Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

[Machjo]

What's wrong with using coal generators if its ends up being the cheapest and isn't adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Hint, this technology will finish coal and natural gas as power generators

That depends If it's cheaper to just extract it than to produce it, then we will continue extracting it until we run out an hit a wall hard.

By taxing the extraction of non-renewable resources, that raises the cost of extracting it and so makes producing it more economically viable. As a result, a company now has an incentive to produce it to avoid the extraction tax.

And to be clear, this is where I think an extraction-end tax is better than a consumer tax. Obviously we don't want to tax its production, but only its extraction.

 

[Cannuck]

That depends If it's cheaper to just extract it than to produce it, then we will continue extracting it until we run out an hit a wall hard.

By taxing the extraction of non-renewable resources, that raises the cost of extracting it and so makes producing it more economically viable. As a result, a company now has an incentive to produce it to avoid the extraction tax.

And to be clear, this is where I think an extraction-end tax is better than a consumer tax. Obviously we don't want to tax its production, but only its extraction.

We won't be extracting it anywhere close to the levels we are now.

 

[petros]

It's not just about emissions but also about limit availability of the resource. A tax on extraccted non-renewable resources would discourage its extraction and so increase the incentive to produce it instead of just extracing it.

No it won't. We still need that half a barrel plus for petrochemicals and plastics.

 

[Machjo]

No it won't. We still need that half a barrel plus for petrochemicals and plastics.

To discourage it is not the same as to ban it outright. A tax on non-renewable resource extraction woudl make it more expensive, but if it is still economically necessary to do so, then it will still be extracted, but just in smaller amounts to provide the resources that the economy needs rather than what it wants.

 

[petros]

You can't ban what has now became part of the resource fabric required to sustain life.

 

[Machjo]

You can't ban what has now became part of the resource fabric required to sustain life.

Of course.

 

[mentalfloss]

To discourage it is not the same as to ban it outright. A tax on non-renewable resource extraction woudl make it more expensive, but if it is still economically necessary to do so, then it will still be extracted, but just in smaller amounts to provide the resources that the economy needs rather than what it wants.

This is pretty obvious to anyone except someone who says something as dumb as this..

You can't ban what has now became part of the resource fabric required to sustain life.

 

[darkbeaver]

You lose money because of climate change.

Your argument is incomplete/truncated. You lose money because some physics force climate change. If you fail to identify that physical force at the beginning of the chain of occurance you lose any money invested in futile effort by trying a fix in the middle of that chain rather than the beginning. You support a lunatic scheme to intervene in the middle of that climate power chain and directly opposite of the observed evidence. No one has even suggested a boosting adjustment of the suns output.

 

[taxslave]

Revenue neutral just means that the revenue is used to either incentivize people (and corporations) to reduce their fossil fuel consumption or as an investment in carbon reduction technologies

Wrong again.You are having a wonderful day. Revenue neutral means(theoretically) that any revenue from the carbon tax scam is offset by reductions in other taxes.

 

[Cannuck]

Wrong again.You are having a wonderful day. Revenue neutral means(theoretically) that any revenue from the carbon tax scam is offset by reductions in other taxes.

That was the definition last week. Since it doesn't fit this week, we need to find another one.

Using Flossy's goofy logic, every tax is revenue neutral because they're using it to fund some government program or ideological purpose.

 

[taxslave]

It's not just about emissions but also about limit availability of the resource. A tax on extraccted non-renewable resources would discourage its extraction and so increase the incentive to produce it instead of just extracing it.

Except the world is nowhere near running out of oil. There is decades worth left. In any event most of the oil is not used for fuel but for things like plastic and food.

All these tax scammers are going to look really stupid when Abiotic oil proves to be a fact.

 

[Cannuck]

... when Abiotic oil proves to be a fact.

Lets try and keep your religious views out of this