Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[exsemjingo]

I'm not sure some of you fully realize what Ignatieff is proposing.  Perhaps you are cynical enough to know that if he becomes leader of the Liberal party and gets elected, there is a good chance that he will back away from his proposal and not actually implement it, as the Liberals under Chretien and Martin did with the Kyoto accord.
That said, I have evaluated his proposal at face value, along with it's natural extentions (ex. implications for coal, though it is not mentioned directly.)  Such restrictive measures and harsh taxes can only be destructive, in addition to being ineffective.  Canada cannot affect global warming on it's own, and other countries would never dream of ham-stringing their economies so profoundly.  That is why I have not addressed that aspect.
A punitive carbon tax would discourage, and eventually squash, the energy sector and all the economy with it.  He has also suggested taking unprecedented central control of the economy.

Slowly and gradually, I believe we will phase out fossil fuels, and technological innovations will even reduce CO2 emissions.  This will be realized many years into the future, since we do have the resources to continue using and producing hydrocarbons at the present level.  Ignatieff has proposed nothing of the sort.  He has in mind quick, arbitrary changes brought about by draconian measures.
The only ways I could come to terms his proposal were that either: A) he does not understand industry, the environment, or the economy, or B) His intent really is to ruin things.

 

[big_johnson1]

We're never going to make everyone happy: it's not green enough for the hippies, it's too limiting for the rednecks, etc etc.. But even if Canada alone won't affect global warming, it's all about setting an example. Fixing this problem needs to start somewhere. Yes, a gradual phasing in of taxes and restrictions is a much better solution that coming down with the hammer suddenly and shutting off all CO2 sources. The biggest problem though is that the damage is done. CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere, and even if we stopped polluting completely today, we'd still feel the effects for a hundred years to come. I know this is largely political posturing in order to pull the green vote away from the Conservatives, and some of it hasn't been thought out properly and is only used for shock value. My payday analogy still stands: no one waits until they're out of money to use their discounts, just like we shouldn't shy away from moving towards renewable energy sources even though we still have ample supplies of hydrocarbons.

 

[begbie]

Feral,

I doesn't help matters when people refer to stereotypical names for people.  There's no need to call people hippies & rednecks.  It only forces people to retreat from the debate.

On another note, here is an article I found in the Ottawa Citizen spinning a different angle of his plan.

Shared IAW the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Ignatieff's green thumb
Publication: CIT - The Ottawa Citizen
Page: A12
Section: News
Edition: Final

Blowhards have dominated Canada's public discussion of environmental policy. In one corner, politicians hide behind the Kyoto Protocol while doing nothing to implement it; in another, politicians dismiss global warming and remain unconvinced that a mass species die-off might be a bad thing.

Into this noisy vacuum marches Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff, carrying a policy brief with some interesting ideas.
The Conservatives have ceded the field on climate change and environmentalism generally. They've been honest about ignoring Canada's Kyoto Protocol commitments, which is an improvement over the last crew, but have yet to replace them with anything meaningful. For Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, climate change is a joke -- when it's not a leftist conspiracy against his province's petroleum industry. Meantime, methane and carbon dioxide keep billowing into the atmosphere while the ice caps trickle into the sea.

Prudence advises preparing for the day when the last well runs dry and the last load of oily sand has been boiled. Canada has been blessed with petroleum; it makes sense to invest some of the windfall in the prosperity of 2106, not just of 2006. We need a plan.
The ideas Mr. Ignatieff puts forward aren't new -- many will be familiar to his leadership rival Stephane Dion, who advocated them with little effect when he was Paul Martin's environment minister, and others are plundered from the Green party. They're still good ideas, waiting for the right person to take them up and make them reality.

The predictable Liberal approach would be to announce a clean-fuels program consisting of a massive subsidy for corn farmers, in the vague hope that gross overproduction would make it cheaper to make ethanol out of all those cobs and kernels. Instead, Mr. Ignatieff wants to reward consumers for choosing low-emission fuels by cutting the GST on them and raising the tax on polluting fuels such as regular gasoline; he emphasizes that this would be a tax "shift," not a hike, with the goal of changing behaviour rather than increasing government revenue.

He also advocates an emissions cap for large industries, with a trading system so that more efficient companies could sell unused capacity to less efficient ones. Administering such a system properly would be a challenge, but it's being done elsewhere; in principle, it's an effective way of imposing costs on greenhouse-gas polluters.

The goal of a sound environmental policy should be to make sure that people and companies that consume non-renewable resources, or pollute, pay the associated costs instead of transferring them to other Canadians and the rest of the world. If they do, they'll have a financial incentive to cut back and find alternatives.

Making this happen, especially without unfairly punishing resource extractors, won't be easy, but as Mr. Ignatieff says, it's imperative that Canada do it. Not just for soft abstract reasons like feeling good about treading lightly upon the earth, but for our own future prosperity.

