October 06, 2016

Here’s why BC’s Premier Clark must reject Trudeau’s “unilateral” carbon tax

Christopher WilsonRebel Commentator
 

The federal carbon tax has Canadians across this country gripping their wallets a little tighter this week but carbon taxes are nothing new to British Columbians because we’ve had our own carbon since 2008, currently sitting at $30/tonne. 

This week Justin Trudeau announced his tax would begin at $10/tonne in 2018 increasing by $10 each year until reaching $50/tonne in 2022. The good news for British Columbian’s is we won't be paying a single cent of federal carbon taxes until at least 2021 when the federal tax reaches $40/tonne.

This explains why we didn’t hear much from Christy Clark and the BC Liberals as we did from other provinces but looking ahead to 2021 and beyond, this federal carbon tax could do serious damage to British Columbia as well.

Watch as I explain how the carbon tax will affect our LNG prospects and BC Hydro’s Site C Dam project.

But these things are just the tip of the iceberg. What about BC Ferries? Count on fare increases. Hospitals and schools? They will need more tax dollars from us to pay their carbon taxes too.

I’d like to see Premier Clark join Brad Wall and call on Justin Trudeau to stick with his election campaign promise, made during the Globe and Mail debate last fall. Imposing a federal carbon tax on BC when we already have a tax is completely non-sensical, so why on earth is he doing it? And why on earth isn’t our premier calling him out on this too?

After all, a carbon tax doesn’t reduce emissions or change the weather. It just makes our businesses less competitive in the global market and seriously harms our investment climate.

When we willingly make our nation uncompetitive compared to our neighbours and allies, that hurts all Canadians.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-10-07 16:47:00 -0400
“Further, the “trailing carbon” theory makes no provision for the fact that the carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere is entirely due to humans.”
Not a fact Andrew. There have been studies to guesstimate the human contribution, and compared to the natural burping and farting of the planet, the human factor is minuscule. Humans were not a problem when dinosaurs walked the planet, and look what happened.

There is much that is alarming about the planet and the natural variables in its climate, however blaming it on man to get away with a carbon tax is something we should not put up with. It is a joke and it is extortion.
commented 2016-10-07 16:31:14 -0400
My point exactly Andrew, “Perhaps they’re right. Perhaps they’re not.” Perhaps they shouldn’t be using it as an excuse to blame mankind. Perhaps they shouldn’t be facilitating the global ambush that our society will have to endure if the nonsense continues. Perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed to be writing policy on a bunch of unknowns.

Of course there are empirical observations of a changing climate, that’s because the climate changes, no one argues with that. We can all see evidence of it.
You said, “Most of these models are empirical rather than predictive. Mathematical errors only apply to the latter, and do not impact the empirical observations of a changing climate.” ….and the mathematical errors in the ‘predictive’ model will be brought to light and when they are it is bound to show what an inaccurate farce these predictive models really are. Bottom line, the ‘predictions’ governments are basing policy changes on come from manipulation of man made models (which are developed with very little fact and a whole lot of supposition).
commented 2016-10-07 12:07:37 -0400
liza Rosie commented 11 mins ago
“As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change"
-——-
The issue is, of course, that there is enormous uncertainty inherent in a statement like that. Perhaps they’re right. Perhaps they’re not. Perhaps both factors co-exist, and probably do – I can think of the example of thawing permafrost, which will release an enormous amount of organic carbon to the atmosphere when it happens, amplifying whatever influence we may have. They are not actually incompatible.

Further, the “trailing carbon” theory makes no provision for the fact that the carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere is entirely due to humans. Models where carbon dioxide levels are purely reactive to temperature make no prediction whatsoever to what happens when carbon dioxide is introduced artificially, though it DOES predict that feedback loop, which is itself alarming.
commented 2016-10-07 12:02:56 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 2016-10-07 03:51:09 -0400
Andrew how did the pine beetle affect that number by the way? More green stupidity leading to less absorption and millions of burned trees making a hell of a lot of carbon. Great work by the left LMAO! "

You mean the pine beetle, which is out of control because winters are no longer cold enough to keep it out of central BC?

This sort of positive feedback is precisely what is predicted by climate change models.

“And it is proof that burning wood produces far more carbon than burning fossil fuel.” Yes, and it’s also why forest sequestration is not a major offset of our industrial activities to those that claim it as such.

