Interesting...and

Precisely the same thing I've been saying here:
http://crawlacrosstheocean.blogspot.com/2008/02/because-people-on-internet-are-wrong.html#comments

for the last couple of days.

johndwyer3000

You'll be glad to know that mother nature has bounced back; according to this report from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

Based on the catastrophic predictions by the professor is it not time we started to discuss how to enforce the reduction of the world population explosion and the forced de-population of cold northern climes and move people to less energy dependent warmer parts of the world? Canadians should be forced to move to California and Mexico!

Crass

Another great idea! Yes, we need a political party that's brave enough to campaign on banning private ownership of books and closing down bookshops. People shouldn't have books in their homes.

As johndwyer3000 says;

Is the NDP up to it? Will the NDP campaign on canceling the Evergreen Line as well as the extension to the Expo Line, banning private car ownership except in a co-op and banning private ownership of books?

Is this guy who calls

Is this guy who calls himself "realisticman", for real, or somebody's idea of humour?

Reminds me of somebody I knew years ago, who wrote an open letter to Harcourt in the local papers, when the NDP was first elected, that if the "socialists" come to take away his house, he will defend it with a gun.

How about when the multinational corporate mafia comes and takes away the livelihoods,
homes, businesses,farms, ranches, the children's educational potentials of millions, in the name of "property rights, under the globally competitive, free trade market economic system?"

In other words, free expropriation rights in the hands of a power elite, under fraudulent ideological nightmares.

I was on the same list with Bill Rees some years ago and we exchanged some very interesting and valuable correspondence. I'm glad to see that he's still the same logical, down to earth person.

I wonder if he still remembers my "Principle for the application of physical efficiency to economics", because what he writes is very much on the same level, proving that so called "economic competition" increases real, physical costs and transfers them on humanity, the ecology and the future, without any real benefits, except to the robber barons.

Pardon me, the "wealth creating foreign investors", who use imaginary capital as a licence to take over the destroy the world.

Ed Deak.

Right

As matters stand, B.C.'s seemingly "aggressive" move is politically designed to have minimal impacts.

Exactly right. God forbid the Liberals actually do something that actually does something. As other commenters have said, this is a greenwash.

Climate orthodoxy perpetrates a hoax

"As a physicist, let me point out that our understanding of climate was not "settled more than a decade ago," as global warming alarmists argue. Science is never settled, as Albert Einstein spectacularly demonstrated.

Our knowledge of the interplay between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature has gone through three stages over the past 20 years. Al Gore correctly points out that early ice-core data gathered from glaciers around the world showed a very strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over 650,000 years. Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, most of us assumed that it regulated global temperature.

By 1999, improving ice-core techniques produced a stunning reversal, showing that the global temperature changed many centuries before carbon dioxide changed. This proved that natural climate cycles were causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, probably by affecting how much remained dissolved in the oceans.

Using new ice-core evidence, Caillon, et al. (Science, March 2003), concluded that "CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system."

This should have convinced alarmists that their scare was unwarranted. But too many would have been thrown out of work, and too many politicians would have lost a hot-button issue. So they ramped up the alarm, relying on ever-more-contrived theories to explain the ice-core data.

In 2007, their last theoretical bastion crumbled. Climatologists announced that a fundamental signature of greenhouse gases, predicted by all U.N. climate models, is missing. There is no "hot spot" from CO2 -induced warming at tropical latitudes. Satellites and weather balloons show normal temperature profiles. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. (Douglass, et al., International Journal of Climatology, Royal Meteorological Society, October 2007.)

Of course, with the abysmal state of science education and the near-total support of the media, global warming propagandists saw no reason to alter their strategy. We continue to hear that catastrophe is just around the corner, and we must sign up for ever more expensive and environmentally damaging "solutions."
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1203731757171220.xml&coll=7

To the Editor

I just saw my post on the Obama thread disappear into the ether due to the thread being closed.

What is the point of closing a thread while people have been posting as recently as 20 minutes ago?

realisticman

You don't even believe in climate change yet you post anything praising Campbell's policy on it?

You come here to attack other people but don't put forward your own opinions?

Any decent editor would have decided long ago you're here only to "Troll"

To the Editor

In fact I have to ask why it is that my buddy Elliot gets banned over and over (and my other buddy Maestro) for calling people names but at least engaging in a lively conversation while Realisticman on the other hand is here only to Troll?

Frank

Relax Frank. The perspective from a senior commentator at Canada's National Newspaper should be part of the debate.

realisticman

Other people don't post comments they don't believe in simply to be disagreeable.

You constantly engage in trolling behaviour while lively commentors who defend their opinions with a bit of zeal get banned.

And its not a matter of my simply disagreeing with your politics, Elliot and Maestro were right-wing and argued with me all the time and although I disagreed with their name-calling I could respect the fact they had opinions and defended them.

You don't have opinions, instead you engage in a behaviour we call "trolling".

Jeffry who?

One reporter doesn't, a policy, make. Canadian reporters are, on the whole lazy and only report what the papers owners want them to report on.

Long ago, the Canadian media (Locally, Tyee & Georgia Straight excepted) has been deemed a jingoistic, bunch of nobodies and I haven't seen much to convince me otherwise.

Who ever gives credence to the Canadian media?

Who cares?

Frank

I like to be objective and consider all points of view. That's bad is it?

realisticman

No you don't, you post only to disagree. If someone says the sun is yellow you'd post a link saying it was red.

Frank

As I explained in another thread, these threads are built to automatically close five days after we publish a story. Certainly, it would be ideal to keep certain threads open if there's a lively debate going on but that would stretch the limits of our resources, given that at any given moment we have up to 20 other threads to watch. Our compromise is to use this automated tool and keep our resources focused on reporting.

As for this spat between you and realisticman, I suspect neither of you is going to concede, so you can either continue in this vein and bore the rest of us to death or move on. I hope you choose the latter.

Geoff.

Editor

Then you'll be disappointed.

I've instead decided to post irrelevancies a la Realisticman

Jeffrey Simpson

Regarding Jeffrey Simpson it should be noted he has called Canada a dictatorship.

http://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Dictatorship-Jeffrey-Simpson/dp/0771080786

realisticman

Be careful, it seems lots of white Americans don't really like Canadians according to these comments.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/

Crass

We have such a party, if Alabama counts, read the following

Editor

Its only 11 threads at the moment and many have either no comments at all or only a few.

What is involved in monitoring the thread that makes more than 11 or so threads unmanageable? Reading all the comments?

Jeffrey Simpson

I stopped listening to Jeffrey Simpson years ago. Like Allan Gregg (who was the brainless producer who gave a right-wing pollster the go ahead to give his opinions to the masses, night after night on TV, anyway?), Simpson is a neo-con man in sheep's disguise--a smooth-voiced, so-called "moderate" -- in reality just a two-bit poster boy/messenger for big business.

His solution to global warming? Technology, and still more technology--that is, he believes that more growth and business is the only fix required. (He loved the delay the Tories gave at Bali - thought it was the right thing to do.
Repeat after me until sleepy, Jeffrey: Delayanddenydelayanddenydelayanddeny...)

