Government kills independent science body

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Where did you get the idea nat gas was a better option?

Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions than that of coal when noramalized against electrical generation. It follows logically that using a fuel type that produces half the carbon dioxide for the same amount of electrical generation would therefore reduce the rate of acidification in the oceans.

It's pretty easy math, if you have the math aptitude to identify the larger of two quantities.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
So does having more. Changing tax rates changes the amount of money a person or business has. It's not the direction of the change that changes behaviour, it's the change itself.
I'd rather have the more money, not give it to the guvmint who will prahly spend on things I don't want.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I'd rather have the more money, not give it to the guvmint who will prahly spend on things I don't want.

Yes, which is exactly how pricing carbon makes lower carbon alternatives more attractive. You're getting there! Kudos.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,858
14,425
113
Low Earth Orbit
Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions than that of coal when noramalized against electrical generation. It follows logically that using a fuel type that produces half the carbon dioxide for the same amount of electrical generation would therefore reduce the rate of acidification in the oceans.

It's pretty easy math, if you have the math aptitude to identify the larger of two quantities.
That's when burned right? How does the gas get out of the ground and to the power plant?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
Yes, which is exactly how pricing carbon makes lower carbon alternatives more attractive. You're getting there! Kudos.
Exactly wrong. The guvmint is still getting too much money. You're too young to understand.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83


Environment panel never pushed carbon tax, president says

The head of a federal advisory group on the environment says his group never suggested that the federal government adopt a carbon tax. David McLaughlin was reacting to comments by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in the House of Commons this week that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was being closed because the government didn't like its reports.

"Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept," Baird said on Monday in response to a question by interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae during question period.

"It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families."

The roundtable had its budget cut in the 2012 budget and will close its doors at the end of the fiscal year. It was set up in 1988 to provide advice on sustainable development.

McLaughlin says he has "no idea" where Baird got his figures.

McLaughlin says the group did not produce 10 reports recommending a carbon tax. Instead, the roundtable provided advice on how the government can reach its own goals.

"We never said ... 'you're not doing enough' or 'your targets aren't right'," he told CBC News in an interview. "What we tried to do is take the government's targets and say here's some advice on the best way to do it."

In 2008 and again in 2010, McLaughlin's group produced two reports outlining options for Canada to reach its 2050 target to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Both recommended a cap-and-trade system, something the Conservative government was considering at the time.

"We had said that cap and trade was a more efficient way to go, rather than a straight carbon tax right across the country," said McLaughlin. "But the idea of putting a basic form of carbon tax on everybody was not something we recommended, but it is (carbon) pricing so people can get confused I guess."

In 2011, the roundtable again addressed the idea of the cap-and-trade system in its report about how Canada can align its policies those of the United States. But McLaughlin points out these reports were written in the shadow of the 2008 federal election and the Liberals' failed "carbon tax campaign."

"So we were certainly cognizant that recommending a carbon tax wouldn't fly at that point in time."

Baird's comments are yet another version of why the government is closing the round table.

Environment Minister Peter Kent had initially said the reason was because such research can now be easily accessed through the Internet and through universities and other think tanks.

McLaughlin chuckles over that. His group has
just released a report on the lifecycle approach to production in Canada — a report requested by Environment Minister Kent.

"It may seem a bit ironic in the week when people are wondering about this issue anew that we are releasing a report that was asked for by the government."

The roundtable will release its final report in June. That report will look at action by provinces and the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — a report McLaughlin points out that was also requested by the Minister of the Environment.

Environment panel never pushed carbon tax, president says - Politics - CBC News
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
It's your logic...you don't want more money? Strange, you just said you did. Perhaps you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
When did I say I wanted less money; I said I don't want to give the guvmint more money. As I said you have little life experience and have been told by your many schools that guvmint is good and individualism is bad. Hopefully you will achieve wisdom as you age.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
[
You mean like how public scrutiny successfully got our majority government to cancel it's silly pedophile law?

Yes, public awareness is completely useless.

Clearly. :roll:
OK, here's some public scrutiny for you. Let me know if you think I'm onto something here...

Mulcair is elected and pulls off his sustainable resource management shtick.

Controlling oil flow, cause oil prices to rise.

Rising oil prices cause transport costs to rise.

Rising transport costs, cause rise in price of goods and services.

Yes or no?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
What? Not up to a little challenge Fuzzy?

[OK, here's some public scrutiny for you. Let me know if you think I'm onto something here...

Mulcair is elected and pulls off his sustainable resource management shtick.

Controlling oil flow, cause oil prices to rise.

Rising oil prices cause transport costs to rise.

Rising transport costs, cause rise in price of goods and services.

Yes or no?