Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So I've agreed to all of your points, and I've come to the opposite conclusion as you. Tell me again how it's obviously stupid and you can't believe how we are arguing about this?

Oh, I've also refrained from just hand waiving away the premise of the argument by saying "Canada isn't the problem" like you have.

You agreed that the problem is global emissions, but then your main defense is the per Capita argument, which completely ignores the main problem. We haven't even gotten into that argument to prove how valid it is, Canada also has the most trees per Capita. Canada isn't the problem (this is a fact, not a conservative argument), but we can help China in many ways, reducing our demand for manufacturing there and helping them with cleaner energy, this would have far far far more effect on goal emissions then a carbon tax on Canadian heating and fuel. The fact that we aren't helping China proves that Trudeau doesn't really care about global emissions.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

How would you reduce Canada's carbon footprint? If you don't agree that that should be a goal, then there's no discussion to be had here.

If you goal is to quickly reduce global emissions, then Canada's emissions are irrelevant. If your goal is to reduce Canada's emissions for a 0.5% global reduction in emissions, then that isn't solving the global emissions problem and that is something different, virtue signaling maybe?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

You agreed that the problem is global emissions, but then your main defense is the per Capita argument, which completely ignores the main problem. We haven't even gotten into that argument to prove how valid it is, Canada also has the most trees per Capita. Canada isn't the problem (this is a fact, not a conservative argument), but we can help China in many ways, reducing our demand for manufacturing there and helping them with cleaner energy, this would have far far far more effect on goal emissions then a carbon tax on Canadian heating and fuel. The fact that we aren't helping China proves that Trudeau doesn't really care about global emissions.

1) Global vs Per Capita: You cannot discuss one without the other. With growing populations across the globe, the ONLY way to reduce global emissions is by reducing per capita emissions. Secondly, it puts Canada's contribution to global emissions into perspective. We can have a larger impact on global emissions than any other comparably sized country. Saying Per capita doesn't matter is simply a way to abdicate responsibility.

2) the tree thing.. it's not a conservative talking points, but it's a dumb one, that I've heard a lot of conservative people use. To simplify, unless your bio mass of trees is increasing, or you are sequestering the carbon from leaves falling off trees or trees dying every year (unlikely in the coniferous boreal forrest), then the trees are not having much of an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
We have fewer trees now than we did before we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, ie our trees are taking less CO2 out than the were before, and we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not a net positive for us.
In the future, instead of using that argument, you can just say "I don't understand how equilibrium works"

3) Great, lets help China. How do we pay for that? I suggest some sort of tax, but I'm open to your take on it.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by StickMan

If you goal is to quickly reduce global emissions, then Canada's emissions are irrelevant. If your goal is to reduce Canada's emissions for a 0.5% global reduction in emissions, then that isn't solving the global emissions problem and that is something different, virtue signaling maybe?

So there's no discussion to be had here. You don't agree that Canada should reduce its carbon footprint.

As for "virtue signaling" - that is exactly what you're doing. Imagine a world where Canada (or Canadian voters) could hope to have an effect on China's emissions.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by StickMan

You agreed that the problem is global emissions, but then your main defense is the per Capita argument, which completely ignores the main problem. We haven't even gotten into that argument to prove how valid it is, Canada also has the most trees per Capita. Canada isn't the problem (this is a fact, not a conservative argument), but we can help China in many ways, reducing our demand for manufacturing there and helping them with cleaner energy, this would have far far far more effect on goal emissions then a carbon tax on Canadian heating and fuel. The fact that we aren't helping China proves that Trudeau doesn't really care about global emissions.

How do we help China without it costing us more?

If we send money there, it would have to come from some sort of tax here. You don't like that.

If we sell them emissions cutting tech, then we generate more money here which will lead to inflation which leads to a lower standard of living. That's also not an option for you.

What is your suggestion?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Izzle

How do we help China without it costing us more?

If we send money there, it would have to come from some sort of tax here. You don't like that.

If we sell them emissions cutting tech, then we generate more money here which will lead to inflation which leads to a lower standard of living. That's also not an option for you.

What is your suggestion?

I think he just wants us to virtue signal to China and hope they make changes.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

So there's no discussion to be had here. You don't agree that Canada should reduce its carbon footprint.

As for "virtue signaling" - that is exactly what you're doing. Imagine a world where Canada (or Canadian voters) could hope to have an effect on China's emissions.

Well we easily can. Buy less junk you don't need from China. Stop replacing your TV every 3 years. Support brands that don't manufacture there. Stuff that everyone can do that can help without changing any international trade agreements.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well we easily can. Buy less junk you don't need from China. Stop replacing your TV every 3 years. Support brands that don't manufacture there. Stuff that everyone can do that can help without changing any international trade agreements.

How dare you suggest that. Do you know how much more expensive stuff is when it's made here?? And what of those profits? They stay within the country?? These owners now have more disposable income which leads to inflation????

