HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

OT: Are These Guys Drunk?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-20-2008, 12:07 PM
  #201
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
Thats false

"Before the newly adopted standards, China had adopted emission levels in 2000 equalling Euro I standards"

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_344758.htm

China has been up to Euro standards for 8 years and that is above our standards. NA standards are still lower than Euro I standards.

Just recently they upgraded to Euro II standards and will eventually upgrade to Euro III standards. All much better than ours.

As for the rest, not sure what your point is, yes they are buying cars, lots of them, they still have way way less cars per person then we do. If you keep looking at china in totals instead of per capita, of course they will always look bad and we will always look good, which is fine and dandy, but doens't really tell the whole story.

No where will I state China isn't a problem, it is a huge problem. What to do with thier industrialization is probably the biggest single issue in the world. I was just responding to some ones sentiment that they aren't doing anything, which isn't true, they are doing more than we are. We just look good because we have 40 million people.
Nonsense:

http://www.cvma.ca/eng/issues/vehicleemissions.asp

Europe adopted Euro II standards in 1995...that's 13 years ago!

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 12:36 PM
  #202
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 13,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Nonsense:

http://www.cvma.ca/eng/issues/vehicleemissions.asp

Europe adopted Euro II standards in 1995...that's 13 years ago!
Any way, it is good to talk about this stuff, Always learning new things.

I don't know how Canada stacks up, All that article says is that we are teir II, but the other standard is EURO, I don't know how the equate, regardless, China is on par with pretty much the rest of the world.

I know for a fact that I saw some stat making North America look bad in comparison, and perhaps with time I have forgotten the exact fact. I think it may have been average emmision per auto mobile, the stat made Canada look bad, it basically came down to all our trucks, People do not drive trucks or even big cars there.

Any way, I think the heart of what I was trying to get at is intact, the origonal argument stemmed from some statment that China basically has no enviromental policy, which is not true, they have one and "argueable" it is better then ours.

all I know is that when I was there, I saw government stuff every where getting people to save energy, I recall nearlly getting yelled at when they found out I left my AC on when I was gone, I learnt about a lot of their policies and at the time 2004, came to a disticnt concluion that in fact their policies were better then ours. 4 years later I can't recall exaclty what all that was based on, perhaps we should all do some more research.

McOkMcgoMcoil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 01:42 PM
  #203
callighenfan
H.O.N.P.E.D.
 
callighenfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Let's think this through for a bit. What is the best way for big emitting companies such as the Oil sands (let's be realistic here the Oil Sand were directly in teh cross hairs when this was put together) to reduce their tonnage? The immediate solution is to cut emissions, which in turn directly effects the economy for the worse because the only way to immediately cut immesions is to scale back operations. This is my biggest fear.

Now by using the tax to fund tax breaks for Joe Citizen it would appear that the Liberals aren't even counting on that because their numbers reflect a tax on the status quo. Which from an economic standpoint isn't as scary BUT this scenario does absolutely nothing for the environment which is supposed to be what this is about.

So as I originally asked, how is this a Green solution and not a money grab unless he is willing to sacrafice the economy of the country? Hence my very original comment in this thread regarding 1981.
Sorry, but I'm not following your logic. The green solution part I've already addressed. The only likely effect on the oil patch is a slowdown based on domestic consumption (which is a fraction of our export totals anyway), since fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and demand for them is not going to evaporate. A slowdown, if it happened, would at worst cool off what many already see as an already-overheated economy. (Most of my friends back home sure complain a lot about inflation, anyway.)

The term "shift" that the Liberals are using is a good one, even if the lame punning it has sparked makes me cringe. What they are trying to do is create tax policy that reflects the actual cost of goods and creates incentive to meet an important economic (never mind ethical) trend.

Quote:
Yeah it's clever right. I mean if he taxed gas at the pumps people would actually have the choice to reduce the amount they drive which in turn could lead to reduced emissions. But by taxing home heating fuel he is taxing something that by and large is necessity of life and doesn't offer an option to reduce in the quantities that would make a difference. I mean the guy does know that he lives in Canada, right?
Auto emissions aren't the main cause of the rise in carbon dioxide levels—power generation is. I think it's fair, during a time when gasoline prices are skyrocketing, to hold off on that approach. There's not much need to pile on when SUV and truck owners have such major incentive to find alternatives anyway. Plus, gasoline is closer to a basic need for most people than e.g. jet fuel. (The ding on home heating wouldn't be comparable, and would ideally be offset by the income tax cuts.)

