Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Uncertainty surrounds B.C. carbon cap plan

SHAWN MCCARTHY AND WENDY STUECK

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 3:09 PM EDT 07/04/08

Big greenhouse gas emitters remain in the dark on key aspects of system and how much it will cost to comply ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jeff S from Canada writes: So, if i read this correctly. This is basically a tax grab that may or may not lead to reduced emissions.

    It also seems to be another method for certain groups of traders to get richer.

    The trading of carbon (as stupid as that is) should not be allowed to float on a market system. It should be set as a tax (as stupid as that is).

    Witness what future traders are doing to the price of oil and realize that they will only do the same for carbon. All additional costs will be passed onto the consumer.

    Someone will get rich off this and it won't be John Q. Public.

    If I didn't mention it already anthropogenic global warming is a hoax and human produced carbon is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to other factors affecting climate. Which in itself humans do not affect.

    The climate changed before humans were even on the scene and will do so after we are gone.
  2. Stude Ham from Canada writes: Uncertainty??? Hey everyone this carbon tax thingymagig is just another tax... which by any other name still costs as much as any other tax. in other words... a tax is a tax is a tax... and in this case instead of calling by its proper name like 'OLYMPIC TAX' such as Montreal once did to cover the 5-ring circus out of control expenses, BC is surreptitiously pretending that it really is an environmental thing. Actually it's just another tax, whose cost will be passed to everybody, for the sake of financing the massive deficits, now known and not being revealed, of that vanoc 2010 disaster.
  3. Randy D from Canada writes: Where is the uncertainly. The government is certain to use this as a tax grab despite many, many scientists analogizing 'global warming' to the propoganda spewed by the German Nazi party claiming Jews were rats. Despite Al Gores claims to the contrary there are a hell of a lot of scientists who do not buy into this sham. I am not sure who will ultimately look like the bigger fool--the Carol Taylors of the world or the taxpayers who will once again take this theft with the usual shrug.
  4. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: If this article is good for anything, it points out how flawed cap and trade is.
  5. Durward Saar from Canada writes: If we are the only place in North America with a carbon trading scam then we must be sending cash to Europe for credits.
    The globe is cooling so this is theft.
    Man made global warming is a scam and so is this tax grab.
    What kind of free democratic country enacts laws and forces taxes on the public for a fantasy problem?
    A child would be a better enviro minister than we have now, at least we could explain the infintile intelligence level of someone willing to enact laws based soley on emotion and with-out a shred of reliable evidence to back up thier doomsday claims when the evidence that it's all a scam is documented daily.
  6. Tim Allen from A Road less Travelled, Canada writes: Hang on you 'Deniers' as the 'Believers' will soon be spilling their venom! It's true, there is still not one reliable shred of evidence that there is any such thing as anthropogenic climate change. The climate has always changed, and will continue to, regardless of what we do. However, those that have joined the faith can not be persuaded otherwise. As for the entire carbon credit scam, those misguided souls will continue to make an unworkable solution work. For those who would pay extra to assuage your green guilt: Do you really know where your carbon credit money is going? There have been many scams in this area already, and many more to come. Remember those 10,000 trees planted by carbon offsetting money from Coldplay? They all died. That's what will eventually happen to this bazarre idea, but not before the gullible taxpayers have been burned once again by our governments.
  7. Dry Ice from Calgary, Canada writes: BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
    BC IS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS
  8. Gail Thomas from Canada writes: Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank with his hedge fund.
  9. Alberta Separatist from Canada writes: The climate is indeed changing as it has for millions of years--warming. cooling, warming, cooling. What causes these shifts? No one knows with 100% certainty, but is sure as heck wasn't CO2 for millions of years.
    The debate is not over!!
  10. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Randy D: You say that 'many, many scientists' liken support for the human-caused global warming scenario to Nazi propaganda. You also say that there are a lot of scientists 'who do not buy into this scam.'

    Why, then, does every major scientific organization in the world say that the recent rapid warming is unprecedented and is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels?