BuT MuH StAnDArd Of LiViNg!!!

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

1) Global vs Per Capita: You cannot discuss one without the other. With growing populations across the globe, the ONLY way to reduce global emissions is by reducing per capita emissions. Secondly, it puts Canada's contribution to global emissions into perspective. We can have a larger impact on global emissions than any other comparably sized country. Saying Per capita doesn't matter is simply a way to abdicate responsibility.

2) the tree thing.. it's not a conservative talking points, but it's a dumb one, that I've heard a lot of conservative people use. To simplify, unless your bio mass of trees is increasing, or you are sequestering the carbon from leaves falling off trees or trees dying every year (unlikely in the coniferous boreal forrest), then the trees are not having much of an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
We have fewer trees now than we did before we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, ie our trees are taking less CO2 out than the were before, and we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not a net positive for us.
In the future, instead of using that argument, you can just say "I don't understand how equilibrium works"

3) Great, lets help China. How do we pay for that? I suggest some sort of tax, but I'm open to your take on it.

1) I disagree. Per Capita is a way to deflect the problem, smoke and mirrors. The measure that matters is a countries portion of global emissions, nothing else matters when the goal is reducing global emissions. If you want to change the problem to be that Canada's per Capita emissions need to be reduced, that is a different problem that isn't going to solve the global emissions problem, and a tax on essential fuels without providing an affordable alternative is just theft and won't fix the per Capita problem either.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

1) I disagree. Per Capita is a way to deflect the problem, smoke and mirrors. The measure that matters is a countries portion of global emissions, nothing else matters when the goal is reducing global emissions. If you want to change the problem to be that Canada's per Capita emissions need to be reduced, that is a different problem that isn't going to solve the global emissions problem, and a tax on essential fuels without providing an affordable alternative is just theft and won't fix the per Capita problem either.

Which do you consider yourself more? One whole single person, or 1/38 000 000th of Canada?

Your suggestion amounts to the individual efforts of each person mattering a lot more in Canada than China. So a Chinese person would have far less incentive to reduce their emmisions, becuase it would be such a tiny drop. In Canada, becuase per capita we emit more, each individual has more room to reduce their own emmisions. In the end, remove all borders and it comes down to individual choices and individual emissions.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Izzle

How do we help China without it costing us more?

If we send money there, it would have to come from some sort of tax here. You don't like that.

If we sell them emissions cutting tech, then we generate more money here which will lead to inflation which leads to a lower standard of living. That's also not an option for you.

What is your suggestion?

Someone (probably a conservative, I think it was a crazy farmer) said that if we could sell natural gas to China to replace their coal, it would reduce China's emissions by 30%. That wouldn't cost Canada anything, and would make us money and create jobs. That would probably reduce global emissions 20x more then the 0.5% reduction we can get by reducing our per Capita Canadian emissions. Ya ya, natal gas bad, fossil fuel bad, but natural gas big reduction in emissions compared to coal. The goal is reducing global emissions.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by StickMan

This is great, but unfortunate your foot print isn't the problem. You have solved a problem that doesn't exist, but at least you are feeling good about blowing money for the sake of blowing money. Now put on your thinking cap and think of ways that you can help reduce emissions in problem countries, maybe buy more local? Why does china emit so much? Because they make your solar panels and ship them all the way across the ocean to you so you can feel more virtuous? Not buying those solar panels from China probably would have done more to save the environment. You have to think bigger.

LOL

Get bent!

[StickMan]

The emissions problem isn't Joe Blow driving to work everyday or heating his house. The problem is dirty fuel like coal, the problem is shipping things across the ocean, the problem is flying to Vancouver for a retreat when you could do it in Ottawa, or flying to Europe instead of a phonecall. It is lifestyle changes that make the biggest difference. But it is easier to pay a useless carbon tax and say "there, we did our part".

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Someone (probably a conservative, I think it was a crazy farmer) said that if we could sell natural gas to China to replace their coal, it would reduce China's emissions by 30%. That wouldn't cost Canada anything, and would make us money and create jobs. That would probably reduce global emissions 20x more then the 0.5% reduction we can get by reducing our per Capita Canadian emissions. Ya ya, natal gas bad, fossil fuel bad, but natural gas big reduction in emissions compared to coal. The goal is reducing global emissions.

Cool, and we make that happen how?
Who's paying to replace/refit those coal power plants?
How are we convincing China to spend more on our gas than their, or other's, coal?

I guess we could pay for that...maybe with a tax of some kind.
Oh wait, I forgot that if it wasn't for Trudeau, we could just tell China that from now on they are gonna be buying our natrual gas and there's nothing they can do about it.

