https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/12/canadas-trudeau-promises-massive-carbon-tax-rise/
Canada PM Justin Trudeau has promised to make manufacturers pay $170 / ton of CO2 for the crime of providing Canadians with jobs and economic security.
Trudeau hikes carbon tax, positions Canada to hit climate goal
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped up efforts to hit Canada’s emissions targets by 2030, pledging billions in new money to combat climate change and increasing his marquee carbon tax.
The measures, announced Friday in Ottawa by Trudeau and Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, seek to put the resource-rich northern nation on track to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 40 per cent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade, versus the current 30 per cent goal.
Central to achieving that will be an increase in the government’s carbon price to $170 (US$133) per metric ton by 2030. It was already on track to hit $50 two years from now, and will increase by $15 a year after that. Though revenue from the levy is returned to the provinces via consumer rebates, it’s being challenged in the courts by oil-producing Alberta and others.
“There are still places in this country that want pollution to be free again,” Trudeau told reporters. “We are going to continue to increase the price on pollution and give more money back to Canadians and their families.”
Here's the original article:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-hikes-carbon-tax-positions-canada-to-hit-climate-goal-1.1535201
“There are still places in this country that want pollution to be free again,” Trudeau told reporters. “We are going to continue to increase the price on pollution and give more money back to Canadians and their families.”
The plan -- titled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” -- is Trudeau’s effort to bring some momentum to a climate change agenda that has persistently failed to meet targets. It also puts his government in sync with Joe Biden on environmental policy. The president-elect has vowed the U.S. will achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and rejoin the Paris climate agreement abandoned by President Donald Trump. Canada had been on track to miss its 2030 goals.
Global Gathering
Trudeau’s pledge comes ahead of a key United Nations climate conference this weekend. Hosted by the U.K., the gathering comes five years after the Paris agreement and ahead of the pandemic-postponed COP26 summit in Glasgow. European Union leaders agreed Friday to cut pollution by at least 55 per cent by 2030, up from 40 per cent previously."
The increase in the carbon levy will translate to drivers paying nearly 38 Canadian cents more per liter of gas at the pumps by the end of the decade, officials at Wilkinson’s department said in a briefing. Costs for home heating oil, natural gas and propane will also rise.
metmike: Scientific ignorance. CO2 is the building block for life on this planet. It's a beneficial gas. The increase in CO2 is greening up the planet, not killing it.
We rescued life from near CO2 starvation, below 300 ppm. We are around 415 ppm currently. The optimal level of CO2 for most life on the planet is around 900 ppm.
Thousands of scientific studies show this conclusively. When leaders like this call is pollution, they are just spreading the ignorance for their political agenda:
Here's a study on grasses for instance, on the next page.
https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3
We found that the optimal CO2 concentrations occurred at 945, 915, and 1151 ppm for the aboveground biomass of tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively.(current levels are 415 ppm-metmike) Higher CO2 concentrations had diminishing returns of CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth, causing limiting effects on stomatal conductance, nitrogen availability and changes in the biochemical and photochemical processes of photosynthesis. Our results suggest that the continuously increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in the future may dramatically lower the CO2 fertilization effect, and thus many current climate change models based on earlier results of “doubling–CO2” experiments may overestimate the CO2 fertilization effect on grasslands beyond the optimum CO2 concentration. According to recent IPCC reports, if global CO2 emissions are not effectively mitigated, the atmospheric CO2 concentration might be over 900 ppm in the second half of this Century. Nevertheless, the optimal CO2 concentrations found in this study can be used as an indicator in predicting the fates of the cool-season C3 grasses under future rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate change, because grasses with high optimal CO2 concentrations may take full advantage of the CO2 fertilization effect.
metmike: "According to recent IPCC reports, if global CO2 emissions are not effectively mitigated, the atmospheric CO2 concentration might be over 900 ppm in the second half of this Century"
Complete bs on just the specific quote above from the InterGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change .
During the last 80 years, CO2 went from 315 to 415 ppm and they are telling us that during the next 80 years, CO2 levels may go from 415 ppm to 900+ ppm? The chance of that is near 0%...............even if we did nothing to cut CO2 emissions.