 

[a_majoor]

"Setting an example" only works if the people who you are setting an example for either share your values or respect your stand, propositions which are explicitly false in the case of China, the world's biggest polluter. The Chinese will weigh the loss of the Canadian market for finished Chinese goods (do the the collapsing standard of living under Liberal energy policies) against the benefit of being able to purchase Canadian raw materials and energy resources relatively cheaply.

On the balance, I expect the Chinese are big fans of Ignatieff.

 

[big_johnson1]

I didn't mean any offence by the "rednecks and hippies" comment. Just my attempt to break up the argument into two seperate camps. It's all too easy to stereotype these kinds of issues into a black and white argument, but you're right when you say there is a lot more depth to the situation. I extend my apologies to any hippies or rednecks that I may have offended. 

Great article Begbie, I agree.. I think that given the option and a slight incentive, most consumers will shift towards greener solutions. Granted, it might take some time, maybe even a whole generation before it fully catches on, but it seems that the past has shown that the only way for stuff like this to take hold is for it to become integrated into a culture or the identity of a country.

 

[exsemjingo]

Right on, a_majoor.  For the record, the Chinese have absolutely no plans to limit their CO2 emissions.  The best case scenario for our compliance to Kyoto, or to Ignatieff's ridiculous idea, is to send all of our industry there.

As far as this debate being a two sided argument, there is an objective measure: the market.  Even if everyone in Canada (had a stroke or something) voted for the Green Party and adopted a similar plan, they would still have to contend with the devastating economic consequences.
Finally, if Ignatieff wants to engage in political posturing, he can do it on AM talk radio.  Political platforms are for stating what you actually intend to do if elected, though the Liberals seem to have forgotten this completely.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm a big fan of taxing pollution. IF we want to seriously reduce CO2 emissions and such, we need strong incentives. Not just talks, ads and challenge. Otherwise we will fail miserably, like we are failing now. People will not change their way of life for a few degrees over 100 years. We need motivation here and now, and taxes do that just fine. (I would dare saying that if some oppose it so badly it's because they know it would have an impact on their life.)

I do agree though that the short term impact on economy will be bad and that there's no point in going faster than our neighbours since we are such a small country.

 

[TCBF]

A Carbon Tax would just be another big stick to hammer Alberta (etc) with.  UNLESS: The tax was so configured that it would be spent on projects in the cities/municipal districts/counties in which the activity took place.

Note that I wrote the ACTIVITY.  If your oil sands upgrader is in Northern Saskatchewan and your head office is in Toronto, the money gets spent in N. Sask, in the area of the activity.

Otherwise, it's just rape.

 

[exsemjingo]

I was an Economics minor in college, and one of the courses I took was "Economics of the Environment."  
The tried and true method in Free Market societies is to let the laws of Supply and Demand decide where these go.  If a resource is scarce, for example, and many people want to use it, the price will be high.  

Economics of the Environment is concerned with finding the appropriate allocation of resources by taking into account factors not obviously part of supply and demand.  

The inclusion of environmental impacts, or Externalities, in Economic decisionmaking has generally been successful in reducing pollution.  Hidden costs are flushed out, and dealt with appropriately.  Also, some pollution is always toll erated, since as more is removed, the removal become more expensive.

Carbon Dioxide emissions are a different case than other forms of pollution. For example.
It is possible to remove soot and dust from coal plants through certain equipment.  
It was possible to find alternatives to CFCs for aresol cans.  
It was possible to adjust vehicle designs to eliminate lead from exhaust.
It is possible to reduce the amount of wastes going to landfills through recycling.
It is possible to use cess-pools for dumping effluence.

In all of these, some small specific part of the industrial process is removed, altered, or re-directed.  
CO2 production, on the other-hand, is along with water the main waste of fuel-burning.  That is why the discussion jumps right away from releasing less into the environment to producing less to begin with.

This is where another fundamental difference arises.  In the above examples, the beginning problem saw 0% of the pollution dealt with.  With CO2, industrial processes are already designed for efficiency.  The percentage of the CO2 emissions being dealt with can be expressed as the efficiency of the process. Even the most in-efficient processes are more than 0% efficient.

Ignatieff's policies, do not call for initial CO2 emission reduction, but rather for a reduction above and beyond the steps already taken.  A lot of good ideas have already been implemented, which leaves less room for improvement.  There is no individual component of production that can be changed or eliminated; the problem lies in the fundamental nature of production.
 The goals he has set forth are unrealistic, the costs are unbearable, and the benefits uncertain at best.

This is why a Carbon Tax cannot work, and why one must never be implemented.

 

[Zarathustra]

CO2 production, on the other-hand, is along with water the main waste of fuel-burning.  That is why the discussion jumps right away from releasing less into the environment to producing less to begin with.