Response to Frank

RE: What is involved in monitoring the thread that makes more than 11 or so threads unmanageable? Reading all the comments?

Exactly. Reading them on a regular basis and being responsible for monitoring them. It takes time and at The Tyee a very few people are already doing a very lot of things.

Future Generations will be aghast

at the stupidity of people and the craven scientists who have gone along with what is the biggest scam ever pulled.

We may just be headed for a prolonged cooling, which is why the PR campaign,which this article is clearly part of, has been stepped up.

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
"Global Cooling comes back in a big way

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather."

Do look at the enlarged version of the graph here. It clearly shows the peak of the warm period was ten years ago.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

We may soon wish for the good old days when we were warming.

IT's an enormous surprise that is

http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/Stories/sfunews11290702.shtml

You'd expect a member of the team that created this mess to be CRITCAL of it?

Dream on r/man. I think Frank has you dead to rights.

For an assessment of the value of this nonsense as an economic lever to change peoples' behavior you need to be a little more critical and a little less naive

GWest

Surprised to see you siding with Financial Post writers like Terence Corcoran who's unabashedly on the right. Although I do appreciate your objective thinking.

Who is against this Liberal initiative?

As far as anyone can see the only people against it are a smattering of constantly negative posters that seem to always be contre, some National Post commentators and a couple of others.

Suzuki, The Sierra Club, The Sightline Institute, Mark Jaccard, etc. etc.

Missed the ending

Distracted, sorry. SHOULD read;

Suzuki, The Sierra Club, The Sightline Institute, Mark Jaccard, etc. etc. Are all FOR it.

GWest

May I have an explanation of this unintelligible comment.

realisticman

Besides you?

He agrees you're a troll only here to indulge in trolling.

Experts don't suck up????

Budd,

You just posted a long piece that definitively proves they do.

I don't care who calls Campbell's little dodge an effective way to address this problem - it isn't, and anyone who says it is is spinning...

Draw your own conclusions about Jaccard and the rest of these characters - there's nothing to this plan - it won't work - if the Americans can get the price of oil screwed down again nothing will happen.

If they can't, it will be those prices and not this candy-assed tax that will change behavior.

Too little, too late and too compromised.

In the end, the enviros who hop on for the ride now will be looking foolish when the whole 'revenue neutral' bs blows up in their faces.

My view.

OIL PRICES TO FALL WHEN BUSH-CHENEY-HALIBURTON LEAVE WHITE HOUSE

"... if the Americans can get the price of oil screwed down again nothing will happen."

I have thought for some time that once Bush-Cheney-Haliburton leave the White House, the price of oil will fall, probably to about $40 to $50 per barrell. No one doubts that they have done everything they can to put fear into the commodity markets in order to drive the price up. Assuming they've enjoyed some success in that regard, once they're gone, so is the premium they have engineered.

And you're right that over the past few years the rise in prices has greatly exceeded the 2.4 to 7.2 cent tax increase. However, taxes of that magnitude are what is indicated for CO2 and climate change according to articles by economists other than Marc Jaccard.

I realize you have a prejudice against all liberal or neo-classical economists, but people aren't obligated to accept that. Can I take it for granted that your general distaste for economists is put aside in the case of Sir Nick Stern?

That's a stick, where's the carrot?

Okay, so a carbon tax makes the cost of carbon-emitting energy go up, which should (in theory) staunch demand.

But that money goes back to everyone equally! What use is that, other than to buy votes and to claim that it's "revenue neutral?"

Our Permaculture farm operates as a carbon sink. We rescue our neighbours' slash piles from burning and chip them and put them back into the soil. We make all our own fuel by making biodiesel from waste oil we collect from four local restaurants, and we distribute the rest to our local community for voluntary contributions. We heat with wood salvaged from construction sites and standing dead trees. (Leaving every third tree for the critters.)

Isn't that worth more than $100, especially when most people who get $100 are going to blow it on cheap plastic crap from China, which costs a lot of carbon?

Under a carbon credit trading system, we could have an additional revenue stream, which is important to farmers. Of course, most credit trading systems focus on large emitters, and do nothing for the little guy.

Yet, for humanity to halt global warming, the rewards must come down to the individual level. People need positive incentives, not simply the negative incentive of making energy more expensive.

So, we've got a stick. Where's the carrot?

Not at all Budd

I just have a strong aversion to cant - and there's a lot of it around on this issue - that's all. Jaccard and Suzuki aren't the only ones - they have a big new totally compromised partner in Victoria called Gordon Campbell.

His Finance Minister even made the ludicrous claim that she was going to ensure that future finance ministers would suffer a reduction in salary if the 'revenue neutrality' of these measures was violated.

If that isn't a pretty good indication of where this crackpot scheme is headed I don't know what is.

I can't wait to see the legislation.

The whole idea that minor increases in tax will significantly curb the consumption of gasoline and the production of CO2 is simply absurd.

Just like the idea that tobacco use was restrained by the imposition of sin taxes. The use of these products are governed by another economic principle - that of nearly perfect inelastic demand - folks will buy and use them at 'almost' any price.

Tobacco use has gone down, not because of the taxation, but because the generation of people who were mostly addicted to the nicotine is nearly gone - not least because a lot of them died from indulging in the habit.

Take a look at the length of time between the first imposition of punitive taxation on tobacco and the actual reduction of smoking; you'll find it took decades.

On the global warming file, if you believe the scientific evidence, we don't have the luxury of that much time.

federal money!!!

Come..on guys!! There's federal money redirected and coming over to the provinces for infrastructure/transportation from the just released Federal Gov't budget as of yesterday. Long time coming but some millions? Not too bad for a START!
Where will this new money (coming out of surplus tax money) be going? Is it headed for carbon neutral transportation??? It surely SHOULD BE with all the talk around so called green solutions. Then again...what about those added gas $'s tax that the Provincial Gov't just put in place to show the rest of Canada that we mean buisiness, here in B.C. about changing our commute paradymns...Is that tidy little sum of growing funds going to be diverted into clean energy/electric public transit??? or held in prov. Gov't coffers... somewhere???

The mayors of all the regional and municipal districts in the Lower Mainland ...Take Note...You must speak up on behalf of the infrastructure that is required now and moreso in the immediate future for the healthy growth of your regions.Speak up for your constituents!ECODENSITY is not the answer it has been touted to be!It would be great for those who want to gouge the customer or flip real estate to make unearned big bucks but it doesn't really serve the people. Light rapid transit will best serve the people who want to raise families in proximity in affordable homes and park greenspace.Yes, maybe even EcoVillage spaces.
Do the right research,elected Mayors of Fr. Valley municipalities.Think Inter-Urban as people are transported by light-rapid throughout the connected valley. Get new age thinkers on your planning departments payrolls. You will find that inter-urban planners and builders refining and rebuilding the great possibilities for your regions can energize your municipality beyond just real estate economy engines.
Otherwise, I fear the Gateway Project is going to barrel on through your truckstop of a community!

