Jump to content

Carbon tax scam


3ml
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/31/2019 at 1:27 PM, 3ml said:

We are free from carbon tax today... filled the truck and saved just over $10

With the amount I drive that almost a free Mexico trip per year

Fuck carbon tax

A country with only 36 Millions will never pollute it is extremely clear the carbon taxes is to pay for the Refugee and this is to replace you my brother 😞 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenny abolished the ndp placed carbon tax here in Alberta on Thursday night, but Ottawa is already in place to force a federal carbon tax on us shortly.

Well challenge it in court, and we’ll likely lose just as Saskatchewan did.

Fuck carbon tax and fuck Trudeau

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2019 at 7:07 AM, Jetpilot said:

A country with only 36 Millions will never pollute it is extremely clear the carbon taxes is to pay for the Refugee and this is to replace you my brother 😞 

That’s exactly it my man...they need money to replace the conservative white man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sorbate said:

The next set of taxes is the retarded masses vote him in again is,

plastic tax

pop tax

meat tax

tax tax.lol

Lol fuck that’s probably just the start, probably tax conservative views if he gets in again the cunt

 

honestly if he does get in again...I got some dough put away.  I may liquidate assets here and just ride out 4 years in Mexico fuck it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davis1891 said:

Kenny abolished the ndp placed carbon tax here in Alberta on Thursday night, but Ottawa is already in place to force a federal carbon tax on us shortly.

Well challenge it in court, and we’ll likely lose just as Saskatchewan did.

Fuck carbon tax and fuck Trudeau

I’m hoping it can’t be enforce until it’s finished in court, and hopefully that rides out until election time.  We can live the summer free of this crushing bullshit tax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 3ml said:

I’m hoping it can’t be enforce until it’s finished in court, and hopefully that rides out until election time.  We can live the summer free of this crushing bullshit tax

IIRC, they imposed it in Ontario.  

Is it just me or does Trudeau have the most punchable face on the planet??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

IIRC, they imposed it in Ontario.  

Is it just me or does Trudeau have the most punchable face on the planet??

Brother it is not just you!  wait to see what he will annonce today ! 😞  ( ban all AR-15)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that believes this tax scam is a fool themselves. The earth is going through her motions as it has been for billions of years. Low and behold In come the liberals thinking a population of 35+ million will change that. Lmao, some people are just stupidly blind. It’s actually getting colder, look at our summers, they’ve been shit for the last 10 years and getting worse. We have like what, a good 1.5 months of hot weather now? If you look deep enough there are some good sites that actually support an incoming ice age with credible nasa images and proof of these trends. Don’t let the liberals and media fool you people.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if - just for the sake of argument - even if someone believes in the worst case scenario of the climate 'emergency' fanatics, it still doesn't make sense.

Basically the government can't get anything right.  They can't even figure out how to get the trains to run on time, not to mention healthcare, education, spiraling debt, and on and on and on...

But they want us to believe that they're going to change the weather by raising taxes???!!!

What a sad joke...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

IIRC, they imposed it in Ontario.  

Is it just me or does Trudeau have the most punchable face on the planet??

Oh man I don’t know how people on the opposing side of the floor don’t run over and smash his ugly fucking nose flat during question period

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

IIRC, they imposed it in Ontario.  

Is it just me or does Trudeau have the most punchable face on the planet??

I have dreams about punching him in face. Oddly enough, those are the days I wake up with morning wood....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Davis1891 said:

I have dreams about punching him in face. Oddly enough, those are the days I wake up with morning wood....

Haha...Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one 😉

I really liked it a little while back where the guy gave him a really hard time for taking the photo op instead of helping sandbagging.  Only thing that would have made it better is if he kneed him in the 'nads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This won't be the popular opinion here but it doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If we believe we need some form of government, we need some form of taxation to fund the government and whatever services it provides. Whether that is just courts, police and military or more, it needs to be funded. I believe in the non aggression principle. It is the ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is any interference with an individual or their property. It is central to right wing natural rights philosophy. Related to taxation, anything that interferes with my individual rights and freedoms should be taxed. Your income does not interfere with my individuality and thus should not be taxed. However, when you take away from the collective commons it should be. So property taxes are inherently ethical because you owning land limits me from using that land. Taxes on any form of pollution are ethical. If you pollute my water supply or air I either cannot make use of these resources, have to clean the resources or pay to have it cleaned before I make use of it or I have to suffer the health consequences of using contaminated water and air. My right to health was impacted by something someone else did and thus they should pay into the public good. With that in mind, if you buy fossil fuels you will burn them and emit pollutants into the air, you should be taxed on that. The tax should not be transferred to the provinces to do what they wish, it should be used to address the reason for the tax.

Income tax, capital gains tax or any other taxes on my labor is unethical. Taxes on property, pollution (carbon), use of the commons that violates the NAP, etc. are ethical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Blitz said:

This won't be the popular opinion here but it doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If we believe we need some form of government, we need some form of taxation to fund the government and whatever services it provides. Whether that is just courts, police and military or more, it needs to be funded. I believe in the non aggression principle. It is the ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is any interference with an individual or their property. It is central to right wing natural rights philosophy. Related to taxation, anything that interferes with my individual rights and freedoms should be taxed. Your income does not interfere with my individuality and thus should not be taxed. However, when you take away from the collective commons it should be. So property taxes are inherently ethical because you owning land limits me from using that land. Taxes on any form of pollution are ethical. If you pollute my water supply or air I either cannot make use of these resources, have to clean the resources or pay to have it cleaned before I make use of it or I have to suffer the health consequences of using contaminated water and air. My right to health was impacted by something someone else did and thus they should pay into the public good. With that in mind, if you buy fossil fuels you will burn them and emit pollutants into the air, you should be taxed on that. The tax should not be transferred to the provinces to do what they wish, it should be used to address the reason for the tax.

Income tax, capital gains tax or any other taxes on my labor is unethical. Taxes on property, pollution (carbon), use of the commons that violates the NAP, etc. are ethical.

I have no prob with a healthy disagreement.  

Basically, I'm on board with most of your argument actually.  Avoiding the 'Tragedy Of The Commons' issue is generally sound economic policy, I'll agree with that. This is basic ECON, but while taxation is a blunt instrument, I'll agree it's a valid tool in this case.

However, first of all CO2 is not pollution.

Secondly, we already have a HUGE carbon tax on gasoline now.  Slapping more tax on gas and calling it a valid 'Carbon Tax' is straight-up deception.  It is definitely a 'scam'.

Edited by BobTheOldLifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

I have no prob with a healthy disagreement.  

Basically, I'm on board with most of your argument actually.  Avoiding the 'Tragedy Of The Commons' issue is generally sound economic policy, I'll agree with that. This is basic ECON, but while taxation is a blunt instrument, I'll agree it's a valid tool in this case.

However, first of all CO2 is not pollution.

Secondly, we already have a HUGE carbon tax on gasoline now.  Slapping more tax on gas and calling it a valid 'Carbon Tax' is straight-up deception.

You can't say CO2 is not pollution. Anything that causes an imbalance from the natural state is pollution. If you dumped salt into fresh water, that is pollution. Using manure as a natural fertilizer can cause nitrogen run off into the water, killing fish and burning vegetation. Burning gas emits carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These are all natural gases but releasing excessive amounts leads to an unnatural imbalance.

Farmers should be taxed for their use of fertilizer and raising livestock. We would then compensate that when we buy the end product. However, they should not be taxed on their labor to run a farm, only inputs and outputs that cause pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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'.

Edited by BobTheOldLifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by BobTheOldLifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Blitz said:

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.

Edited by BobTheOldLifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Blitz said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines