Is there a factual rebuttal to axe the tax? What could possibly be the upside to keeping the carbon tax (rhetorical question - no need to answer, unless you want to).
Is there a factual rebuttal to axe the tax? What could possibly be the upside to keeping the carbon tax (rhetorical question - no need to answer, unless you want to).
Yes because GHGs have reduced so appreciably. Not. If it worked, every government around the world would already have adopted carbon taxes. Instead theyтАЩre an internal tariff on our own economy, driving down economic activity but not carbon. IтАЩd call it ironic, but evil is probably a better word.
IтАЩll believe thereтАЩs a тАЬclimate emergencyтАЭ when I see the Trudeau types cancelling their Tofino surfing flight due to the sheer terror of its climate impact. Never gonna happen.
Allow me to refer you to a Forbes article called, тАЬHow Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science.тАЭ Google it, read it, and understand how тАЬclimate emergenciesтАЭ are the new snake oil.
In fact, greenhouse gases (GHG) *have* reduced appreciably.
2005 is the base year for CanadaтАЩs GHG emission reduction target. That year, total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada were 761 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. In 2020, they were 686 Mt.
So, yeah, 686 in 2020 is less than 761 in 2005. Ergo, greenhouse gases ) *have* reduced appreciably.
ItтАЩs particularly remarkable because the preceding 15 years were radically different. GHG emissions went from 608 Mt in 1990 to 761 Mt in 2005, 15 years later. A rise of 25%. At that rhythm, they would have been 952,5 Mt in 2020!
Also, I didnтАЩt make the calculation, but IтАЩd be willing to bet that if you compared GHG emissions to GNP from 2005 to 2020, the drop would be even more radical.
I read the article you sent me that was written by a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you, it was interesting.
Is there a factual rebuttal to axe the tax? What could possibly be the upside to keeping the carbon tax (rhetorical question - no need to answer, unless you want to).
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes because GHGs have reduced so appreciably. Not. If it worked, every government around the world would already have adopted carbon taxes. Instead theyтАЩre an internal tariff on our own economy, driving down economic activity but not carbon. IтАЩd call it ironic, but evil is probably a better word.
IтАЩll believe thereтАЩs a тАЬclimate emergencyтАЭ when I see the Trudeau types cancelling their Tofino surfing flight due to the sheer terror of its climate impact. Never gonna happen.
Allow me to refer you to a Forbes article called, тАЬHow Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science.тАЭ Google it, read it, and understand how тАЬclimate emergenciesтАЭ are the new snake oil.
In fact, greenhouse gases (GHG) *have* reduced appreciably.
2005 is the base year for CanadaтАЩs GHG emission reduction target. That year, total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada were 761 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. In 2020, they were 686 Mt.
So, yeah, 686 in 2020 is less than 761 in 2005. Ergo, greenhouse gases ) *have* reduced appreciably.
ItтАЩs particularly remarkable because the preceding 15 years were radically different. GHG emissions went from 608 Mt in 1990 to 761 Mt in 2005, 15 years later. A rise of 25%. At that rhythm, they would have been 952,5 Mt in 2020!
HereтАЩs the source: https://bit.ly/40dfDIF
Also, I didnтАЩt make the calculation, but IтАЩd be willing to bet that if you compared GHG emissions to GNP from 2005 to 2020, the drop would be even more radical.
I read the article you sent me that was written by a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you, it was interesting.
I invite you to check out this one: https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/renewables/canada-is-showing-the-world-how-carbon-pricing-should-be-done-nobel-prize-winning-economist-william-nordhaus
Also, while interesting, I won't be continuing this exchange with you at this time. I don't want us to highjack Paul's comment section :-)
Reductions were largely due to industrial efforts to clean up the low-hanging fruit. It was NOT the carbon tax. ThatтАЩs just a control scam.