We need time, time that we don't have

Dealing with the crisis is not the only issue, but dealing with it in a certain amount of time. Time is a luxury we do not have at the moment, the more time we spend waiting on these problems, the worse the situation becomes.

2.4 cents per liter to the cost of gasoline is nothing. Higher taxes need to be placed on private transportation, and provide an efficient alternative for transportation. To make a significant difference, 2.4 cents will not do the trick.

The world's population is growing at a phenomenal rate that will completely overcome the rate of carbon emissions that we are trying to achieve. If we do not accomadate the population with mass-scale transportation alternatives, then we will have a massive increase in carbon-emissions, along with a significant decrease in productivity. Time that can be spent at work will be spent on the road, with the other hundred cars crawling alongside you. We must also keep in mind that there are also the big carbon-emitters that need to be dealt with:

Placing low taxes on carbon-emissions per ton for carbon-emitting products/services is ridiculous. If a plant is emitting millions of tons of carbon, then it is almost certain that that plant will be more than able to pay off such taxes, which would be but a fraction of the company's total profit.

The problem is being the first to strive for these things. Increasing taxes will lead to a decrease in support and trust in the government. People have been failed by their governments many times, and it is for that reason that governments must be cautious once applying these taxations. We must also be cautious when applying taxes- it has to be done over a period of time, these taxes cannot be applied overnight, causing severe losses for those who can't afford to accomodate their consumption patterns to these changes. Someone with a relatively low income might find it to be better to rely on a cheaper alternative of a product, even if it emits carbon. However, once these ideas are implemented in the more progressive regions of the world, the ideaology of being 'eco-friendly' will become a world-wide standard.

“IS It

“IS It Enough?”

Government emission tax is the first step to abolishing the problem of global warming in our modern day, but 2.4 cents per LITRE!!? This tax mainly is directed to the Industries and factories that are exceeding the carbon emission limit, and many of these factories are mainly multi-million dollar industries that i think can afford to pay 10 dollars per ton! "The world community needs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 80 to 90 per cent by mid-century." I do not believe the 10 dollars a ton will reduce the carbon dioxide emissions 90%. Now don't get me wrong this tax is an efficient way to reduce carbon emissions especially that "the new tax will be returned to the people through a package of tax cuts and credits." I believe that different tariffs should be placed on different companies depending on how big that certain industry is, because if high tariffs are placed on all firms the society will be left only with the large industries that are able to pay this high tax. This will lead the market to a monopoly. But tariffs are the first step; governments must enforce the importance of the use of public transport. Having an average of 2 to 3 cars per family is the reason we are facing the problem that we are facing. i would just like to sum up my point by saying that what is being done is a great step to improving our way of life.

Paradigm Shift??

While criticizing the carbon tax, Rees acknowledges that what is “ecologically necessary is politically unfeasible” and that “the politically feasible is ecologically irrelevant” and does so in his opening paragraph. In making this erudite and observant realization, the reader’s expectations are raised, in the sense that it may seem as though the article will offer a viable and logical solution to the problem, rather than simply being a critique. Nevertheless, it does not propound a viable solution. Rather, Reese makes many important observations and criticisms throughout the article. He states that the carbon emissions tax is too low and, as a result, companies will continue producing. They are willing to pay the small cost, seeing as it will not destroy their supernormal profit in most cases. “The province is still dedicated to outmoded notions of economic growth at any cost.”

It is true that he opens with a statement that may allow the reader to believe that a solution is imminent. Nevertheless, perhaps he does not offer this solution because there are none, since as a paradigm shift from the “outmoded notion of economic growth at any cost” to a more eco-friendly one, has not yet occurred.

The more important question that arises from this is whether such a paradigm shift will ever occur, and if so when? Yes, we often hear that a paradigm shift is unavoidable considering the ever-worsening ecological condition of our planet, and it is often thought that as the conditions become worse, this shift will occur. But what defines the point at which the conditions are so unbearable? There is so much evidence that our planet is heading towards ecological destruction. Global warming, climate changes, depletion of the Ozone layer, high water levels, etcetera, etcetera. And we are aware of these problems! Why then has this desired paradigm shift not yet occurred?

paradigm shift to reality

timmymalkoun asks

After decades of thinking and observation (some would say "decayeds"), I've come to share the belief that it is because of the phenomenon currently labelled as "growthism."

Whether the roots of growthism are in some sort of Darwinian selective advantage carried over from the past, religious beliefs, pure and simple greed, or some other source, the results are the same.

We rationalize breeding like rabbits until we overrun this planet, consuming resources until they are gone, destroying other species and using the conceit that "substitution" makes other species irrelevant, and generally fouling our own nest (this planet) in a way that most other species are intelligent enough to avoid.

Rees' point that our economic ways are destroying us has, up until now, been a radical idea, resisted by mainstream economists and people in general. Only now are we reaching the critical mass required for social change, but it may in fact be too late. We still see politically-expedient bandaid solutions, when what we need is to make the hard choices. Yes, those choices have a cost, but at what cost do we continue what we're doing now?

At some point as well, the idea that population growth has enabled, and will enable, more and more consumption will be acknowledged in the mainstream, and we may finally address all the problems we face in a meaningful way. Just cutting back on consumption is a zero sum game if we allow population to continue to grow.

And that is a game where there are no winners.

THOMAS MALTHUS IS DEAD

"The world's population is growing at a phenomenal rate ... "

"We rationalize breeding like rabbits until we overrun this planet, ... "

The UN's long run medium projection is that the world's population will peak at 9 billion in 2075, and then fall to about 8.5 billion by 2200, and then start rising again to 9 billion by 2300. Granted, they had a high scenario where population keeps on rolling ot 36 billion by 2300, but there is also a low scenario where it peaks at 7.4 billion in 2050 and then tapers off to 2.3 billion by 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

I think he's getting better

Budd, those projections are based on assumptions that could easily be wrong. They themselves suggest the population could be several times higher if fertility doesn't drop below replacement rates as they predict it will.

Until we actually see some data showing population growth levelling off on its own I don't think we should ignore the problem.

Bre'r rabbit is alive and well

Frank comments:

And one point being made is that we have already overrun this planet, to the point where we may in what is called "overshoot" already, but yet we still don't seem concerned about population issues. Budd's comment is pretty typical of that point of view -- one facet of growthism.

But the nest is already fouled, which is why we're having this discussion about consumption in the first place, and I see a great deal of denial coming from those who only wish to address consumption issues.

Again, for emphasis, reducing consumption is a zero sum game if we do not halt population growth, and Rees himself makes the point that we will have to reduce consumption to somewhat less than the average for countries such as Mexico before we can even think of approaching sustainability (and he admits that his figures are conservative). Accomplishing that will only work if we do halt population growth, otherwise our target footprint will continue to decline, and consumption may have to be lowered to the point where our civilization simply becomes unviable.