    Have you explained to the National Research Council of Canada that they are wrong? Or, do you just make anonymous Nazi propaganda allegations on comment boards?
  11. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada says 'Randy D: You say that 'many, many scientists' liken support for the human-caused global warming scenario to Nazi propaganda. You also say that there are a lot of scientists 'who do not buy into this scam.' Why, then, does every major scientific organization in the world say that the recent rapid warming is unprecedented and is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels?' Well, of course NOT every major scientific organization is in agreement with your hysteria. It's sort of like the gun registry in Canada. The rank and file police organizations did not support it, but the politically appointed hacks in the police chiefs associations did support it. Open you eyes and take a look around. Start at http://www.climateaudit.org/ and see just how flawed the 'science' is.
  12. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Joe Bloggins: You say that not all major scientific organizations (not lobby groups such as Climate Audit, which has done some good work) support the AGW scenario. Name just one that does not.
  13. T Rogers from Canada writes: I'm going to need a bigger vehicle to haul back all the fuel I intend to purchase in the States.
  14. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, says 'Joe Bloggins: You say that not all major scientific organizations (not lobby groups such as Climate Audit, which has done some good work) support the AGW scenario. Name just one that does not.'

    Well, let's just back up a second here. You were the one who said 'Why, then, does every major scientific organization in the world say that the recent rapid warming is unprecedented and is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels?: You said EVERY major scientific organization. Can you verify that or are you just beaking off the way most global-cooling deniers do?

    For the record, the National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, 'Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.'
  15. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Joe Bloggins: You say that not all major scientific organizations (not lobby groups such as Climate Audit, which has done some good work) support the AGW scenario. Name just one that does not..........you sound like Jo Abess the activist who brow beat the BBC into changing the news for the cause, damm the truth.

    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906

    I can see Carol Taylor sending a few of these off after the summer of 2008 and all the dire weather events predicted by Hansen never materialize for the third year in a row.
  16. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Oh and Bob Beal....the real nazis in this whole discussion are the eco-fascists like David Suzuki and Al Gore.
  17. scamp the from Canada writes:
    So in the future we can expect trader to bundle these carbon credit in bonds and send them throughout the security market, when the turn out to have no value, the entire economic system can collapse.

    please, this is all a bunch of lazy government. Invest in technology.
    The reality is that going green is often more efficient, which mean lower cost, which is the end result of business anyways.

    if we took a fraction of the money we're spending on all this crap, invested it in battery technology, we'd have plug-in hybrids and car pollution would not be a problem....no worries, we'll leave that to the americans. they do technology best.

    Similarily, if we invested in scrubbers.... we could clean up our coal plants instead of just ranting about them and keeping them open.

    blah.
  18. Doug Edwards from Rural, Canada writes: 'UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDS B.C. CARBON TAX PLAN'

    There is no uncertainty. I know that this plan will:
    a) Cost me money
    b) Make some people (including Al Gore) very rich.
    c) Not reduce carbon emmissions.
  19. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: bruce riley from spruce grove, says 'I can see Carol Taylor sending a few of these off after the summer of 2008 and all the dire weather events predicted by Hansen never materialize for the third year in a row.' Yep.....Hansen's 'science' is being torn to pieces and revealed as amateur each and every day.
  20. Alberta Separatist from Canada writes:

    Bob Beal:

    Just one report that does not support man made global warming:

    US Senate Report 2007: Over 400 prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming claims. Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dizen countries voiced objections to major aspects of the 'consensus' on GW. Many were former participants in the UN IPCC Panel.
  21. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: Easy. Reduce CO2 emissions by 10% per year and you are ahead of the game, no matter what.

    Or, you can play games to try and work around the issue. But given the dire consequences of run-away warming, that is hardly the ethical choice.
  22. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: aviation? marine? Also easy. 50% of emissions assigned to origin, 50% to destination.

    People (and -ironically- by that I mean industry and political 'leaders'), this stuff is not complicated. Just do it, as quickly and simply as possible.
  23. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Carol Taylor
    Is just another incompetant party hack given an important job which is so far over her head that it defies belief.

    From health care spending , income trust theft and now carbon trading/energy taxes she shows her incompetance every time she stands up.

    I can't believe I supported these bunch of idiots.
  24. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Joe Bloggins: I am not going to look at the website of every major scientific organization in the world. I make the assertion that every single one of them supports the AGW scenario, without exception. If I am wrong, it should be a really simple task to shoot me down.

