U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

Commodity Marketing

Tools

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

Nov 4, 2017 | 08:37 1 U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html
By LISA FRIEDMAN and GLENN THRUSHNOV. 3, 2017

WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”

While there were pockets of resistance to the report in the Trump administration, according to climate scientists involved in drafting the report, there was little appetite for a knockdown fight over climate change among Mr. Trump’s top advisers, who are intensely focused on passing a tax reform bill — an effort they think could determine the fate of his presidency.

The climate science report is part of a congressionally mandated review conducted every four years known as the National Climate Assessment. The product of hundreds of experts within the government and academia and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is considered the United States’ most definitive statement on climate change science.

The White House put out a statement Friday that seemed to undercut the high level of confidence of the report’s findings.

“The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.

Despite the scientific consensus presented in the report, the Environmental Protection Agency has scrubbed references to climate change from its website and barred its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the subject.

The E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to warming. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asserted Wednesday that “the science is out” on whether humans cause climate change.
“It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states.
Their agencies referred questions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversaw the research.

The report has provoked consternation in scientific circles for months. Though the study has been in the works since 2015, several scientists said the election of Mr. Trump, who has labeled climate change a “canard” and appointed cabinet members who disputed the scientific consensus, caused them to worry the report would be blocked or buried.

That did not happen. Scientists who worked on the report said none of the 13 agencies that reviewed it tried to undermine its findings or change its wording.

“I’m quite confident to say there has been no political interference on the message,” said David Fahey, a NOAA scientist and a lead author of the report. “Whatever fears we had weren’t realized.”

Responsibility for approving the report fell to Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, who generally believes in the validity of climate science and thought the issue would have been a distraction from the tax push, according to an administration official with knowledge of the situation.

One of Mr. Cohn’s top policy deputies, Michael Catanzaro, had the authority to block, delay or change the report. But Mr. Catanzaro, a former energy adviser to President George W. Bush and former Speaker John A. Boehner, chose instead to follow the lead of the Obama administration by referring the report back to more than a dozen federal agencies for feedback.

That review, according to two people familiar with the process, went relatively smoothly, surprising some scientists who worked on the report who had expected more resistance.

The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the report’s authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.

Mr. Trump was barely aware of the report’s existence, several White House officials said.

Some critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from the Obama administration and chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published.

“I’m saddened that they have decided they will let the permanent government, the civil servants, continue down this road without supervision,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group.

“This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn’t just a theory, it’s reality,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. “Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That’s the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report.”

The report says the Earth has set temperature highs for three years running, and six of the last 17 years are the warmest years on record for the globe. Weather catastrophes from floods to hurricanes to heat waves have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980, and the report warns that such phenomena may become common.

“The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases,” the report notes. “Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world.”

In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.

“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

The findings, other researchers said, create an unusual situation in which the government’s policies are in direct opposition to the science it is producing.

“This profoundly affects our ability to be leaders in developing new technologies and understanding how to build successful communities and businesses in the 21st century,” said Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “Choosing to be dumb about our relationship with the natural world is choosing to be behind the eight ball.”

Follow @NYTClimate on Twitter Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017 | 08:59 2 Yawn. Nothing but fake news let's move along. Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017 | 11:36 3 Trump is off to asia for a few weeks.
North Korea will likely be the topic we are all watching now. Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017 | 11:40 4
Quote Originally Posted by sofa.king View Post
Yawn. Nothing but fake news let's move along.
Yes the world will move on without the small minority of people who don't believe in science or human caused climate change. Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017 | 13:24 5 Humans behind science change their minds, some even data points, all the time. I'm waiting for the next change in explanation because personally, and that is all that counts (Trumpian), I like the prospects of my location right up to when the next ice age kicks in.

You worry too much, cc. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 13:22 6
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Yes the world will move on without the small minority of people who don't believe in science or human caused climate change.
I am not going to debate climate change with you Chuck2 as I am niether a scientist or a politician(apparently the 2 most important qualifications). But I am curious how high you think government imposed carbon taxes will go and how they will affect farming?