Quote:
As for airplanes, again it's an attack on big business. Where can airlines become more fuel efficient? By cutting flights which in turn cuts jobs and reduces travel, including economic spin off such as tourism. This bill hasn't even passed yet and the natural stresses on the airlines are being felt. Air Canada has cut 2000 jobs, cut flights added more fuel surcharges and implimented a baggage fee. What will an additional tax do for them?
Richard Branson seems to think it's possible. He's the definition of big business.

I do think flight is an area where people have gotten accustomed to a way of life that isn't sustainable (especially, ironically, in Europe). That said, I have a hard time buying Air Canada's rationale for its moves. AC has never really recovered from the bloat of being a Crown corporation, and is basically getting its butt kicked across the board by Westjet, Porter, and other airlines that people actually enjoy flying. And they're certainly not the first airline of choice for people flying internationally. I suspect that the fact that they're a crappily run company, more than anything, is why they're suffering.

Quote:
Yeah revenue neutral, never heard that one before.
As I said, it isn't. Though for what it's worth, Dion says that the claim will be subject to review by the auditor general, who will ensure that it ends up that way.

Quote:
Besides it's not about it being revenue neutral. IF a carbon tax is necessary in terms of a green plan then all of the money needs go into R and D so the companies paying into it can IMPROVE their efficiencies, not forced to cut production to REDUCE it. They would be paying money that has absolutely zero long term gain for them and that is where you seriously have to consider the impact of making Canada an unfriendly business environment when weighed against the rest of the globe.
This is to some degree about it being revenue neutral, since not all the cuts are to personal income tax. They're also for corporate tax. Also, that R&D is unlikely to be internally generated. Companies will sprout up to find those efficiencies, and they will land work from corporations who need them. Those startups will then have the opportunity to transfer that technology to other companies and countries.

When it comes to reductions, yes, it does make sense to switch to e.g. wind power from coal-fired electricity. But guess who runs wind power plants? Big business. Often the same companies, in fact. We're not likely to reduce a ton; more likely we will see replacement. Again, a shift.

Quote:
Well it is pandering because people have been screaming for environmental policy which this is supposed to be dressed up as. In other words it's a Liberal attention getter intended to put them in a favourable light in the eyes of the environment junkies. In addition it promises tax breaks as a result which again is endearing to the voting public and third it doesn't hit them at the pump in the process which is another contentious issue amongst the public.
Pandering means trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator at the expense of sound economic policy. A better example of this would be the GST cut, which was near-universally panned by economists as a cheap populist gimmick that is nowhere near as effective an economic stimulus as income tax cuts.

Quote:
I hope you're right in that people think this is a bad idea because it is.
I didn't say it's a bad idea. It's a good idea badly executed.

callighenfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 01:50 PM
  #204
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
That's not how peer review works when it comes to the scientific method. It's essential that other scientists based anywhere be able to examine the data and the parameters of the experiment, and to replicate the results. It's replicability, not mere assessment that matters.

From Wiki:

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

There are still margins for error, and findings can be presented in a politicized way (and often are), but it's extremely reliable on the whole, and accounts for the technological revolutions we've seen in umpteen areas over the past few centuries. For a body of work in a particular area, reliability essentially aggregates to the point that a given hypothesis can be said to be all but 100 percent certain. Most scientists argue that's where we're at now with global warming.
Yup, I'm pretty aware of the scientific method.

Unfortuenately, world wide weather isnt something you can reproduce in a laboratory. And small effects of the assumptions you use can have a large affect on the outcomes.

As for where we are at with Global warming, many scientists tend to agree that greennhouses gasses produced by man may be having an affect on the ambient temperature.

Thats probably about as far as most would go.

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 01:57 PM
  #205
callighenfan
H.O.N.P.E.D.
 
callighenfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
As for where we are at with Global warming, many scientists tend to agree that greennhouses gasses produced by man may be having an affect on the ambient temperature.

Thats probably about as far as most would go.
No, it isn't. Did no one here follow the IPCC story at all?

"Science Panel Calls Global Warming 'Unequivocal'" (New York Times)

callighenfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 01:57 PM
  #206
sweetcrude
Registered User
 
sweetcrude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
This is like watching a tennis match... Back and forth (repeat).

sweetcrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 02:06 PM
  #207
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Well that Nobel Prize winning Environmentalist from India is having nightmares so please allow me a little concern.

The issue is not that they are fuel efficient but, because they are so cheap, they will allow millions of people to become car owners for the first time.
I guess if you assume that the people in the $2500 dollar range arnt driving right now, then you could believe that a cheap car is going to have a bad affect.

