Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? Fri, March 25, 2011
Do you plan on sitting in the dark this Saturday night?
Around the world, people will make the symbolic gesture of showing they support a cleaner world and lower-carbon lifestyle by raising their carbon output.
Earth Hour, started in 2007, encourages people to show their support for the planet by turning their lights off and enjoying the world by candlelight. The problem, of course, is for most Canadians that means turning off a low-carbon energy source and burning pure fossil fuels.
The absurdity is likely lost on most professional environmentalists.
Norway is usually cited as the best example of a country that has benefited hugely from a carbon tax. But a report by Annegrete Bruvoll of Statistics Norway contradicts this assertion: "Despite considerable taxes and price increases for some fuel-types, the carbon tax effect has been modest."
It appears that the relatively high carbon tax that has been in effect since 1991 (about the highest carbon tax in the world) has contributed to only 2 percent of the total reductions in CO2 emissions. It has not been more effective because of "extensive tax exemptions and relatively inelastic demand in the sector in which the tax is actually implemented." What this means is that Norwegians did not change their consumption habits very much when the price increased.
David, 2008-02-21 03:19:50
Tweety, there are lots of "isms": socialism; capitalism etc., but you are a new party of one and the founder of "stupidism".
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 23:29:39
We need lower taxes, not another new tax. Never has the government used revenue generated from taxes as anything except to add to "general revenues" to be squandered and wasted as only a government can.
Any new tax will be the "final nail in the coffin" for our fragile manufacturing sector.
As for "revenue neutral" there is no such animal. When I repeat that phrase into my decoder ring, it translates as "bend over". I mean, really, if a tax was revenue neutral, why bother, just make some accounting adjustments on paper. If you really want to do something about a percieved CO2 problem, park your f'n car and that includes the Prius.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 23:26:04
Tweety-you make a good argument.....for RETROACTIVE ABORTION.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 21:33:48
It's important to remember that not all scientific experts are convinced that climate change is caused by greenhouse gases. some wonder if this a political ploy to create fear to gain public support.
N.A. manufacturing has sought economic climates where labor is cheap and few environmental laws exist. Kyoto Accord will speed up this process leaving Canada to export its natural resources (many non-renewable)and have to import more manufactured goods. Canada's economy will certainly suffer and the Canadian standard of living will definitely be lowered. Even if you believe that greenhouse gas is causing global warming, Canada, with only 2% of the world's gases, could go back to the horse and buggy days and not have any significant effect on the climate as a whole.
The corporate world will not absorb extra costs. They will be passed onto the consumer. Third World countries, the largest polluters, will become the economies of tomorrow. The large conglomerates don't care where they make their profits. The Trilateral Commission has talked about developing 3 currencies and trading areas (N. America, Europe, Asia. Such ideas are discussed by the Bilderberg Group at their annual meetings of the world's powerful minds.This would destroy a country's sovereignty and the right to act in its citizens best interest. Are citizens being sold a bill of goods? Things are not always what they seem and mainstream media is owned by few worldwide.
Seldom are large international corporations fined heavily for polluting our waters, soil, and air. This is the type of legislation that should firstly be considered worldwide. Tax concessions could also be considered for development of fewer emissions. The present solutions will only harm Canadians standard of living. Corporations will simply pass on extra costs to the consumer without bothering to look for ways to improve.
Karen Lalonde, 2008-02-20 20:51:23
"For wage earners, this means primarily reductions in income taxes."
You have got to be kidding, right?
Please elaborate.
uplink, 2008-02-20 20:00:07
Anyone who doesn't believe that big oil will literally do ANYTHING to maintain their control over world affairs is either scarily naive or breathtakingly stupid. A carbon tax is merely another way for them to increase their profit margins because guess what folks? Carbon tax or no, people will still drive just as much and governments will make more money off of it and big oil will get yet more kickbacks and incetives to do business here. You treehugger types can rant about a carbon tax all you want, but in the end the environmental impact will be minimal due to Canada's small population, but the economic impact will be catastrophic, particularily on the middle and lower classes. All this tax will do is further line the pockets of the already rich and further destroy the average person.You know, sometimes I think that open revolt may be the only answer to government and corporate corruption. Never forget there are FAR more of us than there are of them.