I suspect now you'll say that Trudeau is killing the oil and gas industry, and will ignore the fact that
A) Natural gas pipelines are currently being built to the coast for export
B) At least part of the reason for a lack of export capacity on the west coast is due to lack of market (ie China isn't super interested in buying our gas to displace coal)
If I missed any of your points please let me know.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

The emissions problem isn't Joe Blow driving to work everyday or heating his house. The problem is dirty fuel like coal, the problem is shipping things across the ocean, the problem is flying to Vancouver for a retreat when you could do it in Ottawa, or flying to Europe instead of a phonecall. It is lifestyle changes that make the biggest difference. But it is easier to pay a useless carbon tax and say "there, we did our part".

I mean those are both lifestyle choices that can be affected by carbon pricing
1) taking public transit vs driving
2) lowering thermostats or forgoing AC to reduce energy usage

You're using a lot of digital ink to say "I don't want to have to make any changes to my life so I'm going to say everyone else is the problem"

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Several ways the carbon tax works/is effective:

1) a perceived increase in the price of things, like say gasoline, incentivize people to use less, like say take transit (I'll grant this doesn't work for home heating, but if people turn the thermostat down 1 degree because their bill is high that still helps, inches make miles and all that). Most households get their money back, and in some cases even more, so they've made choices to reduce GHG emissions without actually paying for them.

2) revenue from the carbon tax is used for grants to pay for projects that will reduce GHGs. For example the company I work for is spending ~$1.5MM for upgrades to compressor engines that will reduce methane slip, and improve fuel efficiency, thus reducing both our GHG emissions and our carbon tax bill. Most of that $1.5 MM is being paid for by grants to do these sorts of things, and that is $ that is coming from carbon tax revenue. So the carbon tax is going directly to projects that will reduce GHG emissions.


But of course you already knew those things. Surely you wouldn't complain about a program that you didn't understand the general workings of.

Originally Posted by StickMan

The emissions problem isn't Joe Blow driving to work everyday or heating his house. The problem is dirty fuel like coal, the problem is shipping things across the ocean, the problem is flying to Vancouver for a retreat when you could do it in Ottawa, or flying to Europe instead of a phonecall. It is lifestyle changes that make the biggest difference. But it is easier to pay a useless carbon tax and say "there, we did our part".

Why so binary? Why not do both/all to reduce emissions? As to the bolded, it seems to me that is the exact argument of Fuzz and Shantz (should be a band name).

[Ozy_Flame]

Stickman is also falling into classic Yellow Peril tropes. The same McCarthyism-style paranoia was present when China started their own manufacturing, only this time climate change is being used instead as "we can't avoid the inevitable." Then there is a recursive defeatism that means progress cannot be made, as Stickman is embodying.

Let me ask Stickman a very simple hypothetical: Let's say China contributes 100B tons of CO2, and the West contributes 100B of CO2. If the West manages to find ways in which to reduce its climate change contributions by say, 10B, down to 90B, even through individual and community-based micro-economic changes, that means the total output is 190B rather than 200B.

Which world would you rather live in? 200B tons of CO2 or 190B?

I have yet to see Stickman show any evidence that a reduction in our contributions to CO2 emissions means a zero-sum increase on China's or anyone else's side. It's all about finding ways to chip away at the problem, even if at the individual level.

To solve this problem everyone needs to do their part, even if some see it as futile.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I mean those are both lifestyle choices that can be affected by carbon pricing
1) taking public transit vs driving
2) lowering thermostats or forgoing AC to reduce energy usage

You're using a lot of digital ink to say "I don't want to have to make any changes to my life so I'm going to say everyone else is the problem"

I'm using a lot of digital ink to say that the carbon tax will not reduce global emissions because

1) it only targets Canadians

2) Canadian heating and driving accounts for less then half a percent of global emissions

3) making essentials expensive without providing an affordable alternative won't significantly reduce usage, it will just make things more expensive

Canadians are better off without a carbon tax, and the world won't see a difference either way. It is a stupid idea and it needs to go.

[BlackArcher101]

Man, it's a shame you are all quoting a person on my ignore list, but I got sucked in.

Stickman doesn't understand the point of the carbon tax is to DRIVE that lifestyle change. Finally he agrees that lifestyle changes make the biggest difference, but as we all know, if we leave it up to people like him and most of the others, they will not do anything. They want status quo, with no impact to their own lifestyle/finances.... In reality, they don't even care, they just want to appear as caring.

It makes sense why they then say "But we are only one person, what's the point?" I feel like they are just excusing themselves from it, so they don't have to now also feel the guilt of not doing their part. Instead we'll just tell others to do their part lol.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Has a tax ever made you richer? How about a tax on a tax? How about a tax that just gets passed down to the consumer and causes inflation? How about a tax that encourages you too spend money to reduce the tax (sure if you are rich)? How about a rebate that you then spend on gas and heating and gets double taxed again?

I am making money on the carbon tax. The whatever money the government is giving me is more than I'm paying for it.