In Alberta we have a $20 per tonne tax at present. This adds 4.49 cents per litre of gas, 5.35 cents per litre of diesel and $1.011 per GJ of natural gas. Not a huge increase but an additional cost our closest competitors don't have just the same. As mandated by the federal Liberal's this will increase to $50 tonne by 2022. This will add 11.23 cents to a litre of gas, 13.38 cents to a litre of diesel and $ 2.53 per GJ of natural gas. These additional costs will become significant. There are many aspects of agriculture that will see increased costs due to this tax. Concrete and fertilizer both require natural gas to produce. Will this eliminate these products being manufactured in Canada? Will we become dependant on imports? A significant amount of concrete powder is already imported from countries like China. We are already seeing flight of foreign investment in oil and natural gas due to our inability to build marketing infrastructure in Canada.

The next question is this, the federal Liberal's have already said that to see a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption we would need a carbon tax closer to $200 a tonne. Chuck, are you ready to consume only imported food as it will become to expensive in Canada to produce? We only produce 1.6% of the C02 produced worldwide, are you in favour of eliminating many Canadian jobs to realistically have no effect on the environment? Can you respond without your wordy cut and pastes that I very rarely read? Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 13:39 7 As well we farmers in western Canada face the highest transport costs to ocean freight already in the world . Add carbon tax to already extreme cost of our farm business. All for nothing at the end of the day . Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 16:38 8
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
I am not going to debate climate change with you Chuck2 as I am niether a scientist or a politician(apparently the 2 most important qualifications). But I am curious how high you think government imposed carbon taxes will go and how they will affect farming?

In Alberta we have a $20 per tonne tax at present. This adds 4.49 cents per litre of gas, 5.35 cents per litre of diesel and $1.011 per GJ of natural gas. Not a huge increase but an additional cost our closest competitors don't have just the same. As mandated by the federal Liberal's this will increase to $50 tonne by 2022. This will add 11.23 cents to a litre of gas, 13.38 cents to a litre of diesel and $ 2.53 per GJ of natural gas. These additional costs will become significant. There are many aspects of agriculture that will see increased costs due to this tax. Concrete and fertilizer both require natural gas to produce. Will this eliminate these products being manufactured in Canada? Will we become dependant on imports? A significant amount of concrete powder is already imported from countries like China. We are already seeing flight of foreign investment in oil and natural gas due to our inability to build marketing infrastructure in Canada.

The next question is this, the federal Liberal's have already said that to see a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption we would need a carbon tax closer to $200 a tonne. Chuck, are you ready to consume only imported food as it will become to expensive in Canada to produce? We only produce 1.6% of the C02 produced worldwide, are you in favour of eliminating many Canadian jobs to realistically have no effect on the environment? Can you respond without your wordy cut and pastes that I very rarely read?
Excellent post Hamloc. I too would like to hear the answers however the Silence is speaking volumes Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 16:47 9 Taxes by the useless Liberals will increase till farmers in Canada are Third world farmers with a Hoe and rake and starving.
Taxing bullshit is wrong and JT knows that but he doesn't care its about votes.

When Canada is in the tank from the Useless Trudeau he will be living it up on the Kahns island or somewhere else.

Useless bullshit not science. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 17:22 10
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
I am not going to debate climate change with you Chuck2 as I am niether a scientist or a politician(apparently the 2 most important qualifications). But I am curious how high you think government imposed carbon taxes will go and how they will affect farming?

In Alberta we have a $20 per tonne tax at present. This adds 4.49 cents per litre of gas, 5.35 cents per litre of diesel and $1.011 per GJ of natural gas. Not a huge increase but an additional cost our closest competitors don't have just the same. As mandated by the federal Liberal's this will increase to $50 tonne by 2022. This will add 11.23 cents to a litre of gas, 13.38 cents to a litre of diesel and $ 2.53 per GJ of natural gas. These additional costs will become significant. There are many aspects of agriculture that will see increased costs due to this tax. Concrete and fertilizer both require natural gas to produce. Will this eliminate these products being manufactured in Canada? Will we become dependant on imports? A significant amount of concrete powder is already imported from countries like China. We are already seeing flight of foreign investment in oil and natural gas due to our inability to build marketing infrastructure in Canada.