“Andy Neimers commented 2016-10-06 16:52:20 -0400
And those Canadian boreal forests, Andrew Stephenson, don’t produce megatons of oxygen daily? "
In summer, yes, presuming they’re not in fire at the time. However, most of what they release in summer is re-absorbed and emitted as carbon dioxide and methane in spring and fall as forest detritus rots and breaks down. The “sawtooth” in carbon dioxide observations is due to this very effect.

“Bill Elder commented 18 hours ago
We do not have enough CO2 in the atmosphere now to sustain vibrant plant growth.

Mathematical errors have been discovered in the way that atmospheric CO2 level translates into warming using the official “Climate Sensitivity” equation."

Most of these models are empirical rather than predictive. Mathematical errors only apply to the latter, and do not impact the empirical observations of a changing climate.

The primary limitation on plant growth is usually phosphorus. Occasionally nitrogen, water, or predation. Studies have found “carbon fertilization” effects (suggesting that carbon dioxide is the limit on photosynthesis) in very limited areas of the world, usually in areas with very high evapotranspiration levels where the pores plants use to respire can only open briefly due to water loss, and because of this limitation, can’t take up sufficient carbon dioxide. This effect is only seen in marginally arid regions, in damper climates there is sufficient water to keep those pores open and the plants can fix it freely.
commented 2016-10-07 12:01:29 -0400
Carbon Dioxide ……“It’s also a primary regulator of the planet’s temperature balance.” That opinion is no longer considered the ‘gospel’ truth Andrew.

There is no consensus of scientists and experts with which to base government policy on. It is a ruse. It is a revenue stream designed to bankroll big government spending on alternatives (useless until storage is addressed) filling and padding political pockets, and a vehicle for global social change. The carbon tax is a vehicle for global management. Any politician who agrees with it, needs to look beyond the end of their nose.

Andrew consider the following from the University of California, which you would expect to be of ‘one’ mind.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

“As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change."
commented 2016-10-07 11:27:41 -0400
Where is Mr. Kokes on that factoid?
commented 2016-10-07 11:26:49 -0400
“Once the error is corrected – which will happen when the paper describing it in mathematical detail is published in a leading scientific journal early next year – the climate scare will be officially over.”
I am looking forward to that Bill Elder!
commented 2016-10-07 03:51:09 -0400
Andrew how did the pine beetle affect that number by the way? More green stupidity leading to less absorption and millions of burned trees making a hell of a lot of carbon. Great work by the left LMAO!
commented 2016-10-07 03:48:37 -0400
Andrew fires are not related to oil production. And it is proof that burning wood produces far more carbon than burning fossil fuel. Now show me any proof that a carbon tax has done a damn thing. The amounts of carbon needed to affect the temperature balance and in cases the level is getting too low for plant life.
commented 2016-10-06 17:55:29 -0400
We do not have enough CO2 in the atmosphere now to sustain vibrant plant growth.

Mathematical errors have been discovered in the way that atmospheric CO2 level translates into warming using the official “Climate Sensitivity” equation.

There are a number of mathematical errors in the current equation calculation which are explained in a new paper rendered by the world foremost authority on the climate sensitivity study. The cumulative result of this being that even a doubling of CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would NOT result in serious warming.

The much-vaunted “climate consensus” turns out to have been wrong all along. Without that error in pre and post “Feedback Sensitivity” made in the original computer modeling, no one would ever have tried to pretend that global warming is a global crisis.

Once the error is corrected – which will happen when the paper describing it in mathematical detail is published in a leading scientific journal early next year – the climate scare will be officially over.
commented 2016-10-06 17:34:54 -0400
Don’t worry about 2021 Liberals will be burnt toast.All you but head that voted for him just fire up another dube and next time be to stoned to vote.
commented 2016-10-06 17:16:46 -0400
Chris, don’t worry, they get it alright, but their idea of getting to heaven is to kill the climate change skeptics by taxing everything to death. They preach this climate change 24/7 & it’s getting so sickening, that’s all you hear it seems & read in the newspapers. I have heard enough about climate change to last me a lifetime & beyond. They had a big snowstorm in Thompson, MB night before last. I knew it…..has to be that big, bad, old climate change again. This planet is so warm that it’s snowing big time. Gee & I thought they had it all wrong, I’d better punish myself for thinking this way & send them more money.
commented 2016-10-06 16:52:20 -0400
And those Canadian boreal forests, Andrew Stephenson, don’t produce megatons of oxygen daily?
commented 2016-10-06 15:37:18 -0400
He he, the next premier’s conference with the boy blunder should be fun – hope he has the iodine handy.
commented 2016-10-06 14:48:00 -0400
Today, Liberal MP Jonathan Wilkinson repeatedly replied to opposition questions by calling carbon dioxide pollution. Someone please take this foolish, ignorant man aside and give him a elementary lesson on photosynthesis and the importance of carbon dioxide in the cycle of life on this planet. .

