Dion's plane a bit of an oil burner

[Hydrogen]

It really depends on the time frame. I think this statement (as you intended it) is ridiculous as it is absolute. It is really quite simple neoclassical economics. If you don't like that, feel free to refer to economists that share your point of view so we can go beyond this silly back and forth.

I would like to add that I think the big win for the Canadian economy is the shift towards more economically friendly taxation. I do expect the impact of a carbon tax to be significant in reducing carbon consumption. I am not too concerned about the eventual decline of carbon emissions, as there are plenty of other forms of consumptions taxes available, including increases to the GST.

You have still not shown how this tax policy will reduce CO2 emissions. You've stated an expectation and that you are not concerned. You've called any such reduction a fringe benefit. What you've missed is a tax policy change being sold through wrapping it up in environmental packaging.

 

[afransen]

Your emphasis, and not mine.

If you want a technical explanation on how a carbon tax would reduce fossil fuel consumption, please examine a one of the many excellent examples provided on the web. I link to one here.

It is both an economic and a environmental policy, and it is being sold as such by Dion. It just happens to be one of those synergistic policies that doesn't involve a tradeoff between one and the other--both will see gains from this change versus the status quo.


You also failed to acknowledge that Harper will also be putting a price on carbon, and is at least as hypocritical (which is not at all), for flying from one end of the the country to the other on a daily basis; indeed, he is spending a good portion of his day in the air.

Why are you attacking Dion's policy when Harper's will, in the Prime Minister's opinion, do more to constraint CO2 emissions, and cause further economic damage (needlessly, in your opinion it seems).


---------

I'm not running for office Hydro--no need to run me through the spin-machine wringer.

 

[Hydrogen]

Very quickly:

If other taxes are to be reduced, the success of this tax depends on the continued use of hydrocarbons. When/if hydrocarbon use drops off, so will the taxes derived from them. That would require a tax increase elsewhere in order to maintain revenues for government. On a consumer level, if one form of taxation is reduced, that leaves money available to afford the cost of the other tax. There is no pressure to reduce gasoline usage, and no way to do so as no alternate fuel source exists on any significant scale.

This is not a carbon tax to be implemented with the aim of reducing the use of hydrocarbons, so it is not fit into any significant environmental framework of actually aiming to reduce consumption through punitive taxation (like cigarettes). It will do nothing to achieve Dion's stated desires to achieve the goals set out by Kyoto. To that end, it is essentially useless.

It is a refinement of the consumption tax, and that's all. To wrap it up in environmental policy is deceptive.

I'm not running for office Hydro--no need to run me through the spin-machine wringer.

Then don't spin.

You also failed to acknowledge that Harper will also be putting a price on carbon, and is at least as hypocritical (which is not at all), for flying from one end of the the country to the other on a daily basis; indeed, he is spending a good portion of his day in the air.

Why are you attacking Dion's policy when Harper's will, in the Prime Minister's opinion, do more to constraint CO2 emissions, and cause further economic damage (needlessly, in your opinion it seems).

I have not failed to discuss Harper; we were discussing Dion. He is the party leader who has made being green his platform focus. Your usage of words like failed, silly and employing appeals to authority (all economists) are the forms of spin you use constantly. If you don't like the spin-wringer, then stop spinning.


To repond to your addition:

Also, this line: "(less production of CO2 by humans, but increase in temperature)." is rather disingenuous, Mr. Environmental Consultant...

You haven't explained why you think this is disingenous. Look at the temperature records from 1920 to 1940. Then look at the consumption of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon consumption drops, temperature still increases. It's not a matter of theory, it's a matter of record. There has been no temperature increase for at least the last eight years - even though atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased. The globally averaged temperature has actually dropped in 2008. This is also a matter of record.

 

[afransen]

Find me a credible economist that suggests that a carbon tax would not reduce carbon emissions in the jurisdiction upon which it is imposed. I'm genuinely interested in seeing what you can come up with.

Where in this thread did I refer to 'all economists'? I provided a list, at one point...

"You haven't explained why you think this is disingenous. Look at the temperature records from 1920 to 1940."

You essentially said that because fossil fuel consumption decreased during the depression and global temperatures did not decrease in lockstep => carbon emissions have no effect on global temperature. Now, as an environmental consultant, you are well aware that the climate is more complex than that. This is why I felt you were being disingenuous. Do you think that's an unfair characterization?

