Carbon tax scam

"Anything that causes an imbalance from the natural state is pollution."

What? No way.

An imbalance from the 'natural' state could be beneficial.  You'd have to define it as something like 'causing net harm' or something.

But even if we go with the original definition for a moment, we'd just degenerate into arguing about what's natural.  I could argue that what we're doing now is natural and reducing emissions is unnatural because by that definition it's causing an imbalance from the new status quo. 

My point is that defining pollution like this not conducive to a productive discussion.

"sulfur dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide."

Agreed.  Should be taxed.  Is taxed.

"These are all natural gases but releasing excessive amounts leads to an unnatural imbalance."

No.  They, from what we can tell,  cause net harm, not 'unbalance'.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FYI, just released from NASA recently:

"An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

CO2 emissions thought to account for 70% of this.

Pollution?? Unnatural?? Harmful??  Anything but clear.

Edit: NASA Article

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Anything that causes an imbalance from the natural state is pollution."

What? No way.

An imbalance from the 'natural' state could be beneficial.  You'd have to define it as something like 'causing net harm' or something.

But even if we go with the original definition for a moment, we'd just degenerate into arguing about what's natural.  I could argue that what we're doing now is natural and reducing emissions is unnatural because by that definition it's causing an imbalance from the new status quo. 

My point is that defining pollution like this not conducive to a productive discussion.

"sulfur dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide."

Agreed.  Should be taxed.  Is taxed.

"These are all natural gases but releasing excessive amounts leads to an unnatural imbalance."

No.  They, from what we can tell,  cause net harm, not 'unbalance'.
How can you know if an imbalance causes harm without using the scientific method? And you can't use the scientific method because you can test such macro changes.

You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that. We began burning coal only 3000 years ago, for millions of years this did not happen. And that 3000 years the use of fossil fuels was negligible, we really only began to go nuts in the last 300 years. So your argument is we had trends for hundreds of thousands of years and in the last 300 we drastically changed this trend. It would be unnatural to return to or get as close to the trend of hundreds of thousands of years. Instead it is natural to continue a new drastically different trend we cause in only the last 300 years. I want to make sure I have your logic correct.

 
How can you know if an imbalance causes harm without using the scientific method? And you can't use the scientific method because you can test such macro changes.

You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that. We began burning coal only 3000 years ago, for millions of years this did not happen. And that 3000 years the use of fossil fuels was negligible, we really only began to go nuts in the last 300 years. So your argument is we had trends for hundreds of thousands of years and in the last 300 we drastically changed this trend. It would be unnatural to return to or get as close to the trend of hundreds of thousands of years. Instead it is natural to continue a new drastically different trend we cause in only the last 300 years. I want to make sure I have your logic correct.
"You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that."

Humans are a natural part of this world.  Therefore, just like any other animal, there is nothing we can do that is unnatural.

Disagree, then please argue that humans are not natural.

But seriously, it's not that I believe that humans can't do 'unnatural' things.  I don't really believe that argument, but the point stands that 'an imbalance from the natural state' is simply not an acceptable definition of pollution.

"How can you know if an imbalance causes harm without using the scientific method? And you can't use the scientific method because you can test such macro changes."

I totally reject this.  We can and do use the best science we have to answer these questions to the best of our ability, but it seems we are very reluctant to say 'we don't know' in the politically charged world of climate science, or is that climate politics.  Doesn't seem like there's a difference and that's a HUUUUGGGE problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that."

Humans are a natural part of this world.  Therefore, just like any other animal, there is nothing we can do that is unnatural.

Disagree, then please argue that humans are not natural.

But seriously, it's not that I believe that humans can't do 'unnatural' things.  I don't really believe that argument, but the point stands that 'an imbalance from the natural state' is simply not an acceptable definition of pollution.

"How can you know if an imbalance causes harm without using the scientific method? And you can't use the scientific method because you can test such macro changes."

