• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Carbon Tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Snafu-Bar said:
....This link is what technology is coming forward to deal with this bump in the road to evolution.

http://www.explorepub.com/articles/beardon/overunity.html

An overunity generator in action and the parent co's website, an excellent read...

Interesting to note that in Fig.3 of the A-reguaging phase of the motor a the ref, the total phase EMF appears to be at or less than unity, not overunity.  Note the immediate Voltage drop near the end of the first phase ramp down, and the phase lag resulting from a delayed recovery to peak voltage before re-intercepting the linear voltage drop again.  The total enery being "area under the curve", there actually appears to be less overall energy present in the dashed line "overunity/reguaging" mode of the motor.

As SKT and Homer said, we follow the laws of thermodynamics here.  Some website saying it's so, and a youtube vid where you can't appreciably quantify any net generation of energy is nothing more than cheap entertainment on a rainy Monday evening...
 
Good2Golf said:
Interesting to note that in Fig.3 of the A-reguaging phase of the motor a the ref, the total phase EMF appears to be at or less than unity, not overunity.  Note the immediate Voltage drop near the end of the first phase ramp down, and the phase lag resulting from a delayed recovery to peak voltage before re-intercepting the linear voltage drop again.  The total enery being "area under the curve", there actually appears to be less overall energy present in the dashed line "overunity/reguaging" mode of the motor.

Are you drunk ?

I have no idea what you just said........

;D
 
Well like anything new change is hard to make especially when most are content with staus quo. Many of the clips and experiments being done with the technology is atleast showing promis of finding a viable option for use in something that could help with the carbon output.

It was atleast interesting, unlike Dion and his tax plan.

 
Folks hearabouts follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics in this here universe. The Sherriff might call a posse of Maxwell's Deamon's out if youall ain't carefull and keep trying to violate the Law ;).

Since there have been no observed violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics, claims about "overunity generators" should be taken with the same face value as claims of perpetual motion (which is, in fact, what they are). Electric motors are more efficient in converting electrical power into torque than other types of engines, the problem is each stage in converting chemical, nuclear, solar etc. energy into electrical energy, storing it on board the vehicle and releasing it under control to the motor is another stage where a thermodynamic loss occurs, which means that overall, most electric vehicles are less efficient than internal combustion vehicles when you add it all up!

Now if you have convincing evidence that you or someone has actually created and demonstrated an "overunity generator", then that is a different thing alltogether. What is convincing proof?  I get a set of plans and build one myself. I test it in my own lab with my own people. Other witnesses that are chosen at random by myself get to watch and verify what has happened, and I publish the results in any forum or journal. Anyone else on Earth can do the same to cross check the results.

Just as a BTW; there is very good reason to suppose that if violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics were indeed possible, that would result in the end of the Universe; making Carbon taxes somewhat moot at that point!
 
Carbon taxes somewhat moot at that point!

I thought they were already!

What the young man wants is a Rube Goldberg Machine!
Now, there's some fine engineering.... ;D
 
Even Stephan Dion does not know what the Carbon Tax is about. Something to ponder when a Liberal candidate asks for your vote. Pass these questions on to your friends



Confused Liberals: The Top 21 Carbon Tax Questions

Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion could not explain his carbon tax plan to his own aides.

There are a lot of questions that I suspect Stephane Dion will have trouble answering.  I've compiled my favourite 21 questions that I think every Liberal MP ought to be able to answer.

Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion is going to save the planet by making Canadians pay a carbon tax.  How is that actually going to work?  Who knows?  Certainly not senior aides who just couldn't understand what Stephane Dion was trying to sell:

At the last strategy meeting a couple of months ago, one insider said Mr. Dion spent more than an hour trying to explain his environmental plan, which was so complicated even his top aides had trouble understanding it. Some Liberals feel that if it's too difficult to sell in 30 seconds at the door, voters will tune out.