The next question is this, the federal Liberal's have already said that to see a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption we would need a carbon tax closer to $200 a tonne. Chuck, are you ready to consume only imported food as it will become to expensive in Canada to produce? We only produce 1.6% of the C02 produced worldwide, are you in favour of eliminating many Canadian jobs to realistically have no effect on the environment? Can you respond without your wordy cut and pastes that I very rarely read?


Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage. Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 17:33 11 Unless the "climate" and "world Temp" get COLDER real fast...this bullshit will KILL Canadian industry including ALL OF US. Hoping/wishing/praying it is a LONG COLD WINTER to shut the F*ckers up! Let's make the hockey stick break downward!
Everyone STOP CO2 emissions right now... no engines, no home heating, no exhaling, and for heaven's sake NO FARTING! Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 17:59 12 Yea chick your a typical liberal all will change and help the climate. Sprinkle fairy dust now.

Farmers will be exempt ha ha ha hahahahahah maybe day one but day three they hit us.

Industry will change and pass it on to us farmers who will pay way more, Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 18:07 13
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.


Go copy and paste an article explaining the Haber-Bosch process will ya?

All costs - from fert and chem production - to freight of our grain to Port will increase. Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 18:58 14 Not in chucks world it's all fairy dust sprinkles and magic all will change and not cost farmers a dime. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 20:24 15
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.
Where do I start Chuck2. First, farm fuel exemption from carbon tax. Yes you are correct, at present marked fuel is carbon tax exempt. Natural gas is not exempt, shop heat and drying grain are certainly users of natural gas. Our NDP government is planning on switching electrical generation over to natural gas, I have to assume this will apply. As for diesel, at $100 a tonne carbon tax this will amount to 26.75 cents per litre. Hard to believe we will still be exempt at this level of tax and I believe this will also make us a political target of the enviros. As for retail gas prices I believe in Alberta this weekend they were $1.27 a litre but oil is only $54 a barrel, someone is milking the system. The last price I heard this week in Montana was $2.55 a U.S. Gallon, converted to a litre in CAD that is 88 cents a litre, explain the differential.

Probably your biggest failing is your inability to see all the upcoming implications. Do you really believe that nitrogen emissions will not become a target of environmentalists. I recently read that Bill Gates et al have invested $300 million in research into growing meat in the lab. Grassfarmer this applies to both you and me, the end of farms raising beef, too much methane. As for lost jobs you didn't address the potential end of domestic fertilizer and cement powder production. Nor did you speculate on how high carbon taxes will go. In my opinion $100 a tonne by 2030 and that is best case scenario could be higher. I have no problem matching an U.S. carbon tax but at present there isn't one. Sorry Chuck have to quit the more I write the more pissed off I get. Look forward to your response. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 21:48 16
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
Where do I start Chuck2. First, farm fuel exemption from carbon tax. Yes you are correct, at present marked fuel is carbon tax exempt. Natural gas is not exempt, shop heat and drying grain are certainly users of natural gas. Our NDP government is planning on switching electrical generation over to natural gas, I have to assume this will apply. As for diesel, at $100 a tonne carbon tax this will amount to 26.75 cents per litre. Hard to believe we will still be exempt at this level of tax and I believe this will also make us a political target of the enviros. As for retail gas prices I believe in Alberta this weekend they were $1.27 a litre but oil is only $54 a barrel, someone is milking the system. The last price I heard this week in Montana was $2.55 a U.S. Gallon, converted to a litre in CAD that is 88 cents a litre, explain the differential.