Rees' comment about the economy applies equally well to population:

The tax is full of flaws...but has potential

"Taxing carbon emissions!" sounds like a good idea. However sadly, as William E. Rees, argues it is not nearly enough and is not being implemented correctly to have a substantial impact. The most obvious flaw is the tax itself. With only an extra 2.4 cents per liter of gasoline at the pump rising to 7.2 cents by 2012, it is so cheap that people will willingly pay and continue emitting carbon. In order for the tax to have an impact it needs to be more expensive so that it encourages people to develop ways to become more technically and economically efficient. To make the tax revenue neutral, corporate and personal income tax rates will drop. This is encouraging consumption so while people are paying taxes on gasoline they are saving money to spend on environmentally harmful services. The money collected by the Campbell Administration, from this tax is poured into massive road projects and into expansion of the ports. This seems to counter the essence of the carbon tax, and devastate the efforts to improve the environment. The lack of substitutes of transit and energy sources or perhaps the lack of exploitation of more environmentally friendly substitutes makes it harder for this tax to have a serious effect. Making these substitutes, such as public transportation available, convenient and comfortable is very important. People who live in Greater Vancouver, Greater Victoria and the Okanagan don’t have much of a choice but to drive their cars.
These are just a few of the many flaws of the BC carbon taxes in BC. However, we must keep in mind that this is a new implementation of such a policy. It cannot be expected to solve all environmental issues in its first run. This is a first step and any amount of movement is always substantial as a first step. Criticism of it, however, is not to be regarded as unfair in this light. It should be welcomed as it is what will give way to future improvements. Currently the only positive thing which this tax achieves is an ideological one. Its true impact lies within the image it portrays to the rest of the world that measures can and are being taken to preserve the environment. It stimulates thought and conciseness of the environmental issues, which will later result in the development of better ways to address them.

Never a decrease of 90% but we have to at least try!!!

Better than more

I think that what Mr. William E. Rees, is arguing is correct, however only that we should reduce our carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The rest I think is undoable! You can’t reduce 90 percent of carbon emissions, especially now, seeing as we are producing more CO2 emissions than ever before in history, and it seems that there is no end in sight, just a future of increase. I understand that many countries and even cities like British Columbia, are beginning to tax people on Carbon emissions, but I think that they might as well not have worked on such a tax bill, seeing as: a) the taxes are very minimal, costing 10 dollars for 1 ton of CO2 emissions for factories, and an additional 2.7 cents/liter of gasoline sold. And b) the government paying the people back and reimbursing the people who pay this tax. What’s the point? Technically what you are doing is putting your money in a savings account that you will be able to use at the end of that year probably to spend on polluting travel, or other harmful goods and services. I think that if something were to be done for such a serious issue, more drastic measures should be taken. First of all, this low tax is offending to our intelligence. It should at least be 1$ per liter for people to feel that something has changed, and to feel a negative affect on their personal income, hence they will stop buying petrol and resort to newer cleaner sources of energy. Another thing, is that we shouldn’t only have a carbon ton tax on factories, they should be forced by the government to put filters and scrubbers on their smokestacks, and find clean ways to dispose their wastes. Thirdly and most importantly, to form an incentive on people to spend less on fossil fuels, the government should not give or reimburse any of the taken taxes, so people will just haven to spend less. Also the huge amount of tax money gained could be used to develop cleaner sources of electricity, and to promote a cleaner future. There should also be a solution to the exemption of airlines from these taxes, like the Passing of a UN resolution concerning this topic. In this way, one of the most polluting sources, would become less, and the money made from these taxes could be used to develop a new type of cleaner jet, and probably reduce the amount of travelers due to more expensive tickets, and in this way pollution would be lessened, however, not by 90% as Dr. Reese would have liked, but less pollution is better than more.

Don't hold the Applause

As you know, the global ecological situation is very unstable, and there are few feasible solutions. In fact, I doubt there is any solution which will leave a majority of the world’s population happy. The fact is that everyone has to start making their sacrifices. British Columbia’s taxing system has its disadvantages, but – as you said yourself - it is a step in the right direction. At least British Columbia is implementing an economic system which takes this giant externality into consideration while people all over the world are still working on awareness. People don’t want to be aware that they’re going to drown or fry or suffocate, they want to know that their governments are stopping the above from occurring. Action needs to be taken, and it needs to be taken as soon as possible. British Columbia is the first jurisdiction on earth to take action. It doesn’t really matter how effective their action is, as British Columbia has made the first leap. Now all it takes is for others to follow. BC can and will realize the advantages and disadvantages of their system and will make amends, but this does not necessarily mean it’s a bad thing. Yes, the increase in gasoline prices recently has not had a major affect on the car economy. A tax which is implemented needs to have a dramatic effect on the industry which it targets to the degree where it will make everyone seriously consider their usage of the industry and switch to alternatives. Only then will a change be seen in the usage of highly polluting products. British Columbia has just applied the brakes, although the car is still moving in the same direction. Now we need to get the car to stop, and begin reversing; which will never happen if someone doesn’t apply the brakes. BC’s actions may have not been too dramatic in practice, but the chain of events has been triggered.

BC's Carbon Tax Shell Game

The BC tax, although having the right intentions, is too minute to have any significant effect on the amount of carbon that will be consumed by major companies. I say this because although this tax raise may have encouraged other countries to go ahead and take initiative as well; the tax increase of 7.2 cents implemented will have minimal effect as carbon consuming companies are usually making super normal profit, meaning a minuscule share of their total revenue will be cut.
Today all companies and countries are waiting for others to take the first steps in decreasing their consumption and waste. No one wants to be the first as this would mean having to give up profit before anybody else; as well as risk nobody else following in their footsteps. Furthermore, if surrounding companies or countries decreases consumption then their production costs will rise making their products more expensive. This will lead to all other countries and companies, who have yet to decrease consumption or waste, to have the ability to sell the same product for less money; ultimately leading to a monopoly which may be even more harmful to the environment.
By increasing the tax the richest and biggest companies will still be able to pay and the rest will perish. This will create monopolies in almost every field, causing the same effect on the planet but only profiting fewer amounts of people. In my opinion for any of the significant changes that are needed to happen to actually occur it will require a shift in consciousness of the average person and ultimately companies. This shift can be implemented by more economic literacy campaigns. The goal of these campaigns is for the average person to possess a broader understanding of what economics is and how it relates to this kind of policy. However the implementation of this kind of policy is another story worth a thousand words…

Population

Quote:
The UN's long run medium projection is that the world's population will peak at 9 billion in 2075, and then fall to about 8.5 billion by 2200, and then start rising again to 9 billion by 2300.
Unquote:

Given that it should be stabilized at around 2 billion or less this is a pretty grim scenario.

Quote:
....we will have to reduce consumption to somewhat less than the average for countries such as Mexico before we can even think of approaching sustainability....
Unquote:

Actually, to reach sustainability right now we would have to reduce consumption to the level of Uzbekistan or Jordan. What does that look like? Measuring sustainable resources in global hectare or GHA, those countries' average per capita consumption is about 1.8gha. In comparison most of Europe consumes between 4 and 6gha, the US over 9gha and Canada about 8gha.

