Cold out

[chuckChuck]

What do you think Chuck? Will $27,000 per tonne of CO2 be enough to get that graph going the other direction? Or will people still be unwilling to go hungry while freezing in the dark?

A5 I see you hastily changed the subject.

So which climate scientists and their organizations are saying that we need more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere not less?

C'mon A5 here's your chance to prove me wrong that world needs more carbon emissions!

Which scientific organizations are "questioning" the need to cut greenhouse gases?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, for the sake of conversation let's pretend that you have a farm business.
The only place where you will actually see the carbon tax explicitly is on your natural gas bill. But it is built into every other bill you pay.
Energy intensive inputs such as your fertilizer already have a very large amount of CO2 tax built in at every step of the way.
The same with your farm fuel, every step from exploration up to refining and delivery to your farm energy intensive with a carbon tax paid which gets passed on to you.
Parts, chemicals, anything you have transported, anything you hire done, your passenger vehicle fuel, your grocery bill, the flight to the nfu conference, plus the hotel and the meals.
If you were to do an honest assessment, and add up all of the actual costs of the CO2 tax to your hypothetical business, you might be surprised.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 I see you hastily changed the subject.

So which climate scientists and their organizations are saying that we need more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere not less?

C'mon A5 here's your chance to prove me wrong that world needs more carbon emissions!

Which scientific organizations are "questioning" the need to cut greenhouse gases?

Sorry for trying to keep the thread on topic. We we can get distracted and go off on your tangent if you prefer.
Since you really seem to want to discuss this topic, perhaps you can start off by telling us what is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or the correct amount?
So far, life has survived at levels as low as 180 PPM and as high as 4000 PPM.
So given co2's role as both a ghg and it's necessity for photosynthesis, if you had control of the CO2 dial, where would you set it to get the most bang for your buck? Accepting that the law of diminishing returns applies in both cases. And that we have a limited supply available in fossil fuels so the sky is not the limit, we definitely need to ration.
That should be a good starting point for having an intelligent discussion on the topic.

[Hamloc]

In our case we paid about a days wages of $220 carbon tax for farm natural gas in 2021 and almost no carbon tax on our electricity because we have a solar system. And we received about $800 in a carbon tax rebate.

Our farm diesel is exempt from carbon taxes.

The federal government is providing more carbon tax relief for farmers.

So the government paid you a net of $580 to buy your vote. Explain to me how this inspires you to change what you are doing? Why would you spend $10000 on a high efficiency furnace to save $50-100 a year on a carbon tax when the government is going to pay you almost 4 times what you are spending( your figures) on the carbon tax?! Besides a new high efficiency furnace is projected to only last 8-10 years according to my plumber, would never recoup the tax!! If I was a smoker and you raised my taxes on each pack of smokes but you paid me back 4 times as much at the end of the year why would I quit smoking?! Whole program is ###king moronic in my opinion!

[Sheepwheat]

Chuck doesn’t dry grain. The extra hot sun does his drying for him, carbon tax free, while the rest of us somehow cover his “rebate” with a batch or two of oats.

He doesn’t use anything shipped around the country. He produces all he uses right there on his carpet, ahem, farm. He rides his horse to the post office to get his fake carbon tax rebate.

To support a carbon tax as a farmer, one has to be a new kind of crazy…

[Guest]

How anyone can make sense of a carbon tax on home heating fuel in this frozen country is beyond me
Rocks in their *** head instead of brains
It’s a *** LIBERAL TAX FFS

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Sorry for trying to keep the thread on topic. We we can get distracted and go off on your tangent if you prefer.
Since you really seem to want to discuss this topic, perhaps you can start off by telling us what is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or the correct amount?
So far, life has survived at levels as low as 180 PPM and as high as 4000 PPM.
So given co2's role as both a ghg and it's necessity for photosynthesis, if you had control of the CO2 dial, where would you set it to get the most bang for your buck? Accepting that the law of diminishing returns applies in both cases. And that we have a limited supply available in fossil fuels so the sky is not the limit, we definitely need to ration.
That should be a good starting point for having an intelligent discussion on the topic.