Your strategy at this point seems mainly to be drawing attention away from your initial charge of hypocrisy. I think we both know you won't acknowledge the point, so let's leave it at that.

 

[Hydrogen]

Find me a credible economist that suggests that a carbon tax would not reduce carbon emissions in the jurisdiction upon which it is imposed. I'm genuinely interested in seeing what you can come up with.

I don't really care about the suggestions of economists. There are not a large number of jurisdictions with carbon taxes. There was, however, a very large increase in the price of gasoline, and carbon emissions have not plummeted. So why would this tax suddenly do so - particularly when it's coupled to a tax decrease elsewhere? That will enable the affordability of gasoline. So as a means to discourage gasoline consumption, it will fail.

Now, as an environmental consultant, you are well aware that the climate is more complex than that. This is why I felt you were being disingenuous. Do you think that's an unfair characterization?

On this issue, I've pointed out to people like you that the simplistic relationship between human emissions of carbon dioxide and a very slight increase in global temperature was just that - simplistic. Globally averaged temperatures have gone up and down during the twentieth century, and that variability has a poor correlation to emissions of CO2 from human activity. That was the point of citing the era that I did. Of course climate is complex. I've made that point many times on many threads that touched on this issue - threads that you were active on. What I have stated is that natural variations in climate did exactly the opposite of what people believe ought to be happening based upon a notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are controlling global temperature.

This tax in question is being sold on the basis of that belief.

Your strategy at this point seems mainly to be drawing attention away from your initial charge of hypocrisy. I think we both know you won't acknowledge the point, so let's leave it at that.

I've been answering your question/accusations. If you feel that this is a strategy to get away from my suggestion of hypocrisy, then you are wrong. Politicians (and ex-politicians like Gore) who say one thing and do another should be called on the carpet. Paying some carbon indulgence is an insufficient stand-in for doing something like measurably reducing their actual carbon emissions. If a person really believes in such things, they ought to act, and not simply pay for a presumed right to not act.



I posted this elsewhere for you, but here it is again:

Dion is paying to emit carbon dioxide, not reduce it. Somehow that's just not clear to you. Put another way: he's not reducing the emissions of what he believes to be at the centre of a crisis he imagines to be happening; he is paying to emit more of the stuff he thinks is causing it.

So he is buying an indulgence. He's trying to buy his way out of sin.

afransen, in so many posts you imagine to know what I am thinking. Allow me to assure you that you don't. I think Dion is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who believes in buying the right to do what he believes is wrong. The fact that you accept that action as a means to weasel out of actually reducing emissions when it is believed that these emissions are at of heart of a supposed crisis suggests that you are not so committed to the cause you promote.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think Dion is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who believes in buying the right to do what he believes is wrong. The fact that you accept that action as a means to weasel out of actually reducing emissions when it is believed that these emissions are at of heart of a supposed crisis suggests that you are not so committed to the cause you promote.

The purchase of credits is to ensure that there is no increase in carbon emissions net. The net effect is always more relevant than the line items. When you look at a company you can't look at a single expense as evidence of increasing debt when there are a whole bunch of line items with revenues on them which pay for the expense. Dion isn't against carbon emissions... to be against that would be against breathing. The whole movement is about controlling and hopefully reducing net carbon emissions.

We can only call Dion a hypocrite in this case if we know for certain there was a number of other aircraft with better fuel efficiency available for the Liberals to select. In a fuel crisis it isn't likely that airlines have their most fuel efficient planes parked.

I agree with you that both Harper's diesel tax cuts and Dion's gas tax increases are not going to do much. A 2 cent reduction in prices after a 30 to 40 cent rise isn't going to do much, nor is Dion's increase of 16 cents. However, if that gas tax increase is pumped into lower income taxes I see that as a net benefit and may pave the way for other tax shifts in the future which are more effective, whereas a two cent decrease in gas tax is merely a sales job.

 

[afransen]

I don't really care about the suggestions of economists. There are not a large number of jurisdictions with carbon taxes. There was, however, a very large increase in the price of gasoline, and carbon emissions have not plummeted. So why would this tax suddenly do so - particularly when it's coupled to a tax decrease elsewhere? That will enable the affordability of gasoline. So as a means to discourage gasoline consumption, it will fail.