From what I know, you can basically get a car for whatever you want to pay.

If there is a $2500 option and it is fuel efficient, there could be an environmental payoff.

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 02:07 PM
  #208
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
And why would India or China ever jump aboard it Canada and other industrial nations havn't???


don't fool your self, China for one actually has a more in depth environmental policy that we do. They are on top of this and are listening to what the industrialized world does.
Swamp land along the mississippi?

Cheap you say?

Where do I sign?

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 02:33 PM
  #209
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
The only likely effect on the oil patch is a slowdown based on domestic consumption (which is a fraction of our export totals anyway), since fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and demand for them is not going to evaporate. A slowdown, if it happened, would at worst cool off what many already see as an already-overheated economy. (Most of my friends back home sure complain a lot about inflation, anyway.)
How do you figure that a slowdown would only be based on a reduction in domestic consumption? It doesn't make sense.

Wether we like it or not big business is about profits and a $40 per tonne tax will cut into that profit. So the question for the Oil companies then becomes "is there a cheaper source available?".

We are not talking about local business, we are talking about international business and they will go where they can make the most money. I don't know how you can so comfortably sit there and say "don't worry,besides an economic slowdown wouldn't be a bad thing" when this very scenario has already been played out with disasterous consequences. The last time such a blantant money grab was tried there wasn't a slow down, overnight oil rigs were lined up on Highway 2 waiting to get outta dodge and the spin off was off the wall devestating.

Point being I don't want Dion gambling my future on some half witted lark simply to garner voter support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
Auto emissions aren't the main cause of the rise in carbon dioxide levels—power generation is. I think it's fair, during a time when gasoline prices are skyrocketing, to hold off on that approach. There's not much need to pile on when SUV and truck owners have such major incentive to find alternatives anyway. Plus, gasoline is closer to a basic need for most people than e.g. jet fuel. (The ding on home heating wouldn't be comparable, and would ideally be offset by the income tax cuts.)
All those costs are going to be pushed back onto the consumers and because it we are talking about life necessities we will have no choice but to bend over and take it. No offence but it seems to me that you are looking at this ass backwards. This isn't about what's best for Joe Citizen this is about gauranteeing tax revenue by targeting essentials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
Richard Branson seems to think it's possible. He's the definition of big business.

I do think flight is an area where people have gotten accustomed to a way of life that isn't sustainable (especially, ironically, in Europe). That said, I have a hard time buying Air Canada's rationale for its moves. AC has never really recovered from the bloat of being a Crown corporation, and is basically getting its butt kicked across the board by Westjet, Porter, and other airlines that people actually enjoy flying. And they're certainly not the first airline of choice for people flying internationally. I suspect that the fact that they're a crappily run company, more than anything, is why they're suffering.
Oh great, so because they are a crappily run company a little piling on by the government shouldn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
As I said, it isn't. Though for what it's worth, Dion says that the claim will be subject to review by the auditor general, who will ensure that it ends up that way.
Call me skeptical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
This is to some degree about it being revenue neutral, since not all the cuts are to personal income tax. They're also for corporate tax. Also, that R&D is unlikely to be internally generated. Companies will sprout up to find those efficiencies, and they will land work from corporations who need them. Those startups will then have the opportunity to transfer that technology to other companies and countries.

When it comes to reductions, yes, it does make sense to switch to e.g. wind power from coal-fired electricity. But guess who runs wind power plants? Big business. Often the same companies, in fact. We're not likely to reduce a ton; more likely we will see replacement. Again, a shift.
I think you're dreaming if you picture this policy as a spurn to green innovation company's popping up.

I get it that it is a bit dubious to expect these companies to do all the efficiency research on their own without there being a pressure point. The thing is, there is a lot of research going on and forcing them to recoup lost profits isn't going to force them to do more, particularily when they aren't even being given a target to meet. Dion's plans is a tax on each and every ton of emmissions for the lif eof the tax and on top of that he is proposing that the tax will be incrimental as the years go by. How does that create incentive other than an incentive to pull up stakes? Now if the government is about doing what's both best for the people and the environment they shoudl collect the tax and either put it to their own research, fund independant research or give it back to the companies paying it under supervision that it is being used for their own research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
Pandering means trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator at the expense of sound economic policy. A better example of this would be the GST cut, which was near-universally panned by economists as a cheap populist gimmick that is nowhere near as effective an economic stimulus as income tax cuts.
Yeah , the "well you made a bad decision so it's ok for me to make one too" argument is a good one isn't it?