There are so many people that even if we wiped out the top 1 billion consumers the planet average would still be less than 2.5gha.

Fair Punishment?

In BC there are many power plants that emit approximately 3,256,691 tones of CO2 per year over BC. However 91% of energy is produced by hydro-electric means, 4 % by fossil fuel means, and 0% by other renewable means. In the next few years BC’s carbon emissions are expected to jump to 4,489,522 tones of carbon emitted. This large increase is attributed to the lack of other renewable energy sources in BC as well as the inefficiency of most hydro-electric plants. A tax of 10 $ per ton of carbon is not enough to curve this trend, additionally large, yet efficient, energy sources in BC will suffer from this carbon tax as well. For example a plant called Burrard in Port Moody in BC produces 25 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon, in contrast to Woodfiber in Squamish BC which produces the same amount of carbon but produces .3 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon. Yet the tax that both have to pay is the same, how is this fair?

BC should be promoting a more efficient use of hydro electric power, but punishing both green and dirty power plants equally is not a good incentive for plants to go “green”. The tax imposed on power plants specifically should be proportional to their efficiency. The carbon tax should look more like this: A tax of 15$ will be imposed on each ton of carbon emitted for every MW hour up to 1,000,000 MHW per year for each power plant. In this scenario Burrard plant, which produces .04 ton of carbon per MWH will pay .6$ for 1 MWH, where as Woodfiber plant, which produces 2.6 tones of carbon per MWH will pay 39$ for 1 MHW produced. Over one year of electricity production Burard plant produces 1,679,656 MWH of electricity and 68,138 tones of carbon, but for this tax only 1,000,000 MHW will be considered so that large suppliers are not punished for supplying large quantities of electricity. This means Burard plant will pay 600,000$ in taxes to fairly punish them for their carbon emissions. Woodfiber plant produces 26,285 MWH of electricity each year and 68,036 tones of carbon. They will pay 1,025,115$ in taxes in one year. Burard plant produces 98% MWH more than Woodfiber plant, however Burard only emits .3% tones of carbon more than Woodfiber. These differences are fairly reflected in that Woodfiber pays 41% more in taxes than Burard considering that Woodfiber produces 259% more carbon than electricity. If the universal 10$ tax on carbon stood, both would pay 680,000$ even though these differences of efficiency exist.

If this tax change were to occur plants like Burard plant would be fairly punished for its carbon emissions, but they would also be rewarded for their efficiency. Plants like Woodfiber would be forced to streamline production, and allocative efficiency would eventually be achieved. What results from this are large, efficient, green electricity plants that will strive to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible, meaning the goal of an 80-90% cut in carbon emissions might just take place.

Fair Punishment?

In BC there are many power plants that emit approximately 3,256,691 tones of CO2 per year over BC. However 91% of energy is produced by hydro-electric means, 4 % by fossil fuel means, and 0% by other renewable means. In the next few years BC’s carbon emissions are expected to jump to 4,489,522 tones of carbon emitted. This large increase is attributed to the lack of other renewable energy sources in BC as well as the inefficiency of most hydro-electric plants. A tax of 10 $ per ton of carbon is not enough to curve this trend, additionally large, yet efficient, energy sources in BC will suffer from this carbon tax as well. For example a plant called Burrard in Port Moody in BC produces 25 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon, in contrast to Woodfiber in Squamish BC which produces the same amount of carbon but produces .3 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon. Yet the tax that both have to pay is the same, how is this fair?

BC should be promoting a more efficient use of hydro electric power, but punishing both green and dirty power plants equally is not a good incentive for plants to go “green”. The tax imposed on power plants specifically should be proportional to their efficiency. The carbon tax should look more like this: A tax of 15$ will be imposed on each ton of carbon emitted for every MW hour up to 1,000,000 MHW per year for each power plant. In this scenario Burrard plant, which produces .04 ton of carbon per MWH will pay .6$ for 1 MWH, where as Woodfiber plant, which produces 2.6 tones of carbon per MWH will pay 39$ for 1 MHW produced. Over one year of electricity production Burard plant produces 1,679,656 MWH of electricity and 68,138 tones of carbon, but for this tax only 1,000,000 MHW will be considered so that large suppliers are not punished for supplying large quantities of electricity. This means Burard plant will pay 600,000$ in taxes to fairly punish them for their carbon emissions. Woodfiber plant produces 26,285 MWH of electricity each year and 68,036 tones of carbon. They will pay 1,025,115$ in taxes in one year. Burard plant produces 98% MWH more than Woodfiber plant, however Burard only emits .3% tones of carbon more than Woodfiber. These differences are fairly reflected in that Woodfiber pays 41% more in taxes than Burard considering that Woodfiber produces 259% more carbon than electricity. If the universal 10$ tax on carbon stood, both would pay 680,000$ even though these differences of efficiency exist.

If this tax change were to occur plants like Burard plant would be fairly punished for its carbon emissions, but they would also be rewarded for their efficiency. Plants like Woodfiber would be forced to streamline production, and allocative efficiency would eventually be achieved. What results from this are large, efficient, green electricity plants that will strive to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible, meaning the goal of an 80-90% cut in carbon emissions might just take place.

Fair Punishment?

In BC there are many power plants that emit approximately 3,256,691 tones of CO2 per year over BC. However 91% of energy is produced by hydro-electric means, 4 % by fossil fuel means, and 0% by other renewable means. In the next few years BC’s carbon emissions are expected to jump to 4,489,522 tones of carbon emitted. This large increase is attributed to the lack of other renewable energy sources in BC as well as the inefficiency of most hydro-electric plants. A tax of 10 $ per ton of carbon is not enough to curve this trend, additionally large, yet efficient, energy sources in BC will suffer from this carbon tax as well. For example a plant called Burrard in Port Moody in BC produces 25 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon, in contrast to Woodfiber in Squamish BC which produces the same amount of carbon but produces .3 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon. Yet the tax that both have to pay is the same, how is this fair?

BC should be promoting a more efficient use of hydro electric power, but punishing both green and dirty power plants equally is not a good incentive for plants to go “green”. The tax imposed on power plants specifically should be proportional to their efficiency. The carbon tax should look more like this: A tax of 15$ will be imposed on each ton of carbon emitted for every MW hour up to 1,000,000 MHW per year for each power plant. In this scenario Burrard plant, which produces .04 ton of carbon per MWH will pay .6$ for 1 MWH, where as Woodfiber plant, which produces 2.6 tones of carbon per MWH will pay 39$ for 1 MHW produced. Over one year of electricity production Burard plant produces 1,679,656 MWH of electricity and 68,138 tones of carbon, but for this tax only 1,000,000 MHW will be considered so that large suppliers are not punished for supplying large quantities of electricity. This means Burard plant will pay 600,000$ in taxes to fairly punish them for their carbon emissions. Woodfiber plant produces 26,285 MWH of electricity each year and 68,036 tones of carbon. They will pay 1,025,115$ in taxes in one year. Burard plant produces 98% MWH more than Woodfiber plant, however Burard only emits .3% tones of carbon more than Woodfiber. These differences are fairly reflected in that Woodfiber pays 41% more in taxes than Burard considering that Woodfiber produces 259% more carbon than electricity. If the universal 10$ tax on carbon stood, both would pay 680,000$ even though these differences of efficiency exist.