    I don't know where you get your quote from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I take mine here from the introduction to 'Understanding and Responding to Climate Change,' an NAS booklet published in 2006. (You can find it on their website.)

    'In the judgement of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.'

    The NAS has produced numerous reports about global warming and climate change in recent years. All of them are based on the premise that AGW is real and is a serious danger to the world's societies and economies. One of their recent ones, which got some press, was about global warming's serious threat to North American infrastructure.

    If you are going to call individuals 'Nazis,' you should do it to their faces under your real name. To do otherwise is morally reprehensible.
  25. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....our Gordo is really gifted in talking the talk....but his gait leaves much to be desired.....poor guy has his hands full now with 2 open scandals to deal with and possible ones in the pipeline....
  26. L Harder from Canada writes: The uncertainty is based on how much how fast. For the maroons out there, this is not officially a tax. Money won't be flowing to government. Could be flowing to more efficient companies that reduce emissions. I don't have a problem with that. The devil is always in the detains.
  27. ken g from Cuernavaca, Mexico, Canada writes: 'scamp the from Canada' good point. Just like the ABCP, it could be coined the Carbon Credit Commercial Paper (CCCP) and in a few years worthless. It kinda fits since the CCCP (Soviet Russia) also collapsed.
  28. Hans Ulster from Republic of Alberta, Canada writes: I am waiting for the cooling trend in Western Canada as a result of the tax in B.C. LOL.

    The politicians are sniffing way too much glue.
  29. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton....are you just plain stupid or just a hypocrite like Al Gore? You say, 'If you are going to call individuals 'Nazis,' you should do it to their faces under your real name. To do otherwise is morally reprehensible.'

    Bob...go back and look at your own earlier post (10:20), you idiot. It is you who made the comment 'Or, do you just make anonymous Nazi propaganda allegations on comment boards?' So I guess it's okay for you to make allegations, eh? How typical of a brain dead eco-fascist.

    As for the National Research Council of Canada, I really don't much care what they say. I only care what individual scientists say....not what politically motivated organizations say. There is a big difference although I realize you are too far gone to understand.
  30. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Alberta Separatist: U.S. Senator James Inhofe, a prominent AGW denier (and in his case, 'denier' is the appropriate word) put together the list of more than '400 scientists.' The list has been thoroughly debunked. Many of them are not scientists at all. In any case, Inhofe is hardly a major scientific organization.

    I am well aware that there are some scientists who seriously question the bases of the AGW scenario, and some of those have very good credentials. But the fact is that they are very few (even if you could find 400, that would be a drop in the proverbial bucket. There are more than 40 faculty members in the U of Alberta Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences alone, and lots of grad students). And the fact is that the AGW skeptics in the scientific community are far from the mainstream. Perhaps they are correct, but I would rather bet on the judgement of every major scientific organization in the world.
  31. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: by Nigel Lawson ........ it is clear that the would-be saviours of the planet are, in practice, the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world.

    So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear. Indeed, the more one examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth - and a mountain of nonsense.

    And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.

    We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.........

    Convenient to the politicians, and basically no plan from the implications of the article, what is the goal? It can't be co2 reduction, it's let's pay for the 5 ring circus and call it saving the planet, they'll never know.
  32. Carl W from Canada writes: Once upon a time, about 11,000 years ago, there was a west coast province under a mile of ice. Two guys lit a campfire, but they didn't pay the guvmint any taxes, so all the glaciers melted from the evil CO2. The end.

    Or it should have been the end, but da folks in Victoria, who think their poop don't stink, except it did, so they had to extend the pipe way out to sea, so their condoms and heavy metals and solvents and crap wash up on the U.S. beaches instead of downtown Victoria, those guys want more money from the single moms, so they had an idea for a new tax, a let's call it a good for the environment tax, which is more palatable than a good for gordo tax.