Probably your biggest failing is your inability to see all the upcoming implications. Do you really believe that nitrogen emissions will not become a target of environmentalists. I recently read that Bill Gates et al have invested $300 million in research into growing meat in the lab. Grassfarmer this applies to both you and me, the end of farms raising beef, too much methane. As for lost jobs you didn't address the potential end of domestic fertilizer and cement powder production. Nor did you speculate on how high carbon taxes will go. In my opinion $100 a tonne by 2030 and that is best case scenario could be higher. I have no problem matching an U.S. carbon tax but at present there isn't one. Sorry Chuck have to quit the more I write the more pissed off I get. Look forward to your response.
But if the price of oil hits $100 plus per barrel or higher and drives up the price of everything causing hardship and lost jobs in many parts of Canada that's okay? Taxes can be used to pay for services in Canada. Excess oil profits leave the country through multinationals. Many of these companies receive subsidies and low royalty rates costing Canadians millions in lost revenue that belongs in Canada. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 22:02 17 It is kind of pointless to have this discussion about a carbon tax with people who don't believe in the science of human caused climate change and therefore are in complete denial about the costs and risks.

The interesting thing is this recent report was released while Trump is in power with little resistance. US agencies who are funded by the US government confirming human caused climate change! It becomes harder and harder to deny. And in reality the deniers are having little impact. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 22:57 18 Some like to initiate winless arguments with the wrong crowd. Serves a personal need I guess.
Can we seperate the science from the policy? Righteous expounding reminiscent of the cwb wars ( of which the same culprits keep it going) serves only to ingrain resistance.
I'm not comfortable being reminded constantly that because I'm not qualifed, and very likely, nearly retarded, that I should just shut up. Goaded perhaps?
Lets all just drop the science for a moment. Can we then all agree the Wests' policies for change are sensible? Are they the best we can do? Feasable? Productive? Sustainable? Would you have the designers of all these policies run your business?? Because its the same thing.
We cant 'engineer' an Africa that can feed itself. We cant fathom Chinese culture. And yet we're going to lead the way. Using methods that have never worked in the past.
If enough people think the war on carbon is righteous then so it becomes. Once at proper war all interests focus on one goal.
But really, right now? Far too many are looking at the cash. What can we buy with all this new income? With no idea how to generate new. Or sustain the payers. Its magic. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 23:27 19
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
But if the price of oil hits $100 plus per barrel or higher and drives up the price of everything causing hardship and lost jobs in many parts of Canada that's okay? Taxes can be used to pay for services in Canada. Excess oil profits leave the country through multinationals. Many of these companies receive subsidies and low royalty rates costing Canadians millions in lost revenue that belongs in Canada.
Instead of specifically answering any of my questions your basic response was $100 oil is bad and taxes are good.

I will make my question very simple: Chuck2 if Canada reduces it's yearly C02 output from 722 mega tonnes where it is today to 500 mega tonnes by 2030 as promised by our federal government will there be a measurable change to the earth's average temperature? Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 01:22 20
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
It is kind of pointless to have this discussion about a carbon tax with people who don't believe in the science of human caused climate change and therefore are in complete denial about the costs and risks.
Then why do you keep trying to convince all of us red neck, uneducated, neanderthal, knuckle dragging, backwards hillbilly hicks that we need to pay taxes to save the planet? Why lower yourself to our level when it is obviously pointless? Why would you spend so much time trying to convert people who are obviously so intellectually inferior to yourself that we cannot even begin to comprehend your cut and paste articles. Yet you keep coming back to every AGW thread with more cut and paste responses to questions which were never asked.

And science isn't something that is to be "believed in", science is based on evidence, religion is based on beliefs. I think you know where I am going with this. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 01:43 21
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post

You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
That increased cost was born by all producers around the world, therefore, we were no less competitive with them. As opposed to a tax which is only paid by producers in this country. The prices of all commodities adjusted to reflect the additional cost of production due to high energy prices. The world commodity prices will not adjust to reflect the fact that Canadian, and only Canadian farmers are paying additional taxes. The trouble with all socialists, is that their world exists in complete isolation to the rest of the world. All of these grand socialist/redistributionist concepts work great on paper when you ignore that the rest of the world exists. In reality, when you increase taxes in one jurisdiction, capital goes elsewhere, when you make producers less competitive, they will lose out to those without that burden.

Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?
Have you seen the efficiency(or lack thereof) of government created jobs? Usually equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars per job supposedly created, all that capital came out of the productive economy to support the bureaucratic pseudo-economy. It is not a never a net neutral when redistributing wealth, it costs a lot in administration. If I had nothing better to do, I would find some articles about the horrendous cost of government created jobs and cut and paste them here for your perusal.

Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?
And how do those jobs result in an exportable commodity which brings capital into the economy which we can use to pay the taxes? Renovating our own homes does not contribute to improving our balance of trade, quite the opposite. But that is typical socialist thinking, who needs the productive portion of the economy, we can all just borrow money to remodel each other's kitchens and the economy will be booming. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 08:26 22
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
Instead of specifically answering any of my questions your basic response was $100 oil is bad and taxes are good.

I will make my question very simple: Chuck2 if Canada reduces it's yearly C02 output from 722 mega tonnes where it is today to 500 mega tonnes by 2030 as promised by our federal government will there be a measurable change to the earth's average temperature?
In what time period? By 2030, no measurable change. There is a long lag in the time between cutting greenhouse gases and the reduction in global temperature increases or temperature declines. You and i will be long gone before this process reverses.

This can only be done in cooperation with other countries who also cut their C02 emissions. The only holdouts to the Paris agreement are the USA, Iraq and maybe Nicaragua.

So even if Canada is a small national contributor, our per capita emissions are some of the highest in the world.

Just because we are a small national contributor, that is not an excuse to do nothing when almost every country is is working on the same goal. Even in the USA many cities, states are going ahead with their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of them are led by Republicans who disagree with their President. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 08:44 23
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
That increased cost was born by all producers around the world, therefore, we were no less competitive with them. As opposed to a tax which is only paid by producers in this country. The prices of all commodities adjusted to reflect the additional cost of production due to high energy prices. The world commodity prices will not adjust to reflect the fact that Canadian, and only Canadian farmers are paying additional taxes. The trouble with all socialists, is that their world exists in complete isolation to the rest of the world. All of these grand socialist/redistributionist concepts work great on paper when you ignore that the rest of the world exists. In reality, when you increase taxes in one jurisdiction, capital goes elsewhere, when you make producers less competitive, they will lose out to those without that burden.



Have you seen the efficiency(or lack thereof) of government created jobs? Usually equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars per job supposedly created, all that capital came out of the productive economy to support the bureaucratic pseudo-economy. It is not a never a net neutral when redistributing wealth, it costs a lot in administration. If I had nothing better to do, I would find some articles about the horrendous cost of government created jobs and cut and paste them here for your perusal.



And how do those jobs result in an exportable commodity which brings capital into the economy which we can use to pay the taxes? Renovating our own homes does not contribute to improving our balance of trade, quite the opposite. But that is typical socialist thinking, who needs the productive portion of the economy, we can all just borrow money to remodel each other's kitchens and the economy will be booming.
There are several advantages disadvantages in every industry depending on what country you live in. Energy price is only one out of many.

Since most of the provincial budgets go to education and healthcare I think it is pretty difficult to argue that these are inefficient unnecessary jobs.

How is it that capturing the suns energy and turning it into electricity not producing a useful commodity that adds value to an economy? Just one example.

Somehow you imagine a world with less carbon emissions not still producing goods and services which is completely out to lunch. We will still need commodities, materials, energy all of which create wealth.

This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done.

A bigger issue for jobs will likely be automation. It has already reduced a lot of jobs. Some are predicting 40% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years or something like that.

Under Conservative governments we still see wealth distribution and social programs like health care, education, pensions, Old age security, guaranteed income supplements, welfare, EI, subsidies to businesses, royalty and tax cuts, agriInvest, and the list goes on and on.

How can you support those programs if you are so against wealth redistribution? Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 09:05 24 So what is the purpose of immigrants? We don't need more farmers, miners, woodcutters all of whom create wealth. Increased population requires more housing, more infrastructure, more administration, more EI, more service economy.
I realize that a lot of the people at the top make money out of that, but guess who pays. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 10:44 25
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
There are several advantages disadvantages in every industry depending on what country you live in. Energy price is only one out of many.

Since most of the provincial budgets go to education and healthcare I think it is pretty difficult to argue that these are inefficient unnecessary jobs.

How is it that capturing the suns energy and turning it into electricity not producing a useful commodity that adds value to an economy? Just one example.

