me of being a denier, of being myopic, of not caring about the planet, or people, or my grandchildren's future. Their thinking is that if I do care, I'd surely want carbon taxes and wind farms and solar farms, and I'd get behind ethanol and other "green energy" initiatives. Well, I care very much. I always have. And that's why I see the huge problems for my grandchildren, and the planet, and the world's poorest people, when we destroy the environment and drive up costs and pretend all of this is ok just because we want to avoid using fossil fuel. I wan't to see there's a very good reason for doing that kind of harm. I suspect this is true for a great many of the demonized deniers.

Fortunately, the people who convinced us to quit eating eggs stopped telling us to quit eating them when they realized they were wrong. Unfortunately, we've created a juggernaut here: too many influential peoples' personal self-worth and livelihood depends on maintaining the AGW/CC narrative, so it's going to take a lot longer to turn this train around, and the consequences for this mistake are far more costly to the environment and, I suspect, to most people in many ways.

But truly, it's not about who "wins" the "argument", who was wrongly demonized, who had good intentions and who was acting out of greed or hubris. That is of so little consequence! And personally, I can't be bothered with blame games. They're counter productive.

Now, as always, it's about us collectively getting it right, putting our resources where they'll do the most good. That's what we should expect from our politicians, and from each other. If we fail to do that, we all lose.

[maryjane48]

http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/17/advocate ... f=facebook


sad

[fluffy]

Unfortunately, we've created a juggernaut here: too many influential peoples' personal self-worth and livelihood depends on maintaining the AGW/CC narrative...

Bingo. And with the science still "out there", is there a chance of turning it around ? And how do you think a cash-strapped government is going to treat a potential cash cow like carbon taxation ?

[mpadt]

SO HOW ARE TNEY GIVING BACK THIS SURPLUS TO THE TAX PAYERS?? I NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL VOTE FOR THIS WEAK PREMIER. BC NEEDS SOMEONE WHO WONT BE SO WISHY WASHY AND LIE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT PAY TAXES. this surplus should go back to tne everydzy citizens...not the druggies!!

[rustled]

Unfortunately, we've created a juggernaut here: too many influential peoples' personal self-worth and livelihood depends on maintaining the AGW/CC narrative...

Bingo. And with the science still "out there", is there a chance of turning it around ? And how do you think a cash-strapped government is going to treat a potential cash cow like carbon taxation ?

How long do you think they can keep it up (pretending it's for what they say it's for, or pretending it's doing what they say it will do, or pretending it's revenue neutral)? Long enough for the federal government to get away with doing it, too?

Given the rapidly dwindling evidence, one would think an increasingly larger portion of the population would say "wait a doggone minute".

Meanwhile, we have people who ought to know better still promoting the catastrophe narrative... sigh.

[fluffy]

How long do you think they can keep it up...

It may just end up lumped in with things like alcohol and tobacco taxes. Folks have pretty much given up on crying about those even though the money goes into general revenue and addiction programs keep getting cut.

[rustled]

How long do you think they can keep it up...

It may just end up lumped in with things like alcohol and tobacco taxes. Folks have pretty much given up on crying about those even though the money goes into general revenue and addiction programs keep getting cut.

So a sin tax, for using fossil fuel? Perhaps, but in this case they're taxing some basic necessities.

[maryjane48]

SO HOW ARE TNEY GIVING BACK THIS SURPLUS TO THE TAX PAYERS?? I NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL VOTE FOR THIS WEAK PREMIER. BC NEEDS SOMEONE WHO WONT BE SO WISHY WASHY AND LIE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT PAY TAXES. this surplus should go back to tne everydzy citizens...not the druggies!!

druggies ? explain if your sober