    But look on the bright side. Homeless people won't have to pay it. Most of rural B.C. is homeless now, and after 2010 is boycotted, most of the lower mainland will be too!
  33. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Bob Beal....I see that you are a global cooling denier.
  34. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Joe Bloggins: You say that not all major scientific organizations (not lobby groups such as Climate Audit, which has done some good work) support the AGW scenario. Name just one that does not.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/

    19,000 signatures here Bob
  35. Alan Wong from Canada writes: ' Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: ...
    Bob...go back and look at your own earlier post (10:20), you idiot. It is you who made the comment 'Or, do you just make anonymous Nazi propaganda allegations on comment boards?' So I guess it's okay for you to make allegations, eh? How typical of a brain dead eco-fascist.'

    Joe... THis is going to hurt. Bob was talking about Randy D, who, at (8:00) indeed made correlations with Nazis and global warming accepters. I guess you could say he was only mentioning that some scientists say this and that he was not, himself, advocating this view. Kind of like how I always talk about intelligent people thinking that most deniers are ignorant or selfish people that refuse to give up their unsustainable bad habits and have no moral reservations about burdening the future generations with cleaning up their mess.

    '...I only care what individual scientists say....not what politically motivated organizations say. ...'

    Well, it's good that you have enough time on your hands to conduct an accurate survey of what most respected scientists say in private, away from the ears of those that fund them. If you could give us your report it would really help the rest of us understand your argument.

    ' bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: ...
    And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.'

    Bruce, that quote has no facts, only rhetoric. Could you give the article that actually contains the relevant information? Thanks.

    I admit it, I'm a skeptic... I'm very skeptical that 'deniers' have good reason to sit on their hands and do nothing. The implications of being a denier and being wrong are much worse than being a believer and being wrong. If you can't come up with a good reason why humans DONT have an effect (as opposed to MIGHT NOT have an effect), then I don't see how you can be so vitriolic against those that try to do something.
  36. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Randy D from Canada has, I believe, set an internet land speed record for the invocation of Godwin's Law, before there was even any debate in the conversation. Nicely done.
  37. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Alan Wong...you do your research and I'll do mine. I know propaganda when I see it. You can start by going to http://www.climateaudit.org/. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the internet that you can find if you take the time to look. But I realize you are well entrenched in your confirmational bias and are not likely to search for anything that denies your bias. There is a saying, believe it and you will see it. That's exactly what is going on with the hysterical global warming dweebs.
  38. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bruce: You refer to the Oregon Petition of 1999-2001, not to a legitimate scientific organization.

    The Orgeon Petition is famous. You can look it up in Wikipedia. Among the well-known scientists who 'signed' it were: Perry S. Mason, Michael J. Fox, and Dr. Geri Halliwell. I prefer taking advice from real people and real organizations.
  39. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...Oh, we notice that the doctors had their Climate Change moment on the Damascan road....can hair-dressers be far behind?......
  40. k p from Vancouver, Canada writes: With the high price of fuel, it does not make sense to introduce carbon taxes. It is like kicking somebody when they are already down.
  41. boom boom from Canada writes: For any individual province to kick in a carbon tax is just plain stupid. BC will pay the price big-time for this bone-headed plan. Might have to wait until after the Olympics, then watch out!
  42. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: Alan Wong......There is no specific article that Nigel Lawson is replying to, the point I was trying to make is that politicians are the masters of unintended consequences, BC does not even have a plan on how they are going to reduce their co2 outputs, yet they go ahead with a cap and trade scenario

    http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/

    Alan there are oceans of peer reviewed papers on man caused climate change both for and against, people in general don't care about the science, they care about how good they feel about themselves, the ego rules.

    Dr. Hansen warns that we need to cut CO2 levels by 30 ppm, or global warming will destroy humanity.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions

    Unlike most of Hansen's unverifiable long term claims, in this case we already have data to examine. The last ten years have been above 350ppm and temperatures have been declining.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/ipccar4and_trend.jpg

    Even worse than the air temperatures, ocean heat content is declining - which negates the other half of his claim.

    it's not the science, it's who's side are you on......
  43. J L from Canada writes: BC to implement Carbon Tax against major polluters.This should make the Dr Suzuki Fan Club very happy.Noting this is a policy implemented by the EU some time ago.It might explain one of the reasons why the price of gas at the pumps is double that which Canadians(that includes BC) are currently paying.That begs the questions how happy is that going to make BC Drivers and those Industries that rely on relatively low energy costs to operate.and will they pass these additional operating costs on to the consumer? There's a old saying 'BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR IT JUST MIGHT HAPPEN'
  44. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Wong from Canada writes:'If you can't come up with a good reason why humans DON'T have an effect...'

    The fact that, in the face of ever-increasing GHG concentrations, temperatures have been stable or falling for the last six years and more is pretty strong evidence that GHGs DON'T dominate temperature changes:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
  45. John Connor from Canada writes: The implications of being a denier and being wrong are much worse than being a believer and being wrong.

    Bull. We will all have to pay for the mistakes of AGW proponents through higher taxes, and lunatic policies developed in hasty response to circumstances that are not in our control, nor will they ever be.

    Humans aren't important enough in the grand scheme of things to be of consequence regarding climate change. The Earth has experienced greater fluctuations in temperature many times, none caused by its' inhabitants that we know of.

    Unless of course the methane from the dinos wrecked the eco-system, or their Hummers and SUV's.....
  46. Carl W from Canada writes: Pathetic try Alan Wong, deniers 'do nothing' while believers..... do nothing except vacation in Rio at taxpayers expense? Take a ride, to Mexico City, Calcutta, Bangkok, see the garbage, see the sewage, see the dead oceans, see the lack of action on sewage in Victoria, or Ottawa and Montreal, see the real environmental problems, while all we do is truck our garbage further and further to Michigan and Oregon. Canadian fashion, when you're not going to do anything, make something up to waste everyone's time and money on, for the trough types. It's no coincidence that we chose CO2, can't see it, can't taste it, can't smell it, count some, don't count some, make up numbers, who cares. But for sure, raise taxes, there's plenty more where that came from!

    So the real risk, the one foisted upon us by the born again ecocondriacs, the true believers, is that we fiddle while the world burns, or more correctly stated, while the world drowns, in sewage and garbage, coz we wuz focused on da evil CO2!
  47. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: Bob Beale..... I knew you would pick out some of the names on the petition, everyone does, but there are far more legitimate scientists' signatures on the Oregon Petition than not and here are 400 hundred more of course.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
  48. Common Sense from Canada writes: Why did the outcry of Global Warming did change to Climate Change? Probably because there were too many unexplained questions on Global Warming, while Climate Change is cyclic and its existence common sense.
  49. Antonio San from Calgary, Canada writes: Another marvel of the Jaccard/Hoggan/Suzuki lobby, now in Montreal training cult members to spread the Gorepel, part of the $300 million PR campaign over 3 years. this is BIG GREEN!

    Bob Beal, It's snowing in the plains of northern France today. March in Vancouver was the coldest on record etc... Nature must be afraid of BC carbon tax... Should you stop breathing and save the 15,000ppm of CO2 you exhale every breath, a new glaciation would onset next winter....
  50. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: '19,000 signatures here Bob'

    Including -- what? -- 2 scientists?
  51. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Antonio San from Calgary, Canada writes: 'It's snowing in the plains of northern France today. March in Vancouver was the coldest on record etc.'

    Another denier who doesn't know weather is different from climate.
  52. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: John Connor from Canada writes: 'Unless of course the methane from the dinos wrecked the eco-system, or their Hummers and SUV's.....'

    Back to your dinosaur colouring book, JC.
  53. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Carl W from Canada writes: 'Or it should have been the end, but da folks in Victoria, who think their poop don't stink'

    Typical level of denier comments ... sophomoric.
  54. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States fell by 1.8 percent in 2006, compared to a 0.3 percent increase in emissions in the European Union (EU), according to newly released data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The new data confirm the continuing success of market-oriented, voluntary greenhouse gas emissions programs in the U.S. versus European cap-and-trade mandates. The stark difference occurred even though the two economies grew at a near-identical pace in 2006, roughly 3 percent for the year. 2006 data show the EU is failing to live up to its Kyoto promises. According to the European Environmental Agency, 13 countries of the EU-15 have increased emissions over the past 16 years.
  55. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: '19,000 signatures here Bob'

    Including -- what? -- 2 scientists?...............

    IPCC scientists at work....... gimme a rubber stamp and some ink, there, that'll do, wow the work load is tremendous around here.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960

    let the games begin
  56. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: What's this? Vague environmental policies, poor implementation, no direction, with questionable results...from the Liberals, well now I've seen it all.

    Gore's going be so rich from selling credits (nothing.) He'll be able to fly to every conference in the world and spread so much awareness. Isn't awareness really what's important? If these prophets didn't tell us that global warming is going to doom us all how would we know? I would have chalked last winter up to being cold, but Gore has taught me that cold can mean warm. Without awareness, its not a crisis...it's just weather.
  57. Carl W from Canada writes: Puerile, would be the Hugh Campbell level, submitting four ad hominem attacks, saying less than nothing about the issue. It's okay Hugh. I forgive you. :)
  58. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: aviation? marine? Also easy. 50% of emissions assigned to origin, 50% to destination.

    People (and -ironically- by that I mean industry and political 'leaders'), this stuff is not complicated. Just do it, as quickly and simply as possible.

    >> Not complicated? Funny guy.

    So what other world changing plans such is this 'are not complicated'? How about ending poverty? Oh that, too easy. We'll do that AFTER we the entire world pop gets free universal health care. So free health care and changing the way the world works. Yeah, easy peasy. So what will you do in the afternoon, after you have solved these two simple problems?
  59. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: I wonder if Gore sells lip service credits as well? Or would that be a breach of antitrust laws?
  60. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Carl W from Canada writes: 'Or it should have been the end, but da folks in Victoria, who think their poop don't stink'

    Typical level of denier comments ... sophomoric.

    >> The OP is just trying to keep you in the loop, Wayne. Perhaps he can re-write it for public skool, just for you Hughie.

    And did you check out the 'smrt' ref? Really, just oogle it Hughie. But beware, once you step into nomal human stuff, your thin veneer of self-lefteous piety will strip away. I mean, one atom thick, it wouldn't survive a gnat sneeze.
  61. Dick Nails from Canada writes: One Q for you Hughie: what is the diff between a priest and a Goracle ditto head?

    (insert blank space here)

    Bye Hughie.
  62. Antonio San from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Antonio San from Calgary, Canada writes: 'It's snowing in the plains of northern France today. March in Vancouver was the coldest on record etc.'

    Another denier who doesn't know weather is different from climate.'

    Hugh can't have it both ways pal. You cannot argue that heat waves, storms etc... are linked to AGW but suddenly deny links when snow and cold come our ways. In fact your climate vs. weather comment is truly baseless drivel. The weather is an instantaneous snapshot of climate and it is the record of weather and weather parameters over an arbitrary 30 year period that is supposed to give us an idea of climatic trends. By the way, you should learn there are many climates, polar, temperate, tropical and equatorial, and that temperature is only one of many parameters defining possible climatic variations.
    So instead of rehashing your little credo like an automate, you should LEARN!
  63. Harbinger from Out West from Canada writes: Regarding a few communities here in BC who wanted to be exempt from this carbon tax, it reminded me of that commercial many years ago where an Eskimo was outside with a bag of potato chips. He said to his friend, ' If I give you one, I will have to give everyone a chip'. Carole Taylor must've filed that ad in her mind for future use.
  64. Antonio San from Calgary, Canada writes: 'The former vice-president of the United States received a standing ovation as he walked into a crowded ballroom at the Hyatt Regency Hotel around 8 a.m. The 220 taking tutelage from Gore come from all parts of Canada. There was simultaneous translation offered to francophones who don't understand English. *The training sessions, from which media were excluded, are said to stress the importance of using a slide show to help build an argument in favour of the idea of carbon taxes.* Gore called Quebec 'the natural place' to hold his seminars at a private gathering Friday night, calling the province 'the environmental conscience of Canada.' Quebec became the first province in Canada to levy a carbon tax last October. After making its debut at the Sundance Film Festival in 2006, An Inconvenient Truth has become one of the most influential documentaries of the modern media age. Gore, argues in the movie that global warming isn't just a political issue, it's a moral issue. Gore said nations need to put 'an economic cost' on global warming through carbon taxes in order to deal with the problem of global warming most effectively. The 220 people are expected to go home and start presenting the adapted slide show in their own communities. There are another 1,000 slide show presenters in the U.S., and 800 others elsewhere in the world. The 2,000 are all part of the Gore-inspired Climate Project, based in Nashville, Tennessee, Gore's home state.' Montreal Gazette... Info you won't see in the Globe!
  65. MR. oz from Canada writes: Is it the truth that Mr. al gore's electric bills are around twentytwo {22000.00} thousand dollars a month?
  66. BEN DOVER from WESTERN CANADA, Canada writes: Certainly it hasn't been thought through. Carol Taylor needed to leave us something to remember her by as she leaves politics? 'Carbon Footprint' is trendy, so she just went ahead with it. A typical political move.
  67. John Connor from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: John Connor from Canada writes: 'Unless of course the methane from the dinos wrecked the eco-system, or their Hummers and SUV's.....'

    Back to your dinosaur colouring book, JC.

    What's your point, other than the one over your brow?
  68. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: MR. oz from Canada asks 'Is it the truth that Mr. al gore's electric bills are around twentytwo {22000.00} thousand dollars a month?' The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has said that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. One of Gore's media stooges tried to deflect the issue by saying that Gore “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” But that claim is crap. Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets out of his own pocket and the actual economic cost, if any, to him is unknown. The actual offset purchaser is a London-based investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), that AL GORE CO-FOUNDED with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood and others in 2004. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman
  69. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: MR. oz from Canada wrote: Is it the truth that Mr. al gore's electric bills are around twentytwo {22000.00} thousand dollars a month?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, they're actually closer to $1,400 a month. He also uses around $1000 of natural gas per month (in Tennesee no less)

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/28/gore-electricity.html

    That's just $30 000 per year in gas and electricity.
    You're missing the point though. He wants to change your life, not his. What is important is that you pay more, that you sacrifice and you cancel any air travel. Conservation is clearly paramount to Gore, just not for him. He has so much awareness to spread.
  70. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice.
  71. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: Surely any who live in BC will recognize another smoke and mirrors effort to fool the people into thinking this Social Credit Government has any concerns for the environment.

    I mention Social Credit, because if this were not so, why would Premier Gordon Campbell name the new Okanagan Lake bridge after the once upon a time, Social Credit Premier Bill Bennet? Never in history has a government named an edifice after the leader of another party. You see, the Socreds became less than popular in BC, so those in the party hi-jacked the BC Liberal Party and filled it with their own, which they continue to do. Very successful though, it has fooled the majority of the voters and Campbell and company can smirk all the way into the next election.

    Expansion of roads and bridges in the province are only encouraging more highway driving and more pollution and C02 emissions. It is impossible to serve two masters.

    Another Tax Grab, yes, Gordon has to pay for the Olympics somehow, and it is your pockets and mine that he will be emptying, regardless of what corner of this land you live in. Federal contributions will come out of your pockets just like the pockets of those of us BC folk who are saddled with this two week party for the rich, and ribbon cutting event for Gordon.
  72. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: That's just $30 000 per year in gas and electricity.
    You're missing the point though. He wants to change your life, not his. What is important is that you pay more, that you sacrifice and you cancel any air travel. Conservation is clearly paramount to Gore, just not for him. He has so much awareness to spread.
    ============>
    That is why he is the polictian and you are not. Anyway, when you travelled into the third world country, you should fit that you should save it for others. There are a lot of people that is not as lucky as us.
  73. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes:"All of them are based on the premise that AGW is real..."

    Which is just a premise, unfortunately for the authors of those reports.

    And while politicians wallow in economically destructive diatribes, global average temperatures still stubbornly refuse to increase in response to the ever-increasing GHG concentrations in the world.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  74. Common sense is BACK! from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: And while politicians wallow in economically destructive diatribes, global average temperatures still stubbornly refuse to increase in response to the ever-increasing GHG concentrations in the world.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf "

    ----------------

    GlynnMhor - how many times do you have to be called out for your stupidity before you give up? Seriously, it's getting really old.

    Michael Sharp and Martha Stewart might thing your a genius, but anyone with half a brain can see the fallacy of your pathetic arguements.

    We get it, you are incapable of understanding the basic science behind climate change. We get that point. How many more times do you have to keep making it?
  75. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gee, CSB, if you think that my argument about the connection between GHGs and temperature is fallacious, then by all means you can try to argue against it.

    The reality is that you can't. If GHGs actually did dominate temperature change, as the prevailing paradigm and the AGW fearmongers would have us believe, we would have seen signifigant increases in temperature continuing as they did from 1970-2000.

    We have seen no such increases over the last six years or more, certainly nothing like the rate seen for the previous thirty years.

    Explain, if you can, how increasing GHGs produce no temperature increases.
  76. Common sense is BACK! from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gee, CSB, if you think that my argument about the connection between GHGs and temperature is fallacious, then by all means you can try to argue against it.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Listen here Monkey - If I want your opinion I'll give it to you, now get back in your cage.

    Unlike you, I learn quickly. I've proven you wrong over and over and over again over the past 8 months. I'm simply getting really tired of it. I've come to realize you are a lost cause - I'd rather argue with a watermelon.

    You are a loonie extremist ClOwNservative. Take your medication and call it a night you crazy insane lunatic.
  77. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: That looks like a pretty weak excuse for an argument, CSB.

    You should know by now that showers of abuse and vitriol will not deter me from showing people where to find out the facts about global temperature changes.

    At least some people, like Alan for example, try to present competing arguments. Of course others, like PP or VoR, join you in rudeness without being able to come up with anything convincing.
  78. Common sense is BACK! from Canada writes: .

    GlynnMhor of Skywall is such a reknowned tool, that someone created a webpage devoted just to proving how much of a clown this guy is;

    http://www.climatechange.dynalias.com/

    Figures 17 through 22 put GlynnMhor in his place, every time.

    God help GlynnMhor if the ONE graph he has been referring to these past 8 months from that ONE source ever gets moved.
  79. Common sense is BACK! from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: You should know by now that showers of abuse and vitriol will not deter me from showing people where to find out the facts about global temperature changes.

    ------------------------------------------------

    We know, that's because you are a tool. Remeber that annoying retarded kid in school who never figured out people were laughing at him?? Something tells me you were that guy.
  80. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Actually, CSB, Alan's figures 17-22 show more than anything how badly the IPCC modelling has missed actual temperatures from 1910-1960. The real data show warming from 1910-1940 of about 0.5 degree, while the models show 0.45 degrees over 50 years, not dropping until 1960.

    If the models so badly miss that warming period, how can anyone claim them to be accurate for the nearly identical 1970-2000 warming of about 0.5 degree?

    More particularly, since the models clearly do not include the causes of the first warming, those models cannot exclude those same unknown factors from among the causes of the second warming.
  81. Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes:
    Carbon taxes and carbon caps are insane folly and in a way quite irrelevant, since much greater dangers face the future of the human race on the face of the earth.

    Politicians need to forget about the arcane niceties of Carbon dioxide cycles and the effects that caps and taxes will have on them and get down to work TO KEEP OUR ECONOMY FUNCTIONING IN THE FACE OF THE "STAGFLATION DEPRESSION" Canada has entered.

    Wasting time on CARBON TAXES AND CAPS which will in effect hobble our economy while other countries economies get off 'SCOT FREE' is stupid to say the least.

    Advancing civilization requires more and cheaper power for each and every individual on the face of the earth if it is to continue!

    The most effective and indeed the simplest method of controlling CO2 EMISSIONS CAUSED BY HUMANS...........IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HUMANS!!

    PLAIN AND SIMPLE...No if's and's and but's.........Reduce the human population by a factor of 1000 and CO2 emissions will reduce by a like amount!
  82. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Common sense is BACK! from Canada....pointing to a Suzuki stooge's website hardly strengthens your position.
  83. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes:"... Reduce the human population by a factor of 1000..."

    We're a democracy. All in favour go kill yourselves.
  84. bagoverhead guy from South Delta, B.C., Canada writes: Business as usual in loco LotusLand, where the Lefties can't shoot straight, and the Righties can't get it right.

    After all, they have raised the provincial gas tax by 2.5 pennies thus far, and will be mailing those $100.00 cheques to us shortly to prove the carbon tax is truly revenue neutral.

    In Gordo's world, it's "Ready, Fire, Aim".....

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.