I'm more likely to defer to economists on effects of relative changes in price than to your gut, which is what you've provided here. For your reading pleasure, check out this article about decling US gasoline consumption: Bloomberg. Not that this is conclusive evidence that the high price caused the decrease in consumption, but it is a lot more compelling (not to mention logical) than your 'truthiness'.

The important thing is that relative price of gasoline to other goods will increase. This leads to, all else held constant, a decrease in gasoline consumption and an increase in the consumption of other goods. This an econ 101 principle known as the substitution effect. Instead of going of waterskiing on the lake (which consumes a lot of gasoline), people may instead to decide have a nice meal, go to a festival, whatever. The decrease in income taxes helps to ensure people are not made poorer in after-tax terms and decreases disincentive to work (which has a big effect on the economy).

But come on, give me some more truthiness.

What I have stated is that natural variations in climate did exactly the opposite of what people believe ought to be happening based upon a notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are controlling global temperature.

I don't think many people here have argued that if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow that global temperatures would immediately decline. This is the strawman you put up, and it's disingenuous for someone of your self-professed expertise.

Paying some carbon indulgence is an insufficient stand-in for doing something like measurably reducing their actual carbon emissions. If a person really believes in such things, they ought to act, and not simply pay for a presumed right to not act.

All party leaders are on record as believing that carbon emissions should decrease. All of them have been using planes to jet around the country. It seems you will only be satisfied with their sincerity if they open their veins tomorrow in order to stop the burning of fossil fuels from their activities.

Dion is at least offsetting the carbon he is emitting by paying for the energy retrofit of a Montreal seniors' home. You can call him a hypocrite, but in the game of relative hypocrisy that is politics (or rather living, it would seem by your logic), he isn't so bad compared to some others.


Btw, I'm sorry that it took me so long to respond to your other post (literally hours) that you felt compelled to copy and paste it here. If you want me to address it any further, just add it to your signature.

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm more likely to defer to economists on effects of relative changes in price than to your gut, which is what you've provided here. For your reading pleasure, check out this article about decling US gasoline consumption: Bloomberg. Not that this is conclusive evidence that the high price caused the decrease in consumption, but it is a lot more compelling (not to mention logical) than your 'truthiness'.

I never mentioned my "gut." Also, you confused the part about carbon (carbon dioxide) emissions, which have gone up, and gasoline consumption.

The important thing is that relative price of gasoline to other goods will increase. This leads to, all else held constant, a decrease in gasoline consumption and an increase in the consumption of other goods. This an econ 101 principle known as the substitution effect. Instead of going of waterskiing on the lake (which consumes a lot of gasoline), people may instead to decide have a nice meal, go to a festival, whatever. The decrease in income taxes helps to ensure people are not made poorer in after-tax terms and decreases disincentive to work (which has a big effect on the economy).

Gee, thanks for the quote from your textbook. The troubling reality is that not everyone water skis, and the price of that nice meal will also increase because there is a fuel cost associated with it.

Also, the tourism industry is one of the largest employers in the world, and is quite dependent on travel, so it'll be interesting to see how hundreds of thousands of people afford that nice (and increasingly expensive) meal when their jobs start to disappear due to higher fuel prices.

But you come on and give me some of that truthiness.

I don't think many people here have argued that if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow that global temperatures would immediately decline. This is the strawman you put up, and it's disingenuous for someone of your self-professed expertise.

The globally averaged atmospheric temperature has remained stable for almost a decade, and has dropped over the last twelve months. At the same time, CO2 levels have increased.

All party leaders are on record as believing that carbon emissions should decrease. All of them have been using planes to jet around the country. It seems you will only be satisfied with their sincerity if they open their veins tomorrow in order to stop the burning of fossil fuels from their activities.

Let's be clear, the "opening their veins" part is your hyperbole. Being concerned and doing something are two very different things. The fact that Dion is, in essence, using the money of other people to buy his indulgence does not take away from the fact that he is going to make other people pay from out of their own pocket to do the same thing. Then again, he then undermines his own policy by providing tax cuts that maintain the affordability of his new tax. It's all a big so what.

Btw, I'm sorry that it took me so long to respond to your other post (literally hours) that you felt compelled to copy and paste it here. If you want me to address it any further, just add it to your signature.