If this tax change were to occur plants like Burard plant would be fairly punished for its carbon emissions, but they would also be rewarded for their efficiency. Plants like Woodfiber would be forced to streamline production, and allocative efficiency would eventually be achieved. What results from this are large, efficient, green electricity plants that will strive to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible, meaning the goal of an 80-90% cut in carbon emissions might just take place.

In BC there are many power

In BC there are many power plants that emit approximately 3,256,691 tones of CO2 per year over BC. However 91% of energy is produced by hydro-electric means, 4 % by fossil fuel means, and 0% by other renewable means. In the next few years BC’s carbon emissions are expected to jump to 4,489,522 tones of carbon emitted. This large increase is attributed to the lack of other renewable energy sources in BC as well as the inefficiency of most hydro-electric plants. A tax of 10 $ per ton of carbon is not enough to curve this trend, additionally large, yet efficient, energy sources in BC will suffer from this carbon tax as well. For example a plant called Burrard in Port Moody in BC produces 25 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon, in contrast to Woodfiber in Squamish BC which produces the same amount of carbon but produces .3 MWh of electricity per ton of carbon. Yet the tax that both have to pay is the same, how is this fair?

BC should be promoting a more efficient use of hydro electric power, but punishing both green and dirty power plants equally is not a good incentive for plants to go “green”. The tax imposed on power plants specifically should be proportional to their efficiency. The carbon tax should look more like this: A tax of 15$ will be imposed on each ton of carbon emitted for every MW hour up to 1,000,000 MHW per year for each power plant. In this scenario Burrard plant, which produces .04 ton of carbon per MWH will pay .6$ for 1 MWH, where as Woodfiber plant, which produces 2.6 tones of carbon per MWH will pay 39$ for 1 MHW produced. Over one year of electricity production Burard plant produces 1,679,656 MWH of electricity and 68,138 tones of carbon, but for this tax only 1,000,000 MHW will be considered so that large suppliers are not punished for supplying large quantities of electricity. This means Burard plant will pay 600,000$ in taxes to fairly punish them for their carbon emissions. Woodfiber plant produces 26,285 MWH of electricity each year and 68,036 tones of carbon. They will pay 1,025,115$ in taxes in one year. Burard plant produces 98% MWH more than Woodfiber plant, however Burard only emits .3% tones of carbon more than Woodfiber. These differences are fairly reflected in that Woodfiber pays 41% more in taxes than Burard considering that Woodfiber produces 259% more carbon than electricity. If the universal 10$ tax on carbon stood, both would pay 680,000$ even though these differences of efficiency exist.

If this tax change were to occur plants like Burard plant would be fairly punished for its carbon emissions, but they would also be rewarded for their efficiency. Plants like Woodfiber would be forced to streamline production, and allocative efficiency would eventually be achieved. What results from this are large, efficient, green electricity plants that will strive to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible, meaning the goal of an 80-90% cut in carbon emissions might just take place.

elielian1

No worries, that's happened to many of us

Sorry!

I didn't mean to do that, sorry, my internet was acting up. Anyway here are my sources for the above post(s):

Statistics and Data from:
http://carma.org/dig/show/province+41+597+plant
CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action) an NGO that monitors international carbon emissions of factories and power plants.

http://www.bchydro.com/
British Columbia Hydro-Electric company

Don't worry Bill

Nature's on to it. As they say; 'Global Warming is so, like, then".

http://tailrank.com/5250798/Temperature-Monitors-Report-Worldwide-Global-Cooling

Yep! that's really convincing R/Man

Maybe you and mopled could start your own blog - then you'd only bore each other.

7,000 Reporting Stations Worldwide!

Only anecdotal. Quite new so not yet known by some.

February 26, 2008

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Only 7,000 reporting stations.
Quite inconvenient. Actually a bit embarassing - for some.

Absolutely anecdotal and generally a waste of time

I haven't noticed any dramatic cooling in Canada, for example - the last full year for which data are available certainly doesn't meet that criteria - and its only the end of month two in year 2008.

Don't dump your sunscreen....two months ain't much after all and folks were golfing in Toronto in Novemeber, remember.

A New Way of Life

Although the BC government is the first to have such a progressive movement, there are many flaws in their plan. First, the carbon tax will eliminate smaller companies, leaving only the larger corporations who can afford to pay the tax. These will intern many workers in the industrial sector of BC to loose their jobs. Second, although there is a tax, large corporations who can afford to pay the tax will not be affected because the tax is so low. Third, the government will intern be loosing revenue because they will be taking less income tax (and how will the people have health care). Forth, once the governments reduce carbon emitions from corporarions, they will have to re-raise income tax to revive themselves from debt. Fifth, now that people will have higher income, it could easily give them an easy access to buy products from abroad or that pollute the environment in other ways.

Although there are many negative effects that come through with this plan, it is only the start to a progressive envirnmental insitive globally.

I believe that this is only the start to a new sustainable way of life (at least in BC for now). But this should not be the only thing that should be done. Masses of the population should adapt to living and using more eco-friendly matters. I beleive the most important issue to consider now is useing public transportation, eco-friendly veicles, or at least carpooling.

This is the start to a new way of life.

Realism

The BC tax is has the right incentives, but as all ecological problems that target change in the ecological footprint, its problem is in its implementation. Almost all environmental solutions that target change these days leave one or two variables out, resulting in the plan being inefficient overall. This tax is, in the first place very low, so companies who can afford it will welcome it with open arms and continue to produce (they will find it more profitable to produce at higher prices instead of reducing production). The firms that cannot afford it, however, will be pushed towards their shutdown point of production; making them either shutdown or drastically reduce production (making their companies inefficient). The result, especially when these taxes rise, will be the remnant of only a few companies in the industry because of the elimination of the smaller companies. The whole industry, will therefore, begin to look like a collusive oligopoly, with the few companies who can afford the tax colluding to set very high prices. Also, what people can’t get in terms of carbon emissions themselves, they will more than make up for in the money they save (for example, buying plane tickets, consuming more in terms of electric appliances, etc.). If a carbon tax is to be properly implemented, it must be implemented on a global scale, or else consumption will find another way to be satisfied. What people don’t consume in terms of local sales of carbon, they will consume in terms of international carbon emissions or increased ecological consumption (paper, electricity, wood, etc.).

