Carbon drought ..

[chuckChuck]

"Carbon taxes raised can be used to lower income taxes and other taxes."

Chuck, What is the point of it then?

There is still an incentive to use less carbon and be more efficient because you get to keep the carbon savings in your pocket and still get the lower income taxes. If you use less carbon you will pay less tax overall.

The reality is carbon tax is only one tool and we will need several tools to reduce carbon emissions. Preston Manning has been supportive of a carbon tax over regulation.

[fjlip]

Way before dreaming up solutions people need to grasp the insignificance of Canada. Great quotes from Patrick Moore, all one needs is a brain and reasoning to see the silly solutions are garbage!

"When a Global Warming faithful can honestly prove that a 4th tax on gasoline with a rebate to 0.005% of world’s population is a legitimate climate action plan that will change the weather is when I will stop thinking it’s a cult.

Why I know Global Warming is a cult 1. Earth is 4,200,000,000 yrs old 2. I critically think 3. Language keeps changing 4. Hollywood hypocrites jumped on 5. Politicians see tax opportunities 6. They use children to sell 7. They use bullying not dialogue 8. Started at UN

I challenge anyone in the “climate crisis crowd” to: 1. Prove to me that the 1.1C global temperature over past 150 yrs. is harmful. I say it’s beneficial. 2. Prove human CO2 emissions are the cause of the 1.1C rise in global temperature over the past 150 yrs. I say it’s natural.

Earths temperature varies -100F to +150F= 250 degree range. Climate alarmists (worried about .8C change) ramping up cult are: -Taxing -scaring kids to death -using $T of GVT $ and resources away from needs of citizens Earth in 4.2B yrs temperature range was in 1000s F Madness

[Radical]

We know scientists lie for there own gain, we know the U.N. agenda is, we know scientists predictions the last hundred years were wrong, we know they set the monitors in wrong places up north to get there hits, how many studies over the years are wrong because the first question is how do u want the study to go. We seen what Gerald Butts did to Ontario, governments are failures, these are fact so why is there 4 pages of this.

[furrowtickler]

Amazing to see over 6000 views in less than 48 hrs lol

[Guest]

yes , the sheeple are waking up, coming out of their listless , self induced coma , as the blue tsunami sweeps across the country .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

No, and neither do you. So throwing those questions out proves your denials are religion dogma.

So I will ask you again, give me the name of just one recognized scientific body national or international that denies man is a factor in climate change.

No, I throw those questions out because I have researched the answers, and according to the IPCC and other science denying organizations who you support, after decades of research, they still don't know what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is. They offer a range of between 1.5 and 4.5 C per doubling of CO2(with some outliers being lower than that, or even higher), and have been unable to narrow that range down in all this time, with all the money spent. The high estimate is 3 times the low estimate, and all of them (so far), exceed the actual measured results. That is like taking all the available evidence in late August, and stating that the Canadian canola crop will be somewhere between 15 and 45 bushels to the acre, plus or minus another 10 bushels, and expecting to be taken seriously. So if the IPCC can not conclusively tell us how much warming there will be, how can all of the other adherents be so certain? That is not religious dogma on my part, that is called reviewing the available science.

There is lots of good research on what the ideal levels of CO2 for plant growth are.

For obvious political reasons, there are scant studies about the ideal temperature of the earth for maximum productivity, but they do exist.

As for what level CO2 becomes a pollutant, if you combine the results of the above two, and the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, therefore has very little effect at higher levels (as we are seeing in recent decades), you will find that CO2 will start to become net detrimental at around 10,000 ppm, but unfortunately( or fortunately, depending on your perspective), we don't have enough fossil fuels to ever reach that level.

So, you are right, no one knows what the sensitivity is, hardly anyone wants to do the work to establish the ideal temperature, since the results don't fit the agenda, and realistically, CO2 will never reach levels where it would be considered a pollutant, so that definition is purely academic.

[fjlip]

I just love this...believe me this time...PLEASE pay taxes to save EARTH!

[Hamloc]

There is still an incentive to use less carbon and be more efficient because you get to keep the carbon savings in your pocket and still get the lower income taxes. If you use less carbon you will pay less tax overall.

The reality is carbon tax is only one tool and we will need several tools to reduce carbon emissions. Preston Manning has been supportive of a carbon tax over regulation.

Chuck the reality is that the only jurisdiction in Canada that attempted to make the carbon tax revenue neutral was the BC Liberal government when it first brought in the carbon tax by lowering both personal and corporate taxes. By the end of their mandate the carbon tax were no longer revenue neutral. When the NDP came to power they raised both corporate and personal taxes and as of April 1 the carbon tax. They have eliminated the revenue neutrality. Trudeau's newly imposed carbon tax has nothing to do with corporate and personal tax. He is in theory rebating the carbon tax you pay and yes if you became more efficient depending on what you do you could benefit from it. But for those of us who live in the country this would be more difficult. I guess I could put in a wood fired heating system which would reduce the carbon taxes I pay on natural gas. Chuck2 you continue to spew useless platitudes not based in reality. Enjoy your day.

[furrowtickler]

There is still an incentive to use less carbon and be more efficient because you get to keep the carbon savings in your pocket and still get the lower income taxes. If you use less carbon you will pay less tax overall.

The reality is carbon tax is only one tool and we will need several tools to reduce carbon emissions. Preston Manning has been supportive of a carbon tax over regulation.

Soooo , trade of the tractor for horses ?
Most farms are already burning as little fuel as possible.
I just can’t see how as grain farmers we can reduce any more than most of us already have . Run everything at half throttle now ?

Did you upgrade to tier 4 engines yet on your own farm ? Cause practice what you preach . A lot of us have , and paid dearly to do it , and still do with costly downtime. Just doing our part to save the seals lol

[GALAXIE500]

Soooo , trade of the tractor for horses ?
Most farms are already burning as little fuel as possible.
I just can’t see how as grain farmers we can reduce any more than most of us already have . Run everything at half throttle now ?

Did you upgrade to tier 4 engines yet on your own farm ? Cause practice what you preach . A lot of us have , and paid dearly to do it , and still do with costly downtime. Just doing our part to save the seals lol

My 1977 Steiger St 250 , my Case IH 2394, my 2016 Kubota M108 (no def ) and my 1964 JD 4020 all seem to work really well without being tier 4 compliant. One more thing , they are PAID for !

[fjlip]

My 1977 Steiger St 250 , my Case IH 2394, my 2016 Kubota M108 (no def ) and my 1964 JD 4020 all seem to work really well without being tier 4 compliant. One more thing , they are PAID for !

But but we are destroying Mother Earth with such paid for OLD tech! They could TAX older engines! Oops hope they don't read this!