I totally reject this.  We can and do use the best science we have to answer these questions to the best of our ability, but it seems we are very reluctant to say 'we don't know' in the politically charged world of climate science, or is that climate politics.  Doesn't seem like there's a difference and that's a HUUUUGGGE problem.
I'm not well versed enough to know the impact really any pollution or what I term pollution is having on our world. However, if I could choose whether we put chemicals into the water I would choose not to. If I had a choice whether my car emits chemicals into the air I would choose not to. If I park a typical car in my garage let it run with the door closed I die. I can only imagine, wrongly or not that millions of cars on the road has as impact as well. The first brand new car I bought off a lot was a Tesla so I try to own this view point. Although we still have natural gas power plants in Ontario, a big chunk of the energy that powers my car is from hydro, some from wind and a little from solar. If I had a choice, I would choose geothermal, hydro, solar and wind over the other choices.

I don't know if the impacts of fossil fuels are as great as some make it seem, however I learnt to always leave my camp site cleaner than when I arrived. I keep this mind set in the gym, cleaning the weights up on this machines I use whether I touched the plates or not. When I have the choice I choice biodegradable, when thats not an option I choose recyclable. Conservation is a conservative policy, we must preserve what we have for generations to come. I can do my best to help out. When I fly a plane or drive a car that emits toxins I can pay a levy on that. I would rather pay for impact than pay on my income.

 
I'm not well versed enough to know the impact really any pollution or what I term pollution is having on our world. However, if I could choose whether we put chemicals into the water I would choose not to. If I had a choice whether my car emits chemicals into the air I would choose not to. If I park a typical car in my garage let it run with the door closed I die. I can only imagine, wrongly or not that millions of cars on the road has as impact as well. The first brand new car I bought off a lot was a Tesla so I try to own this view point. Although we still have natural gas power plants in Ontario, a big chunk of the energy that powers my car is from hydro, some from wind and a little from solar. If I had a choice, I would choose geothermal, hydro, solar and wind over the other choices.

I don't know if the impacts of fossil fuels are as great as some make it seem, however I learnt to always leave my camp site cleaner than when I arrived. I keep this mind set in the gym, cleaning the weights up on this machines I use whether I touched the plates or not. When I have the choice I choice biodegradable, when thats not an option I choose recyclable. Conservation is a conservative policy, we must preserve what we have for generations to come. I can do my best to help out. When I fly a plane or drive a car that emits toxins I can pay a levy on that. I would rather pay for impact than pay on my income.
No disagreements with that.

I just bristle at the Environmentalist movement taking on more and more characteristics of a fundamentalist religion where it becomes 'blasphemous' to question any part of the dogma.  This is not good.  We need to keep our minds open to facts and science.

And FWIW, a little more than 60% of your Tesla's electricity is nuclear in origin in Ontario.

 
Did we stop burning fossil fuels to produce wind mills or solar farms?

And hydro doesn’t effect the eco system?

anyhow I want to argue that the releasing of carbon back into our atmosphere is a good thing.

all the oil, coal, natural gas we burn was from a time where there was mass amounts to of vegetation.  Plants thrived off the warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels which in turn created higher oxygen levels.  

This allowed plant eating organisms to thrive, and thereby nest eating ones.  Intelligence levels were low because food, water, climate was very conducive to life.  

Not to get off point but what if the majority of the carbon in the air became trapped?  Would not the plant life cease to exist?  Would not the organisms begin to die?  Then the greenhouse gases would reduce and the earth would cool.  Next step is the cooling of our core, then it stops spinning and our atmosphere blows off because we have lost our magnetic field.

Im not speculating about something way out there, this is one of the theories about how Mars died.

Maybe we are extending the lifecycle of the planet be releasing the carbon?

now the chemicals we release, or the garbage we allow to be released into our water system, I’m against that, but I believe we are barking up the wrong tree with climate change, or a carbon tax.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Local Dipshit
Did we stop burning fossil fuels to produce wind mills or solar farms?

And hydro doesn’t effect the eco system?

anyhow I want to argue that the releasing of carbon back into our atmosphere is a good thing.

all the oil, coal, natural gas we burn was from a time where there was mass amounts to of vegetation.  Plants thrived off the warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels which in turn created higher oxygen levels.  

This allowed plant eating organisms to thrive, and thereby nest eating ones.  Intelligence levels were low because food, water, climate was very conducive to life.  

Not to get off point but what if the majority of the carbon in the air became trapped?  Would not the plant life cease to exist?  Would not the organisms begin to die?  Then the greenhouse gases would reduce and the earth would cool.  Next step is the cooling of our core, then it stops spinning and our atmosphere blows off because we have lost our magnetic field.