Realism

The BC tax is has the right incentives, but as all ecological problems that target change in the ecological footprint, its problem is in its implementation. Almost all environmental solutions that target change these days leave one or two variables out, resulting in the plan being inefficient overall. This tax is, in the first place very low, so companies who can afford it will welcome it with open arms and continue to produce (they will find it more profitable to produce at higher prices instead of reducing production). The firms that cannot afford it, however, will be pushed towards their shutdown point of production; making them either shutdown or drastically reduce production (making their companies inefficient). The result, especially when these taxes rise, will be the remnant of only a few companies in the industry because of the elimination of the smaller companies. The whole industry, will therefore, begin to look like a collusive oligopoly, with the few companies who can afford the tax colluding to set very high prices. Also, what people can’t get in terms of carbon emissions themselves, they will more than make up for in the money they save (for example, buying plane tickets, consuming more in terms of electric appliances, etc.). If a carbon tax is to be properly implemented, it must be implemented on a global scale, or else consumption will find another way to be satisfied. What people don’t consume in terms of local sales of carbon, they will consume in terms of international carbon emissions or increased ecological consumption (paper, electricity, wood, etc.).

Realism

The BC tax is has the right incentives, but as all ecological problems that target change in the ecological footprint, its problem is in its implementation. Almost all environmental solutions that target change these days leave one or two variables out, resulting in the plan being inefficient overall. This tax is, in the first place very low, so companies who can afford it will welcome it with open arms and continue to produce (they will find it more profitable to produce at higher prices instead of reducing production). The firms that cannot afford it, however, will be pushed towards their shutdown point of production; making them either shutdown or drastically reduce production (making their companies inefficient). The result, especially when these taxes rise, will be the remnant of only a few companies in the industry because of the elimination of the smaller companies. The whole industry, will therefore, begin to look like a collusive oligopoly, with the few companies who can afford the tax colluding to set very high prices. Also, what people can’t get in terms of carbon emissions themselves, they will more than make up for in the money they save (for example, buying plane tickets, consuming more in terms of electric appliances, etc.). If a carbon tax is to be properly implemented, it must be implemented on a global scale, or else consumption will find another way to be satisfied. What people don’t consume in terms of local sales of carbon, they will consume in terms of international carbon emissions or increased ecological consumption (paper, electricity, wood, etc.).

Realism

The BC tax is has the right incentives, but as all ecological problems that target change in the ecological footprint, its problem is in its implementation. Almost all environmental solutions that target change these days leave one or two variables out, resulting in the plan being inefficient overall. This tax is, in the first place very low, so companies who can afford it will welcome it with open arms and continue to produce (they will find it more profitable to produce at higher prices instead of reducing production). The firms that cannot afford it, however, will be pushed towards their shutdown point of production; making them either shutdown or drastically reduce production (making their companies inefficient). The result, especially when these taxes rise, will be the remnant of only a few companies in the industry because of the elimination of the smaller companies. The whole industry, will therefore, begin to look like a collusive oligopoly, with the few companies who can afford the tax colluding to set very high prices. Also, what people can’t get in terms of carbon emissions themselves, they will more than make up for in the money they save (for example, buying plane tickets, consuming more in terms of electric appliances, etc.). If a carbon tax is to be properly implemented, it must be implemented on a global scale, or else consumption will find another way to be satisfied. What people don’t consume in terms of local sales of carbon, they will consume in terms of international carbon emissions or increased ecological consumption (paper, electricity, wood, etc.).

Realism

The BC tax is has the right incentives, but as all ecological problems that target change in the ecological footprint, its problem is in its implementation. Almost all environmental solutions that target change these days leave one or two variables out, resulting in the plan being inefficient overall. This tax is, in the first place very low, so companies who can afford it will welcome it with open arms and continue to produce (they will find it more profitable to produce at higher prices instead of reducing production). The firms that cannot afford it, however, will be pushed towards their shutdown point of production; making them either shutdown or drastically reduce production (making their companies inefficient). The result, especially when these taxes rise, will be the remnant of only a few companies in the industry because of the elimination of the smaller companies. The whole industry, will therefore, begin to look like a collusive oligopoly, with the few companies who can afford the tax colluding to set very high prices. Also, what people can’t get in terms of carbon emissions themselves, they will more than make up for in the money they save (for example, buying plane tickets, consuming more in terms of electric appliances, etc.). If a carbon tax is to be properly implemented, it must be implemented on a global scale, or else consumption will find another way to be satisfied. What people don’t consume in terms of local sales of carbon, they will consume in terms of international carbon emissions or increased ecological consumption (paper, electricity, wood, etc.).

Realism

The BC tax is has the right incentives, but as all ecological problems that target change in the ecological footprint, its problem is in its implementation. Almost all environmental solutions that target change these days leave one or two variables out, resulting in the plan being inefficient overall. This tax is, in the first place very low, so companies who can afford it will welcome it with open arms and continue to produce (they will find it more profitable to produce at higher prices instead of reducing production). The firms that cannot afford it, however, will be pushed towards their shutdown point of production; making them either shutdown or drastically reduce production (making their companies inefficient). The result, especially when these taxes rise, will be the remnant of only a few companies in the industry because of the elimination of the smaller companies. The whole industry, will therefore, begin to look like a collusive oligopoly, with the few companies who can afford the tax colluding to set very high prices. Also, what people can’t get in terms of carbon emissions themselves, they will more than make up for in the money they save (for example, buying plane tickets, consuming more in terms of electric appliances, etc.). If a carbon tax is to be properly implemented, it must be implemented on a global scale, or else consumption will find another way to be satisfied. What people don’t consume in terms of local sales of carbon, they will consume in terms of international carbon emissions or increased ecological consumption (paper, electricity, wood, etc.).

efficiencies are uneconomic as well?

You seem to be hinting at Jevons paradox here, in a sense.

While we talk about reducing consumption, we are also talking about energy efficiencies. There again is that zero sum game if we do not address population issues.

At the same time, do we really realize what a target footprint of 1.8 means? It means that our global "business as usual" simply will not be viable any more, it means relocalization, it means an enormously simpler lifestyle, and ultimately it means that our psychotic obsession with the "health" of our economy will, and must, come to an end.

What I find disappointing about Rees is that, although he circumscribes the current economic problem quite well, he fails to offer real and detailed solutions, or even point in the direction of real solutions and their consequences. As an economist, he must be aware of the consequences of actually achieving that footprint of 1.8, and of how population pressures will lower that footprint, yet he steps around the issue without ever really jumping in.

Malthus is dead. Long live Malthus.

Budd Campbell writes

True enough, but his ideas are not if you check around a bit, although his time frame predictions clearly were wrong.

Given the mounting evidence around us, I'd say that, in general, Malthus wasn't wrong, he was just ahead of his time.

Perhaps he (and Erlich) are one reason why many public figures seem to be afraid, or at least reluctant, to address the population issue, wanting to avoid being called "Chicken Little" and thus having their other very valuable ideas dismissed in a similar manner. But I have in mind another fable instead, and in that one, the wolf did eventually come.

Too Healthy

The UN paper on population, published in 2006 (WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf) demonstrates that capitalism has succeeded in human extending longevity that is now one of the primary factors driving population growth.

It does no such thing

As a matter of fact, in some countries like parts of the former Soviet Union, capitalism has created exactly the opposite circumstance.

The report makes no claims whatsoever about any 'political' or economic system and its effects on longevity.

