[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just more proof that AGW Alarmism is a religious belief and not anything based in science.

Actual scientists accept challenges to their theories as part of the scientific process.

It's only cult members and religious nutjobs who persecute people for heresy when they dare to question the official dogma.

I'm an actual scientist. I have dealt with several of your "challenges" which didn't turn out to be challenges so much as you failing to understand the basic physics or not bothering to do your homework. I adapt my beliefs to fit observations. You on the other hand, despite having been handed your ass too many times to count now, continue with this myth that all the scientists in the world are lying to you.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Not at all. No one has produced a single shred of evidence that these tax policies are doing or will do anything at all, other than to remove more money from the pockets of taxpayers. BC has a carbon tax, their emissions are still increasing.

But hey, at least Alberta's plan makes more sense than Ontario's, which seems to be a policy of "a wing and a prayer".

Norway implemented a price of $44USD per ton of carbon in 1991, and it reduced their average emissions 16% since.

Wrong, on both counts. According to Statistics Norway, the price of $44/ton was only on gasoline. The average effective rate across the board was actually $18USD/ton of carbon.
Either way, it did not reduce their emissions by 16%. Again, according to Stats Norway, Norway's emissions increased by 15% between 1991-2008 despite their carbon tax. Even if we assume the 16% reduction came after 2008, the reality is after 25 years and billions of dollars in carbon taxes, they only reduced their 1991 emission levels by 1%. Even if you argue that the 16% is a net decrease, that would mean that Norway would have had to reduce their emissions by almost one third just since 2008, something I find very hard to believe.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Not at all. No one has produced a single shred of evidence that these tax policies are doing or will do anything at all, other than to remove more money from the pockets of taxpayers. BC has a carbon tax, their emissions are still increasing.

But hey, at least Alberta's plan makes more sense than Ontario's, which seems to be a policy of "a wing and a prayer".

Norway implemented a price of $44USD per ton of carbon in 1991, and it reduced their average emissions 16% since.

Wrong, on both counts. According to Statistics Norway, the price of $44/ton was only on gasoline. The average effective rate across the board was actually $18USD/ton of carbon.
Either way, it did not reduce their emissions by 16%. Again, according to Stats Norway, Norway's emissions increased by 15% between 1991-2008 despite their carbon tax. Even if we assume the 16% reduction came after 2008, the reality is after 25 years and billions of dollars in carbon taxes, they only reduced their 1991 emission levels by 1%. Even if you argue that the 16% is a net decrease, that would mean that Norway would have had to reduce their emissions by almost one third just since 2008, something I find very hard to believe.

Your belief isn't required. I wrote 'average emission' for a reason.

$1:

The Norwegian emissions of CO2 increased by 19 percent from 1990 to 1999. This growth is significantly lower than the GDP growth of 35 percent. In other words, average emissions per unit GDP was reduced by 16 percent over the period

http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/632.pdf

And:

$1:

1991-

CO 2 tax on petrol, auto diesel oil, mineral oil (excl. fisheries etc.), and petroleum sector (only offshore activities)

1992-2002

CO 2 tax on coal and coke, except most industrial processes

1994-

Environment tax on beverage packaging differentiated according to return rate

1999-2001

Sulphur tax on coal, coke and oil refineries at a low rate (replaced by voluntary agreement)

1999-

Tax on final waste treatment. CO 2 tax includes domestic sea transport of goods (formerly only passenger transport) and the supply fleet

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/th ... /id418097/

The tax was a progressive one on sources of Carbon Dioxide.

You asked for a single shred of evidence that Carbon Taxes work. I provided it.

[Alta_redneck]

What the NDP tried here pissed a lot of people off, now there is a push to have people donate some, or as much as they can afford, or all the rebate cheque to the Wildrose to help them defeat the NDP,whether they come through and do it is another thing I guess. This guy is my MLA I didn't vote for him the first time around but I will now.

On a side note, remember the average Edmonton family Shannon made a visit to, to hand deliver their rebate cheque, he's a paid climate advocate for the NDP. The Alberta government flies him around the world to talk at all the bull shit conferences.

Just an average Joe so happy to get his cheque. lol

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your belief isn't required. I wrote 'average emission' for a reason.

$1:

The Norwegian emissions of CO2 increased by 19 percent from 1990 to 1999. This growth is significantly lower than the GDP growth of 35 percent. In other words, average emissions per unit GDP was reduced by 16 percent over the period

Sooo, semantics. There was no real decrease in emissions, just a perceived decrease because emissions didn't grow at the same rate as the GDP.

[martin14]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your belief isn't required. I wrote 'average emission' for a reason.

$1:

The Norwegian emissions of CO2 increased by 19 percent from 1990 to 1999. This growth is significantly lower than the GDP growth of 35 percent. In other words, average emissions per unit GDP was reduced by 16 percent over the period

Sooo, semantics. There was no real decrease in emissions, just a perceived decrease because emissions didn't grow at the same rate as the GDP.

It's the same kind of bullshit as emissions in Ontario dropping, but not
from the Wynndbag energy thefts; it was from all the factories closing.

Yay environment, the people are trash and are only worth fucking over.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your belief isn't required. I wrote 'average emission' for a reason.

$1:

The Norwegian emissions of CO2 increased by 19 percent from 1990 to 1999. This growth is significantly lower than the GDP growth of 35 percent. In other words, average emissions per unit GDP was reduced by 16 percent over the period

Sooo, semantics. There was no real decrease in emissions, just a perceived decrease because emissions didn't grow at the same rate as the GDP.

You asked for proof that Carbon Taxes reduced emissions as they claimed. You got what you asked for.

Decoupling from GDP is seen as a drastic reduction in overall emissions, just like in North America where CO2 emissions decoupling from GDP were seen as a major hurdle toward the acceptance of alternative energy sources.