Regardless, every added molecule of CO2 on the way higher from the current 415 ppm will be seen a beneficial to life on this planet, based on biology, agronomy, zoology, climate and all authentic science.
Only in the field of politics do they refer to this elixir of life. CO2 as pollution...........so they can tax it and use it to impose global socialism while redistributing global wealth and cutting back on natural resource consumption by the rich countries.
The Climate Accord is a complete fraud.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674
This study examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat with growth chambers where the CO2 concentration was controlled at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 ppm respectively. I found that initial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration dramatically enhanced winter wheat growth through the CO2 fertilization effect. However, this CO2 fertilization effect was substantially compromised with further increase in CO2 concentration, demonstrating an optimal CO2 concentration of 889.6, 909.4, and 894.2 ppm for aboveground, belowground, and total biomass, respectively, and 967.8 ppm for leaf photosynthesis.
metmike: Currently, we have around 415 ppm of CO2 and will never get close to the optimal level of this beneficial gas., absurdly referred to as pollution for political agenda. If we are concerned about life on the planet, we should be trying to INCREASE CO2, not cut it.
metmike: Now let's show you how mainstream climate science lies to you, twisting facts to try to make you think that people who believe in the real law of photosynthesis and can prove the benefits for plants, just don't understand climate change.
Not only do I understand climate change but I understand it enough to prove the bull about the fake climate crisis using AUTHENTIC science.
Here is supposedly a climate science authority, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. I had a subscription to the magazine for 20 years. They still have some wonderful science but they have taken on the role of cheerleader for the fake climate crisis, instead of applying the scientific method. Instead, they bash and try to discredit those of us who practice the scientific method. Let's expose the fraudulence of this position from the perspective of plants. Keep in mind that as an atmospheric scientist, I apply this to the affects of weather/climate and CO2 on crop conditions and yields for a living IN THE REAL WORLD.
Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
1. Scientific American: " Still, research shows plants “get some benefits early on from higher CO2, but that [benefit] starts to saturate” after the gas reaches a certain level, Moore says—adding, “The more CO2 you have, the less and less benefit you get."
metmike: We have thousands of plants studies to go with the 2 above which I will show in a minute to prove that the saturation is up around 900 ppm. We will never even get close to that, having gone from only 300 ppm to 415 ppm in the last 100 years.
2. Scientific American: “Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects(on yields),” she says.
metmike: So far, we've had 1 deg. C of warming in the REAL WORLD. Let's just ask the crops how they feel about that warming (-:
Hey corn, show us your yields below, during the global warming/climate change of the last 100 years( +1 deg. C, and +115 ppm CO2).
http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2014/10/corn-questions-from-food-inc-worksheet.html
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html
How about you soybeans for the last 30 years?
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
metmike: Thank you row crops. It's clear that in addition to technology, that climate change is adding to your production and not taking it away.
3. Scientific American: "On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants."
metmike: Are they not aware of technology? Farmers have effective means for controlling weeds. Of course they know that but they need to perpetuate the false narrative.........."climate change is bad for all good life but the same conditions of climate change........are somehow good for bad life." The fact is that climate change is good............for all life because we are having a climate optimum..........for all life........not a climate crisis/emergency.
https://www.agriculture.com/crops/sponsored-six-steps-to-effective-weed-control
4. Scientific American: Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers.
metmike: This one is taking something with a vey small grain of truth and intentionally spinning it into something completely bogus. Given the choice, would you like to have 100 lbs of food with all the micronutrients or 140 lbs of food that have a small fraction less of a couple of micronutrients? 1.4 billion would lose 3.8% of their iron they claim? How about............if we went back to the old climate at 1 Deg. C cooler and 115 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere, 1.4 billion people on this planet would DIE because that climate did not support the yields and world food production that the beneficial climate change and increasing CO2 are causing and will continue to cause. Applying their principle/line of thinking, it would be great to cut crop yields in half so that those much smaller crops, will have much higher micronutrient levels(which would be true of course). Forget that a couple billion people would starve. What matters is that before they ran out of food and died, the food they ate had 3.8% more iron/micronutrients in it!