A lie repeated a thousand times is still a lie and the Liberals will keep repeating this one if it profits them.

Marc Garneau, a former astronaut, knows better but power means more than truth to him. He has become just another mealy mouthed lying Liberal.
commented 2016-10-06 14:17:39 -0400
“CO2 is Plant Food . . . if it doubled tomorrow, no one but the Petunias would notice. "

It’s also a primary regulator of the planet’s temperature balance., and in general, atmospheric levels are far more than most plants need (150ppm is adequate, more than that and other factors become the limiting factor).
commented 2016-10-06 14:12:43 -0400
“Kelvin Grabowsky commented 18 mins ago
Western Canada is a large carbon sink, our vast forests offset any carbon that is being produced here. "

Not even close. The forests absorb, at most, a small fraction of the total. With the number of fires in recent years, they actually net emit in some years (NRC does in fact have an analysis of this). Total forest absorption is in the tens of megatonnes a yea, versus emissions in the hundreds of megatonnes.
commented 2016-10-06 14:02:20 -0400
Western Canada is a large carbon sink, our vast forests offset any carbon that is being produced here.

They’ve de-industrialized us to a point that we don’t produce enough carbon to even raise the needle!

Misdirection and corruption are the only narrative that governments have left to offer us, time to hit the streets, if they can’t be legally thrown out of office then it’s time to throw the bums out with force!!!!!
commented 2016-10-06 13:32:34 -0400
Billy, indeed, Clark does not want to shake the boat here. She needs to keep the NDP from power.
commented 2016-10-06 13:13:58 -0400
I would love to opt out of the carbon tax but we that know the truth are few. The slaves are many.
commented 2016-10-06 13:10:41 -0400
ITS A TAX. more money is all they want. They are hoping there are brainless people that buy there crap and you bleeding hearts did and will because you think its global warming the biggest fraud in history. the environment was the wool over your blind eyes you could not see the forest for the trees.
commented 2016-10-06 12:28:13 -0400
The Carbon Tax is a SCAM based on faulty science and the myth of Gorebull Warming !
CO2 is Plant Food . . . if it doubled tomorrow, no one but the Petunias would notice.
The feckless Trudough and his Lieberal minions are turning Canada into France . . .
39% of mindless Canadians gave us this clown show . . . Time for the “West” to Opt Out?
commented 2016-10-06 12:20:22 -0400
AL ,not one effing degree ,it’s the biggest scam thought up by green party types [ you know the brain dead wino E may ] ,ecco nuts ,suzuki foundation and all the brain washing done by our education system imposed on our kids today by educators and fascists liberals from kindergarten to universities, i don’t deny the climate changes but that is up to mother nature not the man made claims by ecco nut preachers, bc’s carbon tax was just a big scam imposed by Campbell to appease the lefty green nuts , i e mailed Clark to tell her to stick up for bc’ers and tell the faggot turdo to eff off . of course there was no response .
commented 2016-10-06 12:04:51 -0400
Clark will kiss up to JT and his carbon tax only because she has the next election in the bag. We can do much better w/o a carbon tax, and instead focusing taxes where needed, like transit taxes, gas taxes, etc which are, by all intents and purposes, green/carbon taxes.
As much as I despise Clark having a close relationship with JT and the federal Libs, we can’t risk a “Notley” accident in this province.
I hope to see the NDP reduced to a handful of seats (or less) so a real “conservative” option can be voted for in 2021 w/o having to worry about the NDP coming up the middle.
commented 2016-10-06 12:00:52 -0400
Can someone tell me how much the earth’s temperature has been corrected by BC’s carbon tax? Give me a verifiable source.