I have an uncle who for years was a top bureaucrat in transportation ministry in Ontario.  As such, he is essentially apolitical, as his job was to advise elected ministers, regardless of the party.

He is dismissive of Stephane Dion's carbon tax.  Sneeringly dismissive.  Not because of the goals or of the issues, but because the plan is far too complex.  In his opinion, no one can truly understand what the carbon tax is going to do to them, and there is no way for Stephane Dion or any politician to predict with any confidence what the carbon tax is going to do.

I bet a lot of the "complication" came from answers like "We're not sure" or "That will be worked out later".

I think that might be the trouble Stephane Dion was having with these top aides.  Obviously they support Stephane Dion, and presumably they weren't being deliberately obtuse.

But I bet they had questions.

Here are my Top 21 Carbon Tax Questions:

Just how much carbon dioxide is going to be removed as a result of paying this tax?

What difference would that make to global climate?  How much will temperatures drop as a result?

If this isn't actually going to affect climate, then why do it?  To get China on board?  How does that work, exactly? If China doesn't agree to a carbon tax, are you going to continue to increase the carbon tax on Canadians until the Chinese government can't take it anymore and agrees to apply a carbon tax of their own?

If you can't predict how much carbon dioxide is going to be removed, how can you predict the revenues so accurately?

If carbon dioxide emissions are going to drop significantly in a short timeframe, then doesn't that mean the revenue drops too?  How do you fund the social spending programs attached to the carbon tax if the revenue of the carbon tax is expected to decrease quickly?  Increase the carbon tax even further?  Undo the income tax cuts?  Restore the GST to 7%?  Or is these no expected change in emissions?

A tariff on foreign goods from countries without a carbon tax?  Well, isn't that the United States and China?  So you expect countries like Norway and Sweden to supply most of the stuff Canadians import right now from China?  Or do consumers like me just pay the tariff to you as punishment for China not having a carbon tax?  Why do I have to pay for China's bad behaviour?

Where is the money from the tariff going?  It's not listed in the revenues from the carbon tax.  Can that be revenue neutral too?  Can I get that money taken off my taxes? 

Where is the form to get a rebate on the tariff to make the carbon tax revenue neutral for me?

How much will prices go up?  Not just my fuel costs, but the cost of everything I buy.  If it's imported, you'll put a tariff on it.  If it's made here, you'll apply the carbon tax on it.  Will my 1% income tax cut cover my fuel costs and all the other cost increases that will be passed down to me?  If not, where is the rebate form to fill out to get an additional tax credit to make my portion of the carbon tax revenue neutral for me?

Gas is not affected?  Great.  What happens if gas prices go up because of increased transportation costs?  Does the carbon tax tariff apply to any oil that we import?  If the guy running the gas station has to pay more for his stuff, doesn't that mean the cost of gas will go up?  Where is the form for a rebate on the increase on the cost of gas I buy so that the carbon tax doesn't affect my gas budget like you promised?

How much of a raise should I expect from my boss?  It seems to me that the carbon tax is going to increase the cost of living, and I want my cost of living increase.  If the government has to pay a cost of living increase to all government employees, then how does that affect me?  I'm expecting this to be revenue neutral.  I don't want to pay more on the GST to cover the increase in government operating costs -- getting all my carbon tax money back like you promised isn't revenue neutral if your carbon tax plan kicks off tax increases in other non-carbon taxes.

Will we have to buy carbon credits from other countries to reduce carbon dioxide?  How does writing a cheque to Russia make less carbon dioxide?  Where does the money come from?  Where is the rebate form to fill out so that I can opt out of paying my portion of the carbon credit buy so that I can stay revenue neutral?  Are you planning to raise other taxes to raise money for a carbon credit buy?

Ralph Goodale says most of Saskatchewan oil is exempt from the carbon tax.  Can my province be exempt too?

Why does Scott Brison say that Nova Scotia is going to get special treatment?  Can my province get special treatment too?