I reposted it here because this subject is off-topic in the other thread. Nevertheless, I did respond to you there again.

 

[afransen]

I never mentioned my "gut." Also, you confused the part about carbon (carbon dioxide) emissions, which have gone up, and gasoline consumption.

I'm not confused. I am talking about gasoline consumption decreasing in response to rising prices (possibly, likely even), a phenomenon you seem to find incredible.

Gee, thanks for the quote from your textbook. The troubling reality is that not everyone water skis, and the price of that nice meal will also increase because there is a fuel cost associated with it.

Also, the tourism industry is one of the largest employers in the world, and is quite dependent on travel, so it'll be interesting to see how hundreds of thousands of people afford that nice (and increasingly expensive) meal when their jobs start to disappear due to higher fuel prices.

Relative price change, my friend. Absolute changes in price aren't relevant to the substitution effect. I can lend you my textbook if you need to brush up...

But you come on and give me some of that truthiness.

You're the one disagreeing with basic economics. What do you want from me?

The globally averaged atmospheric temperature has remained stable for almost a decade, and has dropped over the last twelve months. At the same time, CO2 levels have increased.

Fascinating. What does this prove?

Let's be clear, the "opening their veins" part is your hyperbole. Being concerned and doing something are two very different things. The fact that Dion is, in essence, using the money of other people to buy his indulgence does not take away from the fact that he is going to make other people pay from out of their own pocket to do the same thing. Then again, he then undermines his own policy by providing tax cuts that maintain the affordability of his new tax. It's all a big so what.

The hyperbole was intended. Your argument leaves no room for middle ground. Either they live without regard for the environment, or they destroy themselves to preserve it.

And yes, you correctly noted that being Prime Minister involves a lot of telling other people what to do with their money. I'm sorry you have come to this revelation so late...

His policy isn't intended to remove all wealth from Canadians (though that would certainly help with reducing GHG emissions). It's about changing incentives... You're not stupid, but you refuse to concede this point. This is not a contentious point among policy experts in this field, as far as I can tell.

"Then again, he then undermines his own policy by providing tax cuts that maintain the affordability of his new tax."

This statement requires some proof. This is not a generally accepted argument...

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm not confused. I am talking about gasoline consumption decreasing in response to rising prices (possibly, likely even), a phenomenon you seem to find incredible.

I differentiated between gasoline consumption and an carbon dioxide emissions. You seem to find this incredible.

Relative price change, my friend. Absolute changes in price aren't relevant to the substitution effect. I can lend you my textbook if you need to brush up...

You didn't even address what I wrote. I countered you little hypothetical water skiing story.

You're the one disagreeing with basic economics. What do you want from me?

Your example was silly. People won't water ski and will instead eat a nice meal? Is that economic theory in your opinion?

Fascinating. What does this prove?

This and the earlier example I cited indicate that the correlation of temperature to carbon dioxide emissions is very poor. Global temperature has dropped as carbon dioxide has increased.

As for the rest of your post, it goes in circles. If the effect of this tax is small, and if there is a reduction in other forms of taxation, then there is no pressure to reduce consumption. Moreover, the usefulness of a carbon tax as a means of revenue generation depends on the continued use of things like gasoline - particularly when there are to be tax reductions elsewhere. So while this tax raises some revenues to replace that reduced from other sources, it will not reduce gasoline consumption in any significant way. Since it (gasoline) and its derivatives are the primary fuel for transportation, they are not going away any time soon.

Either they live without regard for the environment, or they destroy themselves to preserve it.

So he chooses to live without regard for the environment.

There is no way that emitting carbon dioxide will destroy the environment. This is your hyperbole once again. But if you really feel it will (in the absence of actual proof), then you should reduced your consumption to assuage your bad feelings - or maybe have a nice meal instead.

 

[afransen]

You didn't even address what I wrote. I countered you little hypothetical water skiing story.

Your example was silly. People won't water ski and will instead eat a nice meal? Is that economic theory in your opinion?

That's because you digressed from the point. The story was an illustration of the principle of the substitution effect due to changes in relative price.

I picked two recreational discretionary spending choices. They were used as illustration only. Feel free to fill in the blanks with whatever else you please.