Maybe there are ways to trap CO2  and not release it in the air. But anyway, I don't see how it's relevant. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions and if reducing oil production is the only way to do that, then we need to reduce oil production. Taxes will help do that.

There is no individual component of production that can be changed or eliminated; the problem lies in the fundamental nature of production.

I don't understand this part.

The goals he has set forth are unrealistic, the costs are unbearable, and the benefits uncertain at best.

I think we will fail to reduce CO2 emissions. Everybody is blaming someone else for it.

The costs are bearable, just very unpleasant. Mankind can survive with less oil. It survived with no oil for quite long and will have to do it again in a few hundred years anyway. We have just grown addicted to comfort and we don't want to let it go.

The benefits are uncertain, I agree. But there's a lot at stake, and personally I think we should play safe.

 

[a_majoor]

The costs are bearable, just very unpleasant. Mankind can survive with less oil. It survived with no oil for quite long and will have to do it again in a few hundred years anyway. We have just grown addicted to comfort and we don't want to let it go.

The benefits are uncertain, I agree. But there's a lot at stake, and personally I think we should play safe.

So YOU are willing to spend several hours a day walking to find wood for your fire, drink untreated water from the St Lawrence river, do without fresh fruit and vegetables in winter, eat meat only once a week (if that), wait in place for hours or days until a paramedic can walk over to you when you are hurt....human civilizations in low energy eras was pretty nasty. I see your profile says you are from Montreal. Do you remember the Ice Storm? Have you considered what it would be like if those conditions lasted from November to March every year?

Without a high energy civilization somewhere in the neighbourhood disasters like the Ice Storm or Tsunami would be never ending nightmares, with no possibility of rescue or help. Even Army.ca would not be possible without the resources of a high energy civilization.

As for your last line, you may choose to play it safe, but kindly refrain from attempting to conscript me, my family and friends, or forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle.

 

[Zarathustra]

So YOU are willing to spend several hours a day walking to find wood for your fire, drink untreated water from the St Lawrence river, do without fresh fruit and vegetables in winter...

It wouldn't be that bad. We have other sources of energy. There would still be electricity, cars, etc, they would just be more expensive.

As for your last line, you may choose to play it safe, but kindly refrain from attempting to conscript me, my family and friends, or forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle.

That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time. It's a prisoner dilemma, we all have to do it or nobody will do it. I and friends were wondering once if there would be violence and wars over this some day. Maybe.

 

[a_majoor]

It wouldn't be that bad. We have other sources of energy. There would still be electricity, cars, etc, they would just be more expensive.

Considering that a huge portion (perhaps as much as 70% or more) of the global electricity budget is generated from thermal energy (burning coal, oil and natural gas) and all forms of transportation (road, rail, air and sea) are also highly dependent on fossil fuels (particularly liquid hydrocarbons) your breezy prediction is really out in left field. See this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html and look up the percentages in the CIA World Fact book: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time. It's a prisoner dilemma, we all have to do it or nobody will do it. I and friends were wondering once if there would be violence and wars over this some day. Maybe.

Increasing taxes works on the demand side of the equation (higher prices reduce usage and drive consumers to seek lower cost alternatives), but since the price mechanism is taxation, the money is siphoned out of the productive economy, energy producers see no incentive to move towards alternatives (and less money is availalbe for alternative energy investment anyway, since it is in the "General Revenue" pot of the government, not in the hands of individual investors). Imprisoning us all through a coercive carbon tax means pulling revenues out of the productive economy and delaying the ability of investors to seek out new, more efficient process to replace the high cost ones.

Let the market work and you will see lots of solutions emerge. It worked in the 1860's (replacing whale oil with crude oil) and it worked in the 1500's (replacing wood and wood charcoal with coal), so why wouldn't it work now?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The best case scenario for our compliance to Kyoto, or to Ignatieff's ridiculous idea, is to send all of our industry there.

Which is what may happen on a case-by-case basis if it makes business sense.  We can tax pollution right out of Canada if we choose.  We won't have taxed it right off the planet, but we'll look good as a nation in statistical rankings against other nations.

There's no point taxing pollution in Canada unless we levy tariffs on goods coming into Canada based on our own evaluation of the producer's adherence to our imposed standards of environmental stewardship.  It would certainly motivate the Chinese if they were unable to compete effectively because we judged their pollution controls too lax.  Of course, it means higher expenses for the consumer at the end of the supply chain, regardless.

>We have other sources of energy.

Yes.  It's too bad that people with sufficient influence seem to be opposed to developing the sources.

 

[TCBF]

"That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time."

- So much for initiative and individualism.  Don't you know that "Every little bit helps"?

 

[exsemjingo]

It wouldn't be that bad. We have other sources of energy. There would still be electricity, cars, etc, they would just be more expensive.