Im not speculating about something way out there, this is one of the theories about how Mars died.

Maybe we are extending the lifecycle of the planet be releasing the carbon?

now the chemicals we release, or the garbage we allow to be released into our water system, I’m against that, but I believe we are barking up the wrong tree with climate change, or a carbon tax.
There is more than enough CO2 in the air for plants. They need very little to thrive, more doesn't make them better. Just like more oxygen isn't always good for humans.

 
Ok, but what is the threshold of co2 that isn’t good for plants.  

Co2 levels were double during cretaceous period and no one can argue that the vegetation was higher during that period.  You are hiring that proof.  So I guess we could double our co2 levels then? 

 
Please don’t say that higher co2 levels create low nutrient plant food, lol.  That’s been debunked a long time ago,

 
Ok, but what is the threshold of co2 that isn’t good for plants.  

Co2 levels were double during cretaceous period and no one can argue that the vegetation was higher during that period.  You are hiring that proof.  So I guess we could double our co2 levels then? 
Ok let's switch to burning coal for all our power. Doesn't look like a point to pursue modern technologies if plants are better off with more CO2. Cheers.

 
Ok let's switch to burning coal for all our power. Doesn't look like a point to pursue modern technologies if plants are better off with more CO2. Cheers.
Getting a bit triggered are we?

actually the new coal fired plants are as clean as burning natural gas.

all forms we use to produce power has its downfall.  I guess coal is now out if favour.  We actually need the coal to make steel anyways so better to save it for that.  Damn how much coal is used to build windmills and dams?

when did I say not to try to become better with our technology.  I’m just stating that the fear mongering is getting old.

30+ years ago we were told everything was going to be a desert, then a couple years later all low areas will be flooded.

Now the heavy rains are climate change.  Damn I remember 30 years ago it poured so hard one summer we had to scoop buckets of water fir days out if the window wells so it wouldn’t leak in the basement.

i also remember years where it was so fucking hot that a tornado ripped thru Edmonton.  

Or other years where the smoke covered the sky.  But forest fires are climate change.  I guess they just started to burn in the last 50 years.

Original inhabitants lived off the shorelines because they had learned the hard way about tsunamis and hurcanes, then we are stupid enough to build there.  But no it’s climate change.

wrong horse to beat.

if they used the money to actually do something real I’d be all on it.  How about starting a recycling program that works in Ontario?  Something similar to Alberta where we bring all our plastics in fir the deposit we paid.

lets fund technology to replace single use plastics in the food industry,  or even better lets recycle all the plastic that gets thriwn out because it has a bit of food material on it.

How about all the countries in the world on the shores of the oceans chip in and clean up the plastic in the ocean.  That tech is available now.  Will any of the carbon tax go towards that?

i bet not.  This tax will go into regular revenues and spend, just like the 1.4 billion JT just gave away the other day to help woman in other countries.

if they wanted to tax us, be honest and increase the gst.

Blitz it’s ok to disagree.

what I bet would work is for all of us to make tiny changes every day.  Like completely separating all your plastics.  Never throwout anything that is recyclable.  Start purchasing products that can be repaired instead of cheap throw away items, and so on.

at work I take care of all the tiny things because they add up,and become fairly substantial.  For example we used to individually plastic wrap all our meat trays every day.  Now we use a large sheet to cover all the trays in the counter,  we cut down our plastic consumption by 1/6 and increased our profit by $5000 a year.

See as the earth warms, or cools, I think now we are in a cooling phase because the solar flaring from the sun is slowing.  It actually was peaking about 4-5 years ago.  

They have stopped seeding the clouds over the pacific coast because they realized that was making the drought worse, so now need to ride that out.  It was an insurance manoeuvre because of the cost of claims from the drought in California and such.

you know I’m just going to stop.  There is so much that is screwed with unnaturally that I could go on forever and then something else would come up that may effect the climate as well, that it is all just assumptions now.

 
IIRC, they imposed it in Ontario.  

Is it just me or does Trudeau have the most punchable face on the planet??
It's not just you man, I love to smash that guy and get away with it. I never really HATED him until he started giving terrorists 10million paydays.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorbate