It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carbon Tax, Yes or No?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

As far as I'm concerned North Carolina is already in an Ice Age. Last night it went down to 16 Degrees F. NC was once known for mild winters that's why so many 'half-back' New Yorkers retire down here.




posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

NO



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

When you have a glacier in Pennsylvania again. Then you can talk about an "ice age". Glacial period is the correct term, btw. We are, and have been in an ice age for a very long time.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
If more money is the solution to combating climate change, why do you need additional taxes?

One option would be for governments to do what everyone else does with their money, prioritize. Speaking from US perspective, what is more important to you, government?

Fighting global warming or fighting the War on Drugs?

Reducing carbon emissions or invading and occupying countries in the Middle East?

Wouldn't combating climate change be more important that funding the NSA's global spying program?

If we cut down to five air craft carriers that alone would probably generate more revenue than carbon taxes.

And, of course, there is always the obvious: if the government can fight climate change with money, just print more. Surely any negative effects of an increase in money supply will be offset by the fact that we saved the ecology. If we can just print money to bail out the banks, print some to bail out the Earth.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

There will be no mining of coal to be sold within the province, The taxes are prohibitive. The coal will be imported for usage here. Any coal that is mined will be exported only, no longer will Alberta be able to sell it's own heatingcoal to power generating stations, or it's own coking coal to any steel manufacturers.


2018
Coking Coal: $95.39/tonne
Heating Coal: $66.56 /tonne


Coking coal is forecast to sell for about 200 dollars a tonne, heating coal, less than half that, bye bye coal mining jobs.

From the CBC article someone posted earlier in this thread:


In addition to combating climate change, Notley has argued the carbon tax is the price that had to be paid in order to get pipelines built and to finally turn Alberta's sagging economy around.

Implies this has not much to do with the science of Global Greening, and everything to do with politics. Alberta had to appease our Federal Govt. Justin Trudeau is like Obama, trying to make a legacy of saving the planet. Once again, the average person loses out.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I think the survey the government gave us was rather deceitful. It asked the amount of fuel for heating and transportation your household used as well as groceries and then gave you what the new cost with carbon tax would be. Generally it looks reasonable.It did not mention all the additional costs the municipality would be paying for heating/cooling hospitals,schools,community centers, road repairs,transportation ect that the taxpayer pays for so expect user fees and property taxes to go up.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Another part of the tax that just got brought up on the news, was municipalities. The rising costs of heating schools, sports complexes, community centres, other buildings not covered by private enterprises.

They're also adding this carbon tax into the pre-tax amounts, so we're paying tax on our carbon tax 🤔



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: fernalley

You must have just watched the same news I did



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Carbon tax is a greed based retarded solution to the problem if real, and because it's the number one proposed "solution" it cause the whole thing to become questionable. It's not like it will fix anything, all it will do is change the distribution of wealth a bit while still altering nothing it's supposed to and making everyone's life worse except those who benefit from the "tax."
edit on 1/10/2017 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   







posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

lol,been followin for awhile. Also not sure how this changes behavior if 2/3 get rebates by higher income earners. Wealth transfer for sure . Feds get their GST and provincial skims from the top. It is very cold here,I live in the prarie so not alot of trees to burn either.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Carbon is a basic building block of all life on the planet. It would allow way too much control by the government. No way.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: fernalley

Be interesting to know how many Gigajoules the average person uses to heat their house.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



One gigajoule is one billion joules. The amount of energy consumed each year in a typical Canadian home is equivalent to 120 gigajoules.
One BTU is 1054.615 joules, equivalent to the amount of energy released by completely burning one wooden match.
The amount of energy represented by one gigajoule is equivalent to about 30 litres of gasoline, 39 litres of propane, 278 kilowatt-hours of electricity or 45.5 kilograms of coal. The average home in Alberta uses about 120 gigajoules of natural gas per year. Examples of average energy consumption for standard household appliances include:

40 gigajoules a year to heat a 40-gallon hot water tank for a family of four.
4.3 gigajoules for a gas dryer processing 400 loads of laundry a year.
4.2 gigajoules a year for natural gas range used two hours per day.
3 gigajoules for a gas barbecue used 100 hours per year.
Natural gas conversions


from www.energy.alberta.ca...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

The contradictory fact is both governments need pipelines built as someone has to pay the bills. These governments are chasing investment out of Canada and a carbon tax right now is certainly not helping.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: fernalley


40 gigajoules a year to heat a 40-gallon hot water tank for a family of four.
4.3 gigajoules for a gas dryer processing 400 loads of laundry a year.
4.2 gigajoules a year for natural gas range used two hours per day.
3 gigajoules for a gas barbecue used 100 hours per year.

Interesting, as it's the same alberta govt that is saying a couple with two children only use 135 gigajoules a year in total. They must dress up in layers for the winter and keep the heat turned way down. alberta carbon tax

I bet the parliament buildings are kept nice and warm, maybe they should start there with their telling us all to be frugal with our spending on heating and food.

edit on 10-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
We had a carbon tax here in the UK a few years ago. The power companies immediately increased tariffs to cover it. I think the average consumer bill was raised by around £50. The public outcry forced the government to repeal the tax and the bills went back down again. The carbon tax implemented or otherwise made no difference to the power companies. Just business as usual.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon

Your lucky it was repealed. We get told we are fear mongering. Ontario has been hurt bad by this green initiative and I heard Australia repealed theirs. Of course the extra costs are downloaded to consumers. Not sure why governments want to impose fuel poverty on their residents



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I suggest a tax on Weathermen/women who fail to forecast the conditions in the next 24 hours...

Let's start there... WHen they can come close to a 90% success rate, perhaps I may consider the forecasts of that scientific clique who claim that global warming is a fact, oh perhaps not.. it's now climate change...

We can't argue with that since the climate changes every day and we still can't figure it out with enough certainty to accurately forecast tomorrow...

Carbon TAX? Hell no



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

1) If you don't know the difference between weather and climate, you don't have much of anything to say.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join