Pandering also means "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses" which in politics means kissing the collective ***** of the voters who don't know better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
I didn't say it's a bad idea. It's a good idea badly executed.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 03:00 PM
  #210
The Moose
Registered User
 
The Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
How do you figure that a slowdown would only be based on a reduction in domestic consumption? It doesn't make sense.

Wether we like it or not big business is about profits and a $40 per tonne tax will cut into that profit. So the question for the Oil companies then becomes "is there a cheaper source available?".
You really should put the numbers in perspective. Currently it takes 75kg of CO2 emission to produce 1 barrel of oil from the oil sands. At the peak price of $40/tonne (which is going to be in 4 years) that means $3 per barrel. At the initial cost of $10/tonne (for the first year) that means $.75/barrel. Today alone the price of oil fluctuated by more than $3 on the market. Do you honestly think this is reason enough for them to pack up and leave? Where exactly will the oil companies find that elusive cheap oil?

Incidentally, the new royalty structure cuts a far bigger chunk in oil companies profits than the proposed carbon tax does. I didn't hear many people making comparisons with 1981 when that happened. Surely, the oil companies threatened doom and gloom, but, for the most part, is business as usual in the oil sands. With or without carbon tax that's how is going to be moving forward.

The Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 03:23 PM
  #211
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
You really should put the numbers in perspective. Currently it takes 75kg of CO2 emission to produce 1 barrel of oil from the oil sands. At the peak price of $40/tonne (which is going to be in 4 years) that means $3 per barrel. At the initial cost of $10/tonne (for the first year) that means $.75/barrel. Today alone the price of oil fluctuated by more than $3 on the market. Do you honestly think this is reason enough for them to pack up and leave? Where exactly will the oil companies find that elusive cheap oil?
Actually there is wording in there that indicates it does not cap at $40/tonne. There is mention of a "gradual rise into the future".

Second, yes, let's put some numbers in perspective. Using the $3 dollars per barrel as a basis in 2012 and considering the Oil sands were expecting to be producing 3 million barrels a day at that time, this ends up being a hit north of 3 Billion dollars a year for oil companies. I guess you're right, they probably won't even notice.

At todays production it is well north of a billion dollars, which really amounts to chump change I guess.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 03:27 PM
  #212
callighenfan
H.O.N.P.E.D.
 
callighenfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
How do you figure that a slowdown would only be based on a reduction in domestic consumption?
I don't, but the discussion was limited to the effects of a domestic carbon tax.

Quote:
I don't know how you can so comfortably sit there and say "don't worry,besides an economic slowdown wouldn't be a bad thing" when this very scenario has already been played out with disasterous consequences. The last time such a blantant money grab was tried there wasn't a slow down, overnight oil rigs were lined up on Highway 2 waiting to get outta dodge and the spin off was off the wall devestating.
The NEP was a stupid policy, and I'm no fan of Trudeau. But I really wish we Albertans wouldn't constantly bring it up as though it were the Alamo. The early 1980s downturn was going to happen anyway—global crude prices began a long and steep decline before the policy came into force. The NEP just exacerbated it. The policy's particular stupidity included its spectacularly awful timing.

In this era, though, as we get closer to exhausting accessible crude supplies worldwide, and as demand from China and India increases, prices are likely to remain high even given conservation measures.

Quote:
No offence but it seems to me that you are looking at this ass backwards. This isn't about what's best for Joe Citizen this is about gauranteeing tax revenue by targeting essentials.
None taken. The idea behind the income tax cuts is that Joe Citizen can then use that money for whatever necessities or luxuries he wants. The more he conserves, the more free cash he has. Unfortunately I just don't trust that the tax cuts will be as effective as the Liberals claim.

Quote:
Oh great, so because they are a crappily run company a little piling on by the government shouldn't matter.
Air Canada isn't being treated unfairly under this plan. They're competing largely with Westjet and Porter, who would pay the exact same taxes. Ditto international airlines who are refuelling in Canada (and many of whom are facing the same sorts of policies at home).

Quote:
I think you're dreaming if you picture this policy as a spurn to green innovation company's popping up.
I think it's more a likely effect than a reason for doing it. The reason for doing it is limited to sparking demand and letting the market do what it will from there.

Quote:
How does that create incentive other than an incentive to pull up stakes?
For the biggest polluters, the energy generators, that's impossible. For the others, if the corporate tax levelling is effective, it shouldn't matter, just as with individuals; you try to conserve in environmentally damaging areas, and your reward is more free capital. Again though, unless the policy is well crafted, it might not work out that way.