I already pay a carbon tax in my province?  When will the forms be available to get a rebate equal to the amount I paid on my provincial tax so that I don't get double-taxed?

My province makes me pay a carbon tax on gas.  Am I going to be hit with a carbon tax tariff if I go into the US to fill up on gas?

Why should people in Quebec pay less because they have hydro power?  Isn't most of that coming from Newfoundland?  And it's not fair that I live where there is no hydro.  I want a rebate to make up for the cost of not living where there are rivers so that I can stay revenue neutral.

Can you promise that after Kyoto is done, Canadians won't have to pay any more penalties for using energy?

A few years back I put in some extra insulation in my house.  I think I still have the receipt.  Where do I get the rebate form to get my money back for keeping global warming from getting really bad by doing something early?

Will the carbon tax get lifted once we've stopped global warming?  How long is that going to take?  Five years, you figure?

How many polar bears will be saved if I pay a carbon tax?  How many polar bears will die if I don't?

Can I get an extra rebate for snitching on my neighbour?  He keeps his porch light on all night, and he drives an SUV. Plus I saw a Conservative Party sign on his lawn during the last election, so he probably doesn't believe in global warming. David Suzuki says we should put people like him in jail.  See, I've been paying attention to the global warming science and stuff.  Can I get a rebate for knowing all about global warming?  Where's the form?

OK, there are more than 21 questions, but they are clustered into 21 themes.  And yes, they get progressively sillier.

Hey, why don't we all keep this list of questions handy.  We can quiz local Liberals who might come to our doors campaigning.  Let's see if they can explain it all in an hour.
 
Sure glad it's Dion coming up with this scam.....I don't think I could have answered 5 of those questions.....and that would have taken a 1/2 hr......
 
Martha Hall Findley had some interesting things to say about the Carbon Tax. Let's examine them, shall we?

http://conservativeinnewbrunswick.blogspot.com/2008/08/voice-of-association-hidden-agenda-of.html

Voice of the Association: The Hidden Agenda of the Liberal Carbon Tax Revealed!

This is a must read and I share it with you below from Voice of the Association.


Former Liberal leadership candidate and front-bench MP, Martha Hall-Findlay, was notably quoted as saying that “the effectiveness of Stephane Dion’s carbon tax could not be predicted, or even measured after the fact.” That set off a firestorm of controversy and comment on blogs across Canada. After all, why would Canadians agree to pay a huge new tax if they had no measure of its effect on the environment before or afterwards?

Earlier this week, she tried to clarify those comments by personally writing to one of Canada’s premier bloggers, Steve Janke. In her note, Ms. Hall-Findlay linked the effectiveness of Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax to the oil crisis of the 1970’s.

    “It has been demonstrated repeatedly, around the world, that adding to market forces is the most effective way to affect behaviour. Those of us old enough remember significant fuel-reduction behaviour due to the 1970s oil crisis. There will be reductions in emissions from the Green Shift because we know that people will change their consumption patterns if polluting behaviours cost more.

    My point is that both increased market oil prices and the imposition of a price on the burning of other fossil fuels, when working together, will reduce green-house gas emissions even further. It will, however, be difficult to determine the exact proportions of the reduction attributable to each.“

Here is what Ms. Hall-Findlay is clearly proposing: The Liberal carbon tax plan involves “adding to” the skyrocketing market price of fuel so that gas price increases “working together” with a Liberal carbon tax will cause people to “change their consumption patterns” thereby reducing emissions. The precedent that she cited for the dynamics required to “affect behaviour” was the “significant fuel-reduction behaviour due to the 1970’s oil crisis.”

Ms. Hall-Findlay is a lawyer and has stated her case clearly and with precedent. It is simple to research the facts surrounding the 1970’s oil crisis. When you do so, you will find that the events of the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis did in fact significantly affect consumption of carbon fuels.

    “October 16, 1973 —Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar unilaterally raise posted prices …and announce production cuts. Daily consumption dropped by 6.1% from September to February, and by 7% during summer of 1974, as the United States suffered its first fuel shortage since the Second World War. The large automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s were replaced by far more compact and energy efficient models.