That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time. It's a prisoner dilemma, we all have to do it or nobody will do it. I and friends were wondering once if there would be violence and wars over this some day. Maybe.

Oy! People think gasoline prices are high now, but Zarathustra seems not to mind, and maybe is willing to pay even more. A Carbon tax levied with the CO2 reduction goals presented above would bring economic ruin on us.  It is not just a matter of using energy more efficiently: we have been trying to do that all along.  For example the difference between cheap and efficient lightbulbs and the expensive candles and lanterns we used to use is that now everyone can afford light.  Previously, this was not so, and to be frank, life stunk.
As far as wars over energy, just ask the Anglo-Iranian petroleum company.
But I do not mean to insult you, we have Micheal Ignatieff for that...

Back to the focus of our thread.
When Ignatieff first announced his policy, it was over the radio.  I have not been able to find transcripts, but when he said "We should not use our atmosphere as a garbage dump" it was more like
"We should not use our atmosphere, which the Good Lord gave us, as a garbage dump."
Is this what Ignatieff honestly believes?  Does his religious faith inform his environmental political policy?  Or is it more like the Lie-beral Liberal rhetoric of governments past? 
It sounds to me like he wants religious Canadians to vote for him, but at the same time, holds them in such contempt that he appeals to them with hollow sentiment.  Either that, or he knows who will oppose his policy, has pigeon-holed their other beliefs, so he has thrown in a veiled insult.

It is similar to the way Paul Martin tired to get David Kilgore's vote a few years ago by promising to send a token force to Sudan.  The implications of that one should have angered many voters than it actually did.  Canadian involvement in Sudan would have been an enormous undertaking (as has been shown in these forums already), but he cheapens the whole idea by pretending 100 troops would make a significant difference.  All this for a single vote!  It is futher disheartening to know that it took Kilgore a whole day to announce that his vote could not be bought with arrogant lies.
The Liberals should have lost the support of the African-Canadian community, the Military, and anyone else who was paying attention.
But it works because there are so many of these offensive little tidbits, and they go by quickly.

 

[larry Strong]

you[/b] may choose to play it safe, but kindly refrain from attempting to conscript me, my family and friends, or forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle.

Count me and mine in on this also.

 

[Zarathustra]

Let the market work and you will see lots of solutions emerge. It worked in the 1860's (replacing whale oil with crude oil) and it worked in the 1500's (replacing wood and wood charcoal with coal), so why wouldn't it work now?

I'm not familiar with those events. I don't think the market can work because polluting is free. There's no incentive to reduce your CO2 emissions. A tax would create an incentive and then solutions would emerge. The good thing is oil price is going up on its own, and we are seeing solutions already. But if it's not enough to meet the objectives we'll set for ourselves, then a tax would help us I think.

I agree though that this tax should not increase the size of government even more, and there should be tax cuts elsewhere to balance for this new tax. Like you would pay more for your gas but you'd pay less tax on your income.

Oy! People think gasoline prices are high now, but Zarathustra seems not to mind, and maybe is willing to pay even more. A Carbon tax levied with the CO2 reduction goals presented above would bring economic ruin on us. 

Do you oppose the tax or the reduction goals ? I support the idea of a tax, if needed, to meet our goals. But what exactly the goals should be, I don't know. Who really does ?

Remember that we will run out of oil at some point. So all the bad things you foresee will happen. Why not start moving toward a sustainable economy now, since we'll have to do it anyway ? I propose we start now because we don't know exactly what global warming will bring.

Count me and mine in on this also.

I'm telling you, wars !!

 

[a_majoor]

I don't think the market can work because polluting is free. There's no incentive to reduce your CO2 emissions. A tax would create an incentive and then solutions would emerge. The good thing is oil price is going up on its own, and we are seeing solutions already. But if it's not enough to meet the objectives we'll set for ourselves, then a tax would help us I think.

Increasing taxes works on the demand side of the equation (higher prices reduce usage and drive consumers to seek lower cost alternatives), but since the price mechanism is taxation, the money is siphoned out of the productive economy, energy producers see no incentive to move towards alternatives (and less money is availalbe for alternative energy investment anyway, since it is in the "General Revenue" pot of the government, not in the hands of individual investors). Imprisoning us all through a coercive carbon tax means pulling revenues out of the productive economy and delaying the ability of investors to seek out new, more efficient process to replace the high cost ones.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think your point is valid and that why I said income tax or other tax should be lowered as the carbon tax goes up. So no money disappears, the amount available for investment stays the same. But the incentive for that investment is higher.

Imprisoning us all through a coercive carbon tax means pulling revenues out of the productive economy and delaying the ability of investors to seek out new, more efficient process to replace the high cost ones.

Maybe that's where we disagree. I don't want to replace the high cost ones, I want to replace the polluting ones. I want to move the price of pollution up so that polluting energies become the high cost ones and get replaced by the market forces.