Quote:
Pandering also means "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses" which in politics means kissing the collective ***** of the voters who don't know better.
Personally, I think the Conservatives could be more fairly accused of that on this issue than the Liberals. Even Paul Wells, who isn't a fan of the policy, seems to agree, mocking the PCs' fearmongering by calling the carbon tax the "PermanentTaxOnEverything."


Last edited by callighenfan: 06-20-2008 at 04:26 PM.
callighenfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 03:54 PM
  #213
The Moose
Registered User
 
The Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Actually there is wording in there that indicates it does not cap at $40/tonne. There is mention of a "gradual rise into the future".

Second, yes, let's put some numbers in perspective. Using the $3 dollars per barrel as a basis in 2012 and considering the Oil sands were expecting to be producing 3 million barrels a day at that time, this ends up being a hit north of 3 Billion dollars a year for oil companies. I guess you're right, they probably won't even notice.

At todays production it is well north of a billion dollars, which really amounts to chump change I guess.
It is not chump change but among Suncor, Encana, etc... 3 bil it is not a deal breaker either, not by a long shot. Oil sands development starts to be profitable from around $30/barrel. Do you think the Oil companies will base their future development decisions on a $3 increase? Not only that, but the GHG per barrel decreased since the 90s, it is not unreasonable to expect further improvements. If anything, the oil prices due to external reason (world demand, opec production ) have a far greater effect on oil companies bottom line. Again, they pay more on the new royalties structure. How come they didn't pack up and left? Were you making 1981 comparison a few months back? I am not commenting whether the Dion's proposed tax is good or bad, I just find your scare tactics disingenuous.

The Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 04:28 PM
  #214
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
You know...the real issue here is will this work and will it make any signficant difference in global warming.

If GHG producers can pass along the carbon tax to consumers, which they can, where is the real incentive to reduce emissions?

If, has been stated, the tax adds about $3.00 to a barrel of synthetic crude do you believe the oil is not marketable? Or will it just be absorbed as a cost of doing business?

Sure there will be some incentive to try and recapture that $3.00 but when oil reaches $200 barrel, that tax is a trifle. And, since, corporate tax rates would be reduced as well, the incentive is even less.

It took until page 16 of the report to find out what the Liberal goals are:

"Canadians know Canada won’t meet its obligations under the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol is an ongoing international effort, and we must build momentum now in order to close that gap in the next phase of the agreement, after 2012. We believe that our target should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This should be increased to at least 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable efforts. This is in line with what the science tells us we need to do. We must achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and we must begin today. Canada cannot solve climate change on its own. Until we take serious action to reduce our own emissions, we will have little credibility on the global stage to ensure other countries are doing their part.”

How exactly, does this tax accomplish a reduction in green house gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels in 12 years? I don't see it.

Given that oil sands output is expected to triple over roughly the same time frame, what kind of magic bullet would be required to meet that target?


Last edited by dashingsilverfox*: 06-20-2008 at 04:34 PM.
dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 05:28 PM
  #215
callighenfan
H.O.N.P.E.D.
 
callighenfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
How exactly, does this tax accomplish a reduction in green house gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels in 12 years? I don't see it.

Given that oil sands output is expected to triple over roughly the same time frame, what kind of magic bullet would be required to meet that target?
First off, kudos for actually reading the policy proposal. Second, I don't think anyone's suggesting there is a magic bullet. These sorts of things tend to come in a tide—think of the way the Internet and the attendant tech economy boomed in the '90s after a few small, but key steps. A few things come into force, then a few things more, then next thing you know we're arguing environmental policy from across the country on a web board.

callighenfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2008, 05:38 PM
  #216
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by callighenfan View Post
First off, kudos for actually reading the policy proposal. Second, I don't think anyone's suggesting there is a magic bullet. These sorts of things tend to come in a tide—think of the way the Internet and the attendant tech economy boomed in the '90s after a few small, but key steps. A few things come into force, then a few things more, then next thing you know we're arguing environmental policy from across the country on a web board.
You are nothing if not an optimist. Until this very moment I was unaware that Moore's Law applied to GHG emissions.

I just don't see enough of a road map here to see how even a wide eyed Pollyanna could follow it to achieve those targets.

I welcome effective, measurable actions on climate change but this still strikes me as a shell game aimed at vote getting. Otherwise, there would be massive investment in new technology with the proceeds of the carbon tax. It just isn't there.

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.