    The energy crisis led to greater interest in renewable energy and spurred research in solar power and wind power. It also led to …increased interest in mass transit.

    In July 1979, President Jimmy Carter outlined his plans to reduce oil imports and improve energy efficiency in his “Crisis of Confidence” speech. During the speech, Carter wore a cardigan and encouraged citizens to do what they could to reduce their use of energy. He also installed solar power panels on the roof of the White House and a wood-burning stove in the living quarters.”

From a consumption point of view the oil crisis was a resounding success. There were however some less flattering effects of these crises:

    “In the industrialized countries, especially the United States, the crisis caused the most hardship to the unemployed, the marginalized social groups, certain categories of aging workers, and increasingly, by younger workers. Schools and offices in the U.S. often closed down to save on heating oil; and factories cut production and laid off workers. In France, the oil crisis ended the Trente Glorieuses, 30 years of very high economic growth, and began the ensuing decades of permanent unemployment. In Australia, heating oil ceased being considered an appropriate winter heating fuel.

    In Canada the industrial east suffered many of the same problems of the United States. The federal government attempted to correct this imbalance through the creation of the government-owned Petro-Canada and later the National Energy Program. These efforts produced a great deal of anger in the west producing a sentiment of alienation that has remained a central element of Canadian politics to this day. Overall the oil embargo had a sharply negative effect on the Canadian economy. The economic malaise in the United States easily crossed the border and increases in unemployment, and stagflation hit Canada as hard as the United States despite Canadian fuel reserves.

This is what the Liberals are willing to accept in order to force Canadians to reduce consumption. That is not the worst of the news however. If Ms. Hall-Findlay is going to point to the crisis of the 1970’s as a model for reducing consumption, it is legitimate to ask “How much did the price have to rise in order to effect ’significant fuel-reduction behaviour’?” Here is what the historical record says:

    “Since oil demand falls little with price rises, prices had to rise dramatically to reduce demand to the new lower level of supply. …The effects of the embargo were immediate. OPEC forced the oil companies to increase payments drastically. The price of oil quadrupled.“

    “The Carter administration began a phased decontrol of oil prices on 5 April when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85… The world price of oil, …reached a peak in 1979 during the 1979 energy crisis, at more than US$80 per barrel.“

In 1973, the price of oil quadrupled. That is an increase of 400%! In 1979, the price of oil went from $15.85/barrel to more than $80/barrel. That is an increase of 500%!

What is the Liberal plan to “put a price on carbon” in Canada? Not only do they plan to do nothing about high fuel prices, they want to “add to” that cost so that their carbon tax “working together” with market forces will produce results like the 1970’s oil crisis. Clearly their initial tax targets are much too low to “change consumption patterns” and effect “fuel-reduction behaviour.”

If they really want to reduce carbon emissions like the 1970’s, the only way they can do it is by raising gas prices 400-500% and producing the economic devastation that was felt througout Canada, the US, France and Australia. Is this the Liberals hidden agenda that they will foist on Canadians once they get back to power? If not, then why are leading Liberals promoting their new carbon tax with exactly this type of justification?
 
From an Email I just received from a friend.....

Carbon Tax 
 
The author of this, John Coates, lives in Nova Scotia. He would be even more disgusted if he lived here in BC where we already have a Carbon Tax .

The Liberals Carbon Tax

Politicians have, in the past, used that old bullshit phrase of 'cutting taxes' to get you to vote for them. 
 
Now, Stéphane Dion, has come up with a new wrinkle on that old lie : 
·        Tax your heating oil and anything else you burn to move your food and everything else that you have always had in your life... but, he'll lower your income taxes.