Didn't you read the report?

Among the more developed regions, Eastern Europe has the lowest life expectancy at birth
and has had a declining life expectancy since the late 1980s. In 2005-2010 life expectancy in
the region, at 68.6 years, is lower than it was in 1960-1965 (69.3 years). The Russian
xii World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision
Federation and Ukraine have experienced serious increases in mortality, partly because of the
spread of HIV.

Wealth is Good for You

...and in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia in particular we all know that alcohol consumption is causing the new lowering of life expectancy. The transition to capitalism there has been tough. But there is absolutely no question that more wealthy countries have longer life expectancy rates as well as lower birth rates, and the UN says that this will be responsible for a whopping 60% of the population increase!

Wiki agrees:

Perhaps you'd care to explain Cuba

Naw, the UN doesn't say it - you do.

I've already told you Wiki is short for waste of time.

Frank's right - there can be no other conclusion!

Personally, at the consumption rates current in most western 'democracies' we can't afford to have these people live any longer.

G West and Frank

Please, don't feed the troll!

Sincerely

G West and Frank

Yeah, it's becoming habituated.

The recent “most

The recent “most aggressive carbon pricing regime in North America” imposed by the Campbell administration should be commended. Mr. Rees questions the ‘aggressiveness’ of the tax claiming that the tax is “politically designed to have minimal impacts.” While I do agree that perhaps the tax could be higher and therefore have more of an effect it should be considered “aggressive,” for it is in relation to what has been done in the past.
As carbon taxes climb in BC other taxes, such as income taxes, are being decreased. According to Minster of Finance, Carole Taylor, the carbon tax is anticipated to produce $1.8 billion in the subsequent three years. The tax will not have a significant impact on the welfare of BC’s citizens because the tax will be absorbed by an income and business tax cut.
No one can dispute the fact that what is happening to today’s environment is due to people’s ignorance to the effects of their actions on the environment; it is evident that a solution is necessary and must be implemented soon. Mr. Rees assumes that the remaining money that has not been taxed will be invested in more environmentally straining activities and increased consumption but, as in all assumptions, his is unfounded only defending his argument by stating: “…. historically, efficiency gains have stimulated even greater consumption.” Mr. Rees should take into consideration that environmental awareness of this magnitude has never of existed before (historically speaking of course).
While the tax cut may not save the planet it will certainly have a positive impact and will set standards to uphold for future policy makers and policies across the world.

gmr

That's NOT the point - the revenue neutrality is just a feint - in order for behavior to change the investment has to go into infrastructure changes and a move away from highways and vehicles. There is no indication whatever that the Campbell government is so inclined - in fact, quite the contrary - the gateway program is fossil fuel intensive.

The tax isn't a significant blow on the noggin to change anyone's mind that isn't already convinced that individuals have a duty to change their lifestyle - it's irrelevant and economically naive.

Furthermore, the idea that most folks using vehicles now have the time, the inclination or the bucks to make a 'positive' change in their lifestyle is absolute nonsense.

As inflation starts to cut into everyone's paycheck and business failures start to cut into the economy (and you only need to look at the housing and the forest industry to understand that has already started) ordinary citizens are going to have bigger problems to deal with than coping with a nonsense tax and a milquetoast attempt at facile 'revenue neutrality'.

IT WILL HAVE NO POSITIVE EFFECT WHATEVER - all it's really done is illustrate how pathetic some environmental groups and spokespersons actually are.

In my view Rees is right on.

gmr

Absolutely correct, gmr. For a long time now those who feel passionately about the environment have suggested that we in Canada and we in BC in particular should demonstratively act and show an example to the rest of the world, even though our collective footprint is minuscule.

Gordon Campbell and his Finance Minister have bought forward a budget that does just this. The ball is now rolling. That is why it is being praised and lauded on almost all quarters, particularly by all environmental groups.

No they haven't

They've simply pulled the wool over your eyes and the eyes of a lot of media hungry enviros.

GWest

You're mistaken GWest:

"The tax isn't a significant blow on the noggin to change anyone's mind that isn't already convinced that individuals have a duty to change their lifestyle - it's irrelevant and economically naive."

Beating upon people's heads with punitive taxation will not generate your hoped-for Mea Culpas among the public, thus causing them to change their lifestyle. To the contrary, it will only generate resentment in a world where the dice are already loaded against us.

And you should be astute enough to see that the gov't does not want us to change our lifestyle. All it wants to do - as do you - is shift the blame, and assuage the calls that SOMEBODY should "DO SOMETHING".

I've long given up hope that you so-called "progressives" will ever realise that beating up on me and my lifestyle for things you consider wrong, is merely aping the authoritarianism of the neocons.

Not at all ME2

You haven't read my actual position on approaching the CO2 issue.

All I'm saying - and pointed out clearly here - is that this 'tax' is not going to change behavior.

We, as a society are addicted to gasoline and as such, the economic principles of supply and demand, which apply (in my view), are the ones associated with non-elastic demand. Therefore, behaviour will not be changed in any significant way by the application of this kind of tax...at the levels currently proposed.

There are, of course, more rational and sensible alternatives.

Furthermore, instead of 'revenue neutrality' being the touchstone of this stupid 'political' gesture, the tax revenue generated by such a program (even a foolish and ineffective one like this) would have to be immediately re-invested in the kinds of alternatives to continued burning of fossil fuels which would permit citizens to make a reasonable change in their behavior and begin to do something about responding to global warming.

Therefore, the program fails on two levels.

If you care to look a little more closely at what I've written on the subject, you can find it here at greater length (in the comments):
http://crawlacrosstheocean.blogspot.com/2008/02/because-people-on-internet-are-wrong.html#comments

I'm not beating up on anyone but Campbell and his minister of finance.

I hope, after having read that material, you'll acknowledge that your criticism is mis-directed.

Cheers.

Not only that

The ministry's own projections show that consumption and CO2 production will continue to rise by something in the range of 2% per year for the 3-year period upcoming anyway.

Because the tax will create inflationary pressures it will certainly have an effect on the economy - and one that will not tend to be marginal - in my opinion.

Here's an interesting piece saying much the same thing from the Vancouver Sun:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=aab23d96-2d66-43aa-a4e1-b846f9b12a32&k=18242

Is leaving this board open

Is leaving this board open past the magic 5 days just an oversight, or an attempt to attract more comments?

shift in thought...

its amazing how people tend to forget that the foundation for our economy and society are all based from nature. This isn't hippy talk anymore.
anything we produce, manufacture, create or provide is based off land and our physical environment. If we lose that, if something hinders that, then we have a real problem. Once we scar the earth permanently, it is then when we will be unable to lead normal lifestyles or to keep healhty economies running.
it is much more important that the state of the environment is health, and that people have food and avaliable healthcare than it is for the abstract numbers of the stock exchange to be high.

we're lucky. everything can still workout as of right now. but if no body listens, if people keep their ears shut (shout out to some of the people here) and nothing is done, then we will face a scary problem. Lets fix it now, and not make of childern suffer.