NDP will double carbon levy by 2017

And so it begins...

Good.

Good.

I didn't know Libertarians were so fond of artificially driving up the cost of living with restrictive new levies that will be handed down to consumers.

Must be that super special, super secret, "Canadian Libertarianism" you were telling us about, eh?

It's a case of picking ones poison. If we must have tax, we prefer taxing negative behaviour (polluting) over positive behaviour (working hard). Carbon taxation is preferred to income tax.

You already have 'carbon taxes' in the form of the layers of taxes your government already places on coal and oil products.

I'm wondering, will the Super Secret Canadian Libertarian Committee also be jumping up and down in jubilation when the regulatory controls begin.

Huzah! Huzah! Right, SSCLC?

It's just another cost of doing business now, just like the way all those absolutely insane and annoying multi-layered quality assurance systems had to be adopted by businesses because customers became convinced that they needed them for end product they were buying.

At this stage it's a fait accompli. It's like resisting the tide coming in, and doing it for absolutely ignorant anti-science nonsense that keeps emanating from the GOP in the United States, when the rest of the world has quietly accepted it as a reality and is moving forward, is really just too stupid for words.

I missed the part where the NDP were going to reduce the income tax, or never support raising it now that they have their tax - pardon me, levy - hyper-taxing the gas we exhale.

But apparently breathing taxes are OK now, because the EU and the UN like them, or something.

As to the gas we exhale being "pollution", speak for yourself, Professor.

If they don't reduce the income tax, then that's a valid reason to criticize the NDP.


Everything becomes pollution at a certain level. You inhale water with every breath you take. Go inhale a quart and see if it "pollutes" you or not. Dumbass.

The cost of the California dorught was estimated to be $2.2 billion in 2014. That works out to around $55/person in California.

You can't say the current drought was caused by AGW, but you can say that it is likely that additional tropospheric and ocean heat has exacerbated it. So if you figure it's, say, 10% worse because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then you'd be looking at a cost of about $5/person due to climate change.

Ahh, so the Dippers want less emissions ?

Taking the Ontario example, emissions will go lower.





Because the industries will be gone.

But emissions will go down.

You missed a couple of key facts, like that the unemployment rate hasn't gone up and per capita income has. So who exactly was made worse off by the loss of dirty industry?

The fact that there is a huge population, that is steadily growing, living in an area that is predominantly desert places a massive stress on local aquifers, reservoirs and such. Even without 'climate change' being factored in, there'd be a water crisis. Huge amounts of water are wasted keeping lawns, filling pools, fountains and for industrial and agricultural uses. Look at how much water is wasted on almond groves and orchards. Time to fire up some reactor powered desalinization plants along the coast.

Everything becomes pollution at a certain level. You inhale water with every breath you take. Go inhale a quart and see if it "pollutes" you or not. Dumbass.

So if everything is pollution, why do you need a word for it? I know...It is Groot, right?

Let me help you out with something here, Einstein, because you seem to be suffering from basic information deficit on this issue.

Toxic levels of CO2 are not possible in the atmosphere in any levels man is capable of putting into it. Look it up. No CO2 toxicity, no pollution. Unless, of course, you're using the new Prog-improved definition of the word, in which case what you're calling "pollution" means pretty much whatever you would like it to mean. It is Groot.