CONSIDER THIS from one person who has bothered to do the homework:

When a politician's lips move, I know he's probably lying. Mr. Dion says his carbon tax will be revenue neutral. So, I went online and found a carbon calculator and keyed in the annual energy consumption for our household and learned we produce 17 tons of greenhouse gas. Fully 60% of this usage is for electricity which we use to heat our home.

I have already improved insulation in my walls and replaced my windows and doors; use the new 'twirley' lights and ensured that my appliances are all Energy Star products. In the past 20 years, these measures reduced my electricity usage from 24,000 Kw Hrs per year to 16,000 Kw Hrs per year last year. 
 
What is my reward for this improved efficiency?

·        My power bill is unchanged from what it was 20 years ago. 

·          But, my power bill would  attract  a carbon tax of $104 in year one of Mr. Dion's plan 

·          and $ 416 in year four. 

·        My power bill would rise from $166 per month to $210 per month in year four.

Since I live on a fixed income consisting of CPP and Old Age Security, my income tax bill runs at less than $200 per year. So, for my household, Mr. Dion's 'revenue neutral' carbon tax will cost me $416 per year less income tax reductions of about $10 per year.

Revenue neutral? In a pig's eye! This is a tax on seniors living on fixed incomes. 
 
Well, Mr. Dion, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting my vote. I hope everyone else takes five minutes to run the same calculations I did and vote to send this joker to the political boneyard.

SIGNED:  Jon C. Coates - 70 Ridgevalley Rd. - Halifax, N.S. - B3P 2J9

Factual data substantiating this:

·        16.96 tons

·          60% of this is for electricity or 10.4 tons/year

·          @ $10/ton in year 1 = $104 or $9/mo

·          @ $20/ton in year 2 = $208 or $18/mo

·          @ $30/ton in year 3 = $312 or $27/mo

·          @ $40/ton in year 4 = $416 or $40/mo

·          Income tax paid is $110/yr.

DON'T BUY INTO THE CARBON TAX !
DON'T BELIEVE ANY POLITICIAN FROM ANY PARTY!
PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK IN CANADA.
 
According to Hans-Dieter Schilling (Energie-Fakten), the average efficiency of all coal power stations in the world currently stand at around 31%, leaving a vast potential to reduce coal consumption and CO2 emissions
Source

Fully 60% of this usage is for electricity which we use to heat our home.

And therein lies a good chunk of Ontario's problems.  In the 1970s, the hey day of Ontario Hydro with its reliance on Nukes and Hydro, electricity was sold as a  "clean" power supply.  Just as it is now.  Except that if you run out of water or uranium fired boilers then you are forced back to good old-fashioned coal and gas.  Knock off an additional 10% efficiency for line losses and you are down to an overall efficiency of the grid approaching 25%.

Burning Natural Gas (or even Coal) at home would increase the overall efficiency into the 50 to 90% range, depending on furnace and home designs.





 
According to Hans-Dieter Schilling (Energie-Fakten), the average efficiency of all coal power stations in the world currently stand at around 31%, leaving a vast potential to reduce coal consumption and CO2 emissions

The only way to reduce CO2 emissions or any other sorts of pollutants emitted during combustion is to find ways to overcome or bypass the thermodynamic losses of electricity generation and transmission. I suppose this is the source of the mythical "Green" technologies and "Green" jobs that are supposed to arrive via Unicorn under the Green Shaft Shift plan (or the Green or NDP plans, for that matter), but one only has to look at the vast list of potential technologies and their time-lines on A scary strategic problem - no oil, or the Global Warming Superthread to see how immature most of these technologies are and ponder how many decades of development would have to occur before they are in general usage.

The Carbon tax, by depressing business investment and R&D, would of course extend the time lines of some of these technologies to infinity while out of touch bureaucrats in Ottawa would be busy diverting "Green Shift" tax dollars to support companies chosen by politicians for their political value, not their business acumen (we can see this with ethanol subsidies today; ethanol consumes more energy than you ever get by burning it as a fuel.....).
 