This and the earlier example I cited indicate that the correlation of temperature to carbon dioxide emissions is very poor. Global temperature has dropped as carbon dioxide has increased.

Based on your chosen time frame. Other could and have chosen time frames that indicate the opposition conclusion. In other words, we don't know... For someone who claims to be a skeptic, you seem suspiciously willing to categorically deny (woops!) the possibility that fossilized carbon emissions might be having an impact on climate.

Do you have any feelings on the increasing acidity of the world's oceans? Or, is the fact that the world's oceans have been more acidic in the past enough to calm any concern you might have over that as well?

If the effect of this tax is small, and if there is a reduction in other forms of taxation, then there is no pressure to reduce consumption.

I didn't say the effect of the tax would be small on shifts in consumption and savings. Income taxes shift savings to consumption, and consumption taxes shift consumption to savings. Please consult your macroeconomics text. Given our catastrophically low savings rate, I believe it would be good for the economy to encourage savings. All taxes distort incentives to some extent. Do you agree with that or not?

So he chooses to live without regard for the environment.

Like I said, no room for moderation with you.

There is no way that emitting carbon dioxide will destroy the environment. This is your hyperbole once again.

Here's what I said: "Either they live without regard for the environment, or they destroy themselves to preserve it."

I gave no indication that I thought carbon dioxide would destroy the environment. I do believe there exists the distinct and non-negligible possibility that the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has the potential to have all kinds of negative effects on the climate, resulting in a great deal of human misery. I'm not completely convinced that humans do cause global warming/climate change, but unlike you, I do not dismiss any possibility that they do. Even if it is fairly unlikely, avoiding the monumental costs in terms of human lives and capital that could result is worth some reasonable investment. Call it insurance.

I know this won't make sense to you.

 

[CGM]

You have still not shown how this tax policy will reduce CO2 emissions.

Through efficiency... everybody wants to pay less tax

 

[Hydrogen]

Based on your chosen time frame. Other could and have chosen time frames that indicate the opposition conclusion. In other words, we don't know... For someone who claims to be a skeptic, you seem suspiciously willing to categorically deny (woops!) the possibility that fossilized carbon emissions might be having an impact on climate.

What time frames are you speaking of? I've pointed out to you that while CO2 has increased over the past decade, the averaged global atmospheric temperature has dropped.

Do you have any feelings on the increasing acidity of the world's oceans? Or, is the fact that the world's oceans have been more acidic in the past enough to calm any concern you might have over that as well?

There are facts. Oceans have been more acidic in the past. The ocean system is, in fact, very resilient to large and abrupt pH changes, which is just the opposite of what alarmists characteristically predict about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." Remember that most of the volcanoes on this planet are on the ocean floors, and that the oceans are the largest reservoir of carbon dioxide. Undersea volcanoes and volcanic vents pump out huge amounts of CO2, yet plant and marine life can be found thriving right around these openings.

I didn't say the effect of the tax would be small on shifts in consumption and savings. Income taxes shift savings to consumption, and consumption taxes shift consumption to savings. Please consult your macroeconomics text. Given our catastrophically low savings rate, I believe it would be good for the economy to encourage savings. All taxes distort incentives to some extent. Do you agree with that or not?

You should consult reality. Can you state with rule-like certainty that all extra income derived from income tax reductions went to consumption? Are you absolutely certain that consumption taxes result in increases in savings? Have personal savings increased or decreased in this country since the introduction of the GST? What you are doing is presenting a simplistic view of the economy, and the spending habits of people.

Like I said, no room for moderation with you.

You just don't want to see the point.

I gave no indication that I thought carbon dioxide would destroy the environment. I do believe there exists the distinct and non-negligible possibility that the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has the potential to have all kinds of negative effects on the climate, resulting in a great deal of human misery. I'm not completely convinced that humans do cause global warming/climate change, but unlike you, I do not dismiss any possibility that they do. Even if it is fairly unlikely, avoiding the monumental costs in terms of human lives and capital that could result is worth some reasonable investment. Call it insurance.

Yeah, well, what if all this effort into reducing carbon dioxide is carried out at the cost of trillions of dollars, and the planet still warmed? Then again, what if the planet cooled off all by itself in an era when we were making energy more expensive?