Norbit, 2008-02-20 17:23:38
Charon, in case you do not know, "Ontario" is just another ID of the comatose Tweety. He posts under different names so that he can agree and support his own babble because not one other person would.
All the can spout is dribble and half-baked nonsense.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 16:56:08
Glen,
Stan Meyers, the onboard electrolosis guy.
Questions I have is where does the electricity come from?
Since it's patented what patent number is it? Patents are publicly posted BTW.
It takes as much energy to split waster as you get burning it back again. The problem with onboard electrolysis (and electric cars in general) is the battery. A problem that is being worked on and getting better, have you noticed that some hybrids can run on electricity only due to improved batteries?
Matt, 2008-02-20 15:57:20
glen
its a conspiracy theory.
Lots of people have done hydrogen (water) fuel cells.
The problem with all alternatives is cost. Gasoline is still the cheapest. A carbon credit would change that.
Oh and electric, needs charging, how much do you think that will cost? Remember our power plants are at capacity?
wayne, 2008-02-20 15:54:20
Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? 
It appears that the relatively high carbon tax that has been in effect since 1991 (about the highest carbon tax in the world) has contributed to only 2 percent of the total reductions in CO2 emissions. It has not been more effective because of "extensive tax exemptions and relatively inelastic demand in the sector in which the tax is actually implemented." What this means is that Norwegians did not change their consumption habits very much when the price increased.
David, 2008-02-21 03:19:50
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 23:29:39
Any new tax will be the "final nail in the coffin" for our fragile manufacturing sector.
As for "revenue neutral" there is no such animal. When I repeat that phrase into my decoder ring, it translates as "bend over". I mean, really, if a tax was revenue neutral, why bother, just make some accounting adjustments on paper. If you really want to do something about a percieved CO2 problem, park your f'n car and that includes the Prius.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 23:26:04
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 21:33:48
N.A. manufacturing has sought economic climates where labor is cheap and few environmental laws exist. Kyoto Accord will speed up this process leaving Canada to export its natural resources (many non-renewable)and have to import more manufactured goods. Canada's economy will certainly suffer and the Canadian standard of living will definitely be lowered. Even if you believe that greenhouse gas is causing global warming, Canada, with only 2% of the world's gases, could go back to the horse and buggy days and not have any significant effect on the climate as a whole.
The corporate world will not absorb extra costs. They will be passed onto the consumer. Third World countries, the largest polluters, will become the economies of tomorrow. The large conglomerates don't care where they make their profits. The Trilateral Commission has talked about developing 3 currencies and trading areas (N. America, Europe, Asia. Such ideas are discussed by the Bilderberg Group at their annual meetings of the world's powerful minds.This would destroy a country's sovereignty and the right to act in its citizens best interest. Are citizens being sold a bill of goods? Things are not always what they seem and mainstream media is owned by few worldwide.
Seldom are large international corporations fined heavily for polluting our waters, soil, and air. This is the type of legislation that should firstly be considered worldwide. Tax concessions could also be considered for development of fewer emissions. The present solutions will only harm Canadians standard of living. Corporations will simply pass on extra costs to the consumer without bothering to look for ways to improve.
Karen Lalonde, 2008-02-20 20:51:23
You have got to be kidding, right?
Please elaborate.
uplink, 2008-02-20 20:00:07
Norbit, 2008-02-20 17:23:38
All the can spout is dribble and half-baked nonsense.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-02-20 16:56:08
Stan Meyers, the onboard electrolosis guy.
Questions I have is where does the electricity come from?
Since it's patented what patent number is it? Patents are publicly posted BTW.
It takes as much energy to split waster as you get burning it back again. The problem with onboard electrolysis (and electric cars in general) is the battery. A problem that is being worked on and getting better, have you noticed that some hybrids can run on electricity only due to improved batteries?
Matt, 2008-02-20 15:57:20
its a conspiracy theory.
Lots of people have done hydrogen (water) fuel cells.
The problem with all alternatives is cost. Gasoline is still the cheapest. A carbon credit would change that.
Oh and electric, needs charging, how much do you think that will cost? Remember our power plants are at capacity?
wayne, 2008-02-20 15:54:20