My personal view on climate change, not that anyone should care much, is this: I have no idea.
It seems logical that thousands of years of human habitation, and especially 200 years of intense industrial activity, would have a measurable impact on the planet, and not necessarily for the good. Most scientists seem to honestly believe carbon emissions are damaging the environment. In a general sense, as well, it seems fair that each generation should strive to leave the planet in no worse condition than they found it.
So, fine. One problem: scientists have been wrong so often, even in my limited experience, that I’m reluctant to ever assume they must be right just because they think they are. Science strikes me as excellent when taking a physical reality and sorting out why it turned out that way. But when it comes to projecting into the future, scientists run into trouble. It’s like economists who can tell you why interest rates are low, but have no real idea where they’ll be in five years, or why. They have opinions, but so does everyone. And just because they’re good with numbers, doesn’t mean they’re any better at predictions. Similarly, meteorologists can explain with certainty why it rained yesterday, but are 50-50 at best when forecasting what will happen this afternoon.
It is depressingly obvious that many eco-crusaders long ago lost touch with the practical realities of human existence
So I get antsy when “experts” issue dire warnings about the state of the world 50 years from now, since they have no way of knowing what may happen in the intervening decades to change the equation. Think back over the past 50 years (if you’re old enough) and the astonishing technological changes that have taken place. Since the rate of change seems to accelerate with astonishing speed, it’s impossible to imagine what wonders will have emerged by 2065. Anyone who pretends to know the state of the environment by then is doing just that: pretending.
I also get nervous at the religious zealotry that has consumed the environmental movement. It is depressingly obvious that many eco-crusaders long ago lost touch with the practical realities of human existence. Many of the “activists” who oppose pipeline construction, for instance, are simply impervious to argument. Justin Trudeau, for all his popularity and eagerness to please, will never win their approval, no matter how fervently he works to accommodate their concerns. They just hate pipelines, and they hate oil, and that’s that. End of story. Asking for “social licence” is pointless when it’s simply an excuse for fanatics to say no.
There is a deeply embedded hypocrisy in the movement that gives me the creeps. David Suzuki owns multiple homes, far more than he needs for his personal “footprint.” Ottawa jets hundreds of delegates to Paris to do little more than chant their support for reducing emissions. Hollywood celebrities tweet advice for the masses while building enormous Malibu palaces. Richly financed green groups spend millions spreading propaganda among the ill-informed. It makes me think of priests who preach holiness while eyeing the altar boys.
Waste is bad. Conservation is good. There is nothing wrong with a carbon tax if it serves a reasonable purpose, i.e., if it encourages emission reductions, gives society a reason to operate more efficiently, and actually makes a difference. It does no good if it’s merely a way for spendthrift governments to get their hands on more revenue while pushing people out of jobs.
I can’t say for sure where Ottawa’s pledge to impose a national carbon tax lands on this spectrum. Canada’s emissions account for 1.6 per cent of the global total. We emit more than our share, based on population, and the figure has been increasing since 1992, through three Liberal and one Conservative prime ministers. But the fact remains that, even if we were to massively reduce emissions, the overall impact would be minuscule, overwhelmed by the massive output from China, India and the U.S., none of which show any serious signs of curbing their activities.
While Trudeau’s tax may please eastern Canadians, and particularly Quebec, the practical impact is likely to be negligible. British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta — containing 86 per cent of Canada’s population — already have, or are introducing their own tax plans. The main impact of the federal levy will be to force them to increase the rate in a few years’ time. Judging by reactions in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it may also reignite East-West tensions that date to Trudeau’s father and have yet to fully heal.
Other than B.C., which offsets its carbon fee with tax reductions elsewhere, most of the money will be gobbled up by the provinces to spend as they like. To that degree it is indeed a new tax that Canadians will have to bear, and which will become increasingly painful as Trudeau’s ladder of increases take effect. It will make life more difficult in Alberta, already struggling under a savage recession, though it may also give the prime minister the political shield he needs to approve at least one oil pipeline, and possibly another.
It comes down to this: Canadians will pay more for a tax that will have very little impact on the global problem. It will let us feel we’re doing our share, while potentially aggravating East-West tensions and adding another challenge to the energy industry, which provides or supports millions of jobs. It will enable the Liberals to attend international meetings and boast that Canada is on the side of the angels, while allowing Trudeau to keep a campaign promise to voters.
Is it worth it? That depends on your point of view. It’s worthy enough as a gesture, it just probably won’t accomplish anything significant.
Kelly McParland: Trudeau’s carbon plan means Canadians will pay more for a tax that will have very little impact | National Post
Upset bots who still choose to live here.
Oh well.
Maybe there's another planet out there for you losers.
MPs vote 207 to 81 to back Paris climate change agreement - Politics - CBC News
Were you born an obnoxious moron, or have you had to work at it?