There is no means of prediction to tell us what things will be like in fifty years - much less one hundred years. What is known is that the glaciers, such as those of the Alps, were formed after the end of the last Glacial period. Those ice formations have also been been considerably smaller in the past - indicating periods of warmth much more significant than today. And people thrived during those times. The Roman Empire expanded during a warm period about two-thousand years ago, as did Europe during the Medieval Warm period a little over a thousand years ago. It would not take too much cooling to lower the agricultural yields in Canada. We've done well during our warm spell, but it won't last forever.

You speak of possible monumental costs in terms of human life and capital based on a belief that increasing levels of carbon dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere presently) will possibly cause some unmentioned calamity. But what about that massive expenditures to reduce carbon dioxide? Where is all that money to come from in order to reduce emissions by 80% in fifty years? Where will all that capital be diverted from?

You say that you are not completely convinced that humans do cause global warming/climate change, but you do not dismiss that possibility - even if it is fairly unlikely. But you want to buy insurance. As I have pointed out time and time again, climate changes quite naturally, and with no help from us. It has done so quite consistently and considerably over time. If you really want to read up about an era of very negative changes in climate, look to when it got colder. The Little Ice Age brought less sunshine, colder weather, crop failure, starvation and populations declines. To this day, the cold kills far more people than the heat. Can your insurance to stave off warmth protect you if the climate ends up cooling?

As for carbon dioxide and the heating of the atmosphere, its effect is logarithmic. The first 20 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide do most of the infrared absorption. Doubling the concentration to 40 parts per million increases the heating effect by only 20% more. Doubling it yet again to 80 parts per million increases the heating effect by only 7%. The heating effect further diminishes as the quantity increases. The rise in carbon dioxide from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million over the last 100 years brings virtually no discernible effect.

Beyond that, there is good evidence to show that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have fluctuated naturally (without human cause) over the last five hundred years. Moreover, the sun has been quite active over the last century. A more active sun means more warmth and warmer oceans, and warm ocean water does not absorb carbon dioxide as readily as cooler water. The oceans are the largest source and the largest sink of carbon dioxide. These things are rarely ever mentioned in the politics of AGW/climate change - because it is politics at work.

It's quite doubtful that any insurance policy will bring change to all of that.

 

[afransen]

There are facts. Oceans have been more acidic in the past. The ocean system is, in fact, very resilient to large and abrupt pH changes, which is just the opposite of what alarmists characteristically predict about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." Remember that most of the volcanoes on this planet are on the ocean floors, and that the oceans are the largest reservoir of carbon dioxide. Undersea volcanoes and volcanic vents pump out huge amounts of CO2, yet plant and marine life can be found thriving right around these openings.

So we shouldn't be at all concerned about collapse of coral reef ecosystems, which are some of the most productive?

You should consult reality. Can you state with rule-like certainty that all extra income derived from income tax reductions went to consumption? Are you absolutely certain that consumption taxes result in increases in savings? Have personal savings increased or decreased in this country since the introduction of the GST? What you are doing is presenting a simplistic view of the economy, and the spending habits of people.

There are heaps of empirical studies on these basic economic principles. Maybe not quite as precise as physics, but it seems unlikely that the theory is wrong. You are putting up strawmen again: I never claimed that all extra income from income tax cuts goes towards increased savings (which I'm guessing is what you meant when you wrote consumption). That you thought I said that suggests you aren't familiar with the theory.

Yeah, well, what if all this effort into reducing carbon dioxide is carried out at the cost of trillions of dollars, and the planet still warmed? Then again, what if the planet cooled off all by itself in an era when we were making energy more expensive?

I think a marginal cost of trillions of dollars is probably fairly overblown. No, I don't support an NDP/Conservative-style plan with the potential to decimate the economy.

There is no means of prediction to tell us what things will be like in fifty years - much less one hundred years. What is known is that the glaciers, such as those of the Alps, were formed after the end of the last Glacial period. Those ice formations have also been been considerably smaller in the past - indicating periods of warmth much more significant than today. And people thrived during those times. The Roman Empire expanded during a warm period about two-thousand years ago, as did Europe during the Medieval Warm period a little over a thousand years ago. It would not take too much cooling to lower the agricultural yields in Canada. We've done well during our warm spell, but it won't last forever.

I find it amazing that you have this unshakable faith that you are right. Yes, some or all of these things may be true.