Just bumping this up. For some reason Chuck kept ranting and raving about this topic, yet when I responded, he went silent. Apparently he didn't actually want to have an intelligent discussion.

Or still doing his research.

[Guest]

Just bumping this up. For some reason Chuck kept ranting and raving about this topic, yet when I responded, he went silent. Apparently he didn't actually want to have an intelligent discussion.

Or still doing his research.

Staff typing away

[chuckChuck]

Just bumping this up. For some reason Chuck kept ranting and raving about this topic, yet when I responded, he went silent. Apparently he didn't actually want to have an intelligent discussion.

Or still doing his research.

What is the ideal level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for human life?

From the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-human-life


May 18, 2021

According to NASA, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere was about 416 parts per million (ppm) in April 2021.1 This level has been rising for 200 years—a worrying sign for the planet, since CO2 is a powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Climate experts warn that humanity must drastically lower its CO2 emissions to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. But if we could choose a different level of CO2 in the air, what number would we pick?

The first thing to know is that our species arose in a world with much less CO2, says Noelle Selin, Associate Professor in the MIT Institute for Data, Systems and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. As humanity evolved over the past several hundred thousand years, atmospheric CO2 cycled between about 200 and 300 ppm. The preindustrial level of CO2—the amount in the air a few centuries ago, before humans began to burn CO2-producing fuels like coal and oil at an industrial scale—was about 280 ppm. Selin says a good argument could be made that 280 is the ideal level of CO2 for human life, since it creates temperature ranges that are comfortable for the human body and allowed civilization to grow. “The changes that we've seen since then just haven't happened on the timescale that you could evolve changes in humans.”

Another good argument could be made for trying to stabilize CO2 parts per million in the low 300s, Selin says. Consider our cities and infrastructure: Much of the built world we live in arose during the “great acceleration,” a period beginning around 1950 when economic development sped up dramatically around the world. At this time, CO2 levels were just rising above 300 ppm, and the first effects of climate change could barely be seen. Societies built things like city flood defenses based on 20th-century assumptions about how high and how common floods would be. As a result, those defenses may be ill-equipped for today’s world, when higher CO2 levels lead to rising seas, stronger storms, and bigger floods.

The same could be said for our food system, which assumes that farmlands will get about 20th-century levels of rain and heat. Knowing this, Selin says, one could make the case that 20th-century levels of CO2 are ideal, and that humanity ought to aim for the atmospheric levels of a few decades ago, somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm.

Unfortunately, Selin says, we cannot simply go “backward” like this. While the planet has natural carbon “sinks” like oceans, forests, and soils that remove some CO2 from the atmosphere, that process is very slow. Researchers like MIT’s John Sterman have called this the “bathtub effect.” Think of a tub full of water with a painfully slow drain: Even if you turned off the faucet, it would take a long time for the water already in the tub to drain out. In the case of the atmosphere, this means that even if humanity immediately halted CO2 emissions, the extra carbon we’ve already put in the atmosphere would continue to change our climate as it slowly drains out—and that “drain” might take centuries or millennia to finish its work. Meanwhile, technology that removes CO2 from the air exists now in prototype form, but is a long way from the level of sophistication that could bring down the atmospheric level of CO2. “Climate change is essentially irreversible on human timescales,” Selin says.

What is clearly not ideal is the constantly rising level of CO2 we have today, which pushes the climate further away from the best conditions for us, our cities, and our societies. In 2016, a worldwide body of climate scientists2 said that a CO2 level of 430 ppm would push the world past its target for avoiding dangerous climate change. The sooner humankind dramatically cuts its CO2 emissions, the less we will have to adapt to a warmer climate.

[chuckChuck]

So A5 there is your answer from MIT for what is the ideal level of CO2.

Are you still going to tell us that it should be higher? Of course you know more than the scientists at MIT!

Now show us the scientific organizations and their reasoning that CO2 levels should be higher and that over 400 and rising is nothing to worry about.

We are waiting! Don't disappear or change the subject or call me a troll. Just provide the evidence.

Simple except we all know you don't have any evidence or can't produce any scientific organizations that says we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Give up!