Supposedly there is a report out saying that a carbon tax shift of $50/tonne will have a positive effect on the GDP starting in 2015. Here is a link to the website and the report.

Oh, and the report was done for NRC by M.K. Jaccard and Associates.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/20.06.2007?origin=redirect

p.s. I am also looking for an article I recently read about one of the scandanavian countries (sweden or denmark), who enacted a pollution tax, and it seems to be working out well for them.
 
The Scandinavian "Carbon Tax" plans have little in common with the "Green Shaft Shift", since it is a form of VAT or sales tax applied only to the consumer, not the producer as in the Liberal plan. As well, the Liberal plan is designed to appeal to regional divides in Canada (i.e. milk the resource wealth of the West for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec, since the West is a Liberal desert while their core support is in Urban Ontario and Quebec). I suspect carbon taxes simply add another layer of taxation and bureaucracy to Scandinavian economies, so any potential benefits are lost in the noise.

An interesting point to ponder is that carbon taxes are designed (in theory) to reduce carbon output in the economy and environment. If they were to work as advertised; then tax revenues would decline. Governments which rely on a carbon tax for revenue either are lying about the environmental benefits, or will have to boost other taxes (or cut spending [when pigs fly]) to make up the deficit.
 
Thucydides said:
An interesting point to ponder is that carbon taxes are designed (in theory) to reduce carbon output in the economy and environment. If they were to work as advertised; then tax revenues would decline. Governments which rely on a carbon tax for revenue either are lying about the environmental benefits, or will have to boost other taxes (or cut spending [when pigs fly]) to make up the deficit.
I'm pretty sure the plan is designed to gradually increase the tax to fully reflect the negative externalities caused by green house gas emissions.
 
john10 said:
I'm pretty sure the plan is designed to gradually increase the tax to fully reflect the negative externalities caused by green house gas emissions.

Negative externalities caused by greenhouse gas emissions?  Give me a break.  Let's see that calculation for Canadians....



Matthew.  ::)
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Negative externalities caused by greenhouse gas emissions?  Give me a break.
Well that's the whole idea of man-made climate change, endorsed by the Liberal and Conservative parties alike.

Now if you don't believe in man-made climate change, that's fine, but you have to accept that that's the premise the Liberal plan is working from, and that it's the same premise the Conservatives are working from for their plan.
 
Im against the carbon tax

Well, for one, the proposed tax cuts are flat, while the costs of fuel are not, unless you cap them, which the greens and liberals dont plan to do. Since none of the parties really plan to, I doubt its realistic anyways. What about people on fixed incomes ? People having pensions, etc Will that be shifted ? is there subsidies ? I havent heard about any. This will also hurt trucking companies, and increase their costs to offset fuel prices, and as a result the food industry will have to pay more to meet the rates, or the truckers are dead in the water. This will be passed onto canadians, and the increasing cost of food, etc will likely offset tax cuts.  Not to mention taxes are collected once a year, there is a lot of "in-between".Also, many regions like the parairies and atlantic canada arent big polluters, will be the biggest hit by the carbon tax, so its really pointless. This is what is wrong with centralist one-shoe-fits-all policies, isn't it. Instead of going after regions like the toronto/southern Ontario that have high pollution, they hit everyone regardless of pollution levels. Also, rural/lower income individuals are bigger users of pollutants, very often lacking the ability to afford "green technology", so as a result they have to bear a bigger burden.This is also smeels a bit like a liberal cash-grab.

So, essentially, if you're rural, lower income, or even middle income, the carbon tax effects you negatively. I thought a party that 24-40 MP's from rural ridings wuld have a bit of a better understanding of rural regions.

 
john10 said:
Well that's the whole idea of man-made climate change, endorsed by the Liberal and Conservative parties alike.

Now if you don't believe in man-made climate change, that's fine, but you have to accept that that's the premise the Liberal plan is working from, and that it's the same premise the Conservatives are working from for their plan.

My point is their premise is laughable because they can't provide the calculation if you asked them too.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top