You speak of possible monumental costs in terms of human life and capital based on a belief that increasing levels of carbon dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere presently) will possibly cause some unmentioned calamity. But what about that massive expenditures to reduce carbon dioxide? Where is all that money to come from in order to reduce emissions by 80% in fifty years? Where will all that capital be diverted from?

Fond of the italics on the word belief, I see. In the context of belief states, I don't think it's a dirty word as you suggest it is. If you think we don't operate with belief states as parameters to our decision-making, I'm curious to hear to tell me the source of this certainty we should be operating under.

Anyway, interesting questions you raise. All fundamentally unknowable until they happen. We can generate certain beliefs about them... Who knows, maybe there will be transformational technologies that make the transition quite painless. Maybe Jesus will return. Maybe we'll trigger a new ice age with out foolish refusal to burn more fossil fuels. Who knows...?

You say that you are not completely convinced that humans do cause global warming/climate change, but you do not dismiss that possibility - even if it is fairly unlikely. But you want to buy insurance. As I have pointed out time and time again, climate changes quite naturally, and with no help from us. It has done so quite consistently and considerably over time. If you really want to read up about an era of very negative changes in climate, look to when it got colder. The Little Ice Age brought less sunshine, colder weather, crop failure, starvation and populations declines. To this day, the cold kills far more people than the heat. Can your insurance to stave off warmth protect you if the climate ends up cooling?

Isn't there some evidence that suggests that Ice Ages are often preceded by periods of above average global temperature?

It's quite doubtful that any insurance policy will bring change to all of that.

Perhaps. Is it worth betting the farm?

 

[Hydrogen]

So we shouldn't be at all concerned about collapse of coral reef ecosystems, which are some of the most productive?

Concerned about what?

You are putting up strawmen again: I never claimed that all extra income from income tax cuts goes towards increased savings

You said: "Income taxes shift savings to consumption, and consumption taxes shift consumption to savings." You made no equivocation. Show me that consumption taxes like the GST have increased savings. Show me proof that a carbon tax will increase savings.

I think a marginal cost of trillions of dollars is probably fairly overblown. No, I don't support an NDP/Conservative-style plan with the potential to decimate the economy.

I am merely citing approximate dollar figures offered up in various mitigation studies. These are global cost estimates.

Fond of the italics on the word belief, I see. In the context of belief states, I don't think it's a dirty word as you suggest it is. If you think we don't operate with belief states as parameters to our decision-making, I'm curious to hear to tell me the source of this certainty we should be operating under.

I didn't say it was a dirty word. You were the one raising some doubts about his beliefs. I was just noting this.

Isn't there some evidence that suggests that Ice Ages are often preceded by periods of above average global temperature?

That depends what you mean by average temperature (what specific duration). To try and answer your question, the earth is in an ice age (even now). What we live in is an interglacial period, which is essentially one of the warm periods that punctuates much longer cold periods. Evidence suggests that the previous Eemian interglacial was warmer than the Holocene. The Eemian was, of course followed by a rapid cooling and glaciation. So yes, the long cool periods can be said to be preceded by short warm periods. Otherwise, there is presently no way to predict when a new glacial cooling will take place. It could happen in hundreds of year, or thousands.

That being said, climate reversals during the Holocene have often been abrupt. So far, the warmest period in the last 10,000 years was the Holocene Climate Optimum, roughly around 7,000 years ago. Since that time, the average temperature has slowly been cooling. Nevertheless, within that gradual cooling trend there have been sudden rises and falls in temperature. Based on the available evidence, the Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300) was warmer than today. Alpine tree lines were much higher than today, mountain glaciers were smaller and wine grapes were grown in England and other areas further north than they can be found today. This warm period also brought prolonged droughts in some locations, and saw the tree line in Canada extend further north. At the end of Medieval Warm Period temperatures dropped quickly - within a twenty to thirty year period - bringing on the Little Ice Age, and even the Little Ice Age was punctuated by periods of relative warmth.

The one constant with climate is change.


Edit:

Dion is at least offsetting the carbon he is emitting by paying for the energy retrofit of a Montreal seniors' home.

I lived in Montreal for a long time, and I recall that Quebec generates virtually all of its electricity from hydro. Many residences use electricity for heat. How will any carbon be offset?