5. Scientific American: "Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life."
metmike: They keep telling us that drought is increasing...........as it keeps NOT increasing. Every drought today was from human caused climate change. The same/similar droughts in the past were all natural. Natural droughts don't happen anymore. As it turns out, global warming increases the temperature in the Pacific Ocean and increases El Nino's that INCREASE precipitation in the US and protect us from droughts. This is why the US cornbelt has had the least amount of drought, during the last 30 years(just 1 major drought in 2012) in recorded history.........not in spite of climate change but because of it. Global cooling and La Nina's are what increase droughts!
Last drought of 2012? Started with the La Nina-cool waters in the East/Central Tropical Pacific. Previous major drought in 1988? Caused by a similar La Nina-cool waters in the same place. Global warming can't cause La Nina's. It's affect is the opposite.......more El Nino's.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/21/activists-hope-that-fake-news-about-droughts-will-win/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/interesting-graph-fraction-of-the-globe-in-drought-1982-2012/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
metmike: Instead of destroying the planet, climate change is greening it up. Even greening the deserts up!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
More evidence to support this FACT:
metmike: You want drought? I'll show you drought(and heat). We all remember stories about the Dust Bowl, when much of an entire decade featured widespread drought across the US............in the old climate. Total crop failures for consecutive years.........because of the climate. BTW, increasing CO2 increases plants drought tolerance(makes them more water efficient)
The map below is the drought index in 1934. This was one of the worst times during a drought that lasted for much of that decade. It was not permanent climate change and more of a freak weather phenomena. Human's poor farming strategies in those days did make things worse but today's climate change makes a drought lasting that long much LESS likely to happen.
Can you imagine if we had this going on today?
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
I don't know if Trudeau thinks we are stupid or what
Most people believe there is a climate crisis if the coffee shop can be believed
So Trudeau is going to add an extra cost tp pump fuel maxed out at 38 cents/litre [I think]. That equates to 1.50/gal plus in dollars you understand at the pump. [Glory be the elder Trudeau who thought we should go metric]
So we will be paying an extra 1.50 carbon tax for gas but Trudeau has an ace up his sleeve. He will give us all rebates on the carbon tax. What fool thinks the rebates will equal the initial carbon tax for gas. Oh yes, Alberta with the oil industry and all those industries that use energy to provide jobs will pay the carbon tax while we peons get a rebate
It doesn't stop there as we also pay a carbon tax on LP and I think NG. Just about every house heats with LP or NG or a few with electric which gets the electric from fuel which is all taxed, thus the heating bill will be more
Do you think the rebate will cover the carbon tax of home heating and pump gas???
It gets worse for Ag because most of our crops are dried using either NG or LP both of which are taxed for the carbon tax
We dried 500,000 bu plus of corn this fall and will shortly hit or very close to 600,00 bu. in the near future. That takes a lot of LP or NG of which we use both and we pay the carbon tax, which our city folks don't pay that tax
I could be wrong, but when folks figure out their carbon tax bill, there might be push back. Everybody wants to do the right thing, as long as somebody else pays the bill. Often that some body else is the gov't. No wonder we have such huge deficits
Trudeau is not very popular as it stands now and the next election may see the last of him. I am sure the carbon tax may be an election issue but that remains to be seen.
I watched your election to try and get an idea how we might re-act. The people in Alberta, Canada, depend on the oil industry and further west, logging is what many folks depend on for economic activity. East of British Columbia has a lot of Ag industry and then you have the fishing and mining industry, all of which depend on energy
Every day when we get up and during the day we are users of energy. This alternate energy will provide some energy but I think these energy targets are just that. A target that will not happen. And to think China gets to keep on the same for 10 yrs.
Thanks very much Wayne!!
You hit the nail on the head with all your points. Bravo!
I couldn't have said them much better.
I'm going to make a new thread for all the very long winded climate stuff above, that I want to feature in the climate reality thread and just put a link to it here.