Somehow you imagine a world with less carbon emissions not still producing goods and services which is completely out to lunch. We will still need commodities, materials, energy all of which create wealth.

This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done.

A bigger issue for jobs will likely be automation. It has already reduced a lot of jobs. Some are predicting 40% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years or something like that.

Under Conservative governments we still see wealth distribution and social programs like health care, education, pensions, Old age security, guaranteed income supplements, welfare, EI, subsidies to businesses, royalty and tax cuts, agriInvest, and the list goes on and on.

How can you support those programs if you are so against wealth redistribution?
I doubt you are a fan of Zerohedge, but here is their take on job creation cost:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-30/average-job-creation-cost-2013-553000

That is $553,000 per job. That is an excellent ROI compared to leaving that capital in the hands of entrepreneurs to create jobs at their actual cost. I'm obviously not referring to the services we expect government to provide, I'm referring to schemes with the sole intention of job creation, such as the current green energy myth.

I don''t have to imagine a world with less carbon emissions where we are still producing commodities, we won't be we will be importing them. The rest of the world without the burden of carbon taxes will continue producing commodities at below our COP, while our producers have been driven out of business by this punitive wealth redistribution, Then we get to figure out how to pay for importing these commodities without any productive economy left. We are not isolated from the rest of the world.

Tax cuts aren't wealth redistribution, it is a reduction in redistribution, but of course when you view all income as belonging to the government, who decides what small portion we should be allowed to keep, that is the logical conclusion.

One of these green adherents was interviewed on CBC one day, and she pronounced, very proudly that for every job lost in the fossil fuels industry, three would be created in the renewables industry. Now I may not be smart enough to do such complicated math, but the only conclusion I can draw is that the energy costs must also increase by 700% to pay for those additional jobs, unless of course they work for 1/7th the cost of an energy industry worker. Yet in her mind, this was a positive for her industry, not a detriment. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 12:02 26 No doubt there are going to be issues and challenges.

But if you remember when our dollar was so high because of high oil prices, manufacturing jobs were lost that will never return because Mexico, China, India all have a competitive advantages. How are you going to change that?

All this doom and gloom about the economy is often overstated and political in nature as it is used as an argument against change.

Yep we know the oil industry is worried so are the workers whose jobs are threatened by low commodity prices, automation, and changing consumer demand.

Continued growth based on non-renewable energy was never an option because sooner or later it was going to run out anyway. Now we have climate change which also has severe costs that need to be accounted for.

So you dont like a carbon tax? Are you prepared to pay the taxes necessary to fix the problems caused by climate change?

Neither you are I are qualified enough, have enough inforamtion or have enough time to go over the details. So lets just agree to disagree and move on. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 12:09 27
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
No doubt there are going to be issues and challenges.

But if you remember when our dollar was so high because of high oil prices, manufacturing jobs were lost that will never return because Mexico, China, India all have a competitive advantages. How are you going to change that?

All this doom and gloom about the economy is often overstated and political in nature as it is used as an argument against change.

Yep we know the oil industry is worried so are the workers whose jobs are threatened by low commodity prices, automation, and changing consumer demand.

Continued growth based on non-renewable energy was never an option because sooner or later it was going to run out anyway. Now we have climate change which also has severe costs that need to be accounted for.

So you dont like a carbon tax? Are you prepared to pay the taxes necessary to fix the problems caused by climate change?

Neither you are I are qualified enough, have enough inforamtion or have enough time to go over the details. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.
Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 12:33 28
Quote Originally Posted by Sharecropper View Post
Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.
Exactly, the entire scheme is based on the fallacy of catastrophic global warming. Keyword being catastrophic. Therefore all research is proving that global warming will be negative no one is looking at the positives. A recent quirks and quarks episode showed that life will grow bigger and faster in Antarctica with temperature rise. Then proceeded to decide that increased life must be a bad thing not a good thing. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 12:35 29
Quote Originally Posted by Sharecropper View Post
Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.
Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/ Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 6, 2017 | 13:58 30
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/
You mean like 50 and 100 year droughts?


We've had those on the prairies before. Reply With Quote