RE:RE:RE:RE:Anyoneyggdrasilll wrote: 95% of the fuel burned is out of necessity? Really? I'd like to see your source for that. Because the way I see it, people burning heating oil could be encouraged to change systems and go electric, which even in Alberta would cut down on emissions.
1) Electricity costs more in Alberta than Qubec
a) And even if there was a similar geography to allow the construction of hydro-electric dams anywhere near the size, what is the probability that environmentalists would allow for such habitat destruction given today's sentiment?
b) Wind Farms have been linked to infra-sound damage to any within their proximity. Solar panels are not effective underneath snow.
2) The cost of switching heating over to electric is not a zero-cost venture. The cost of adding solar panels is not a zero-cost venture. This takes both of these alleged solutions largely outside the reach of 90% of the population even with heavy subsidies.
3) The cost of fabricating and installing electric heaters throughout the province for millions of homes is not carbon neutral.
4) The cost of fabricating solar panels is not carbon neutral and creates environmental toxins.
5) The net effect would be ridiculously insignificant when the above is considered holistically
yggdrasilll wrote:
People driving cars can use public transit or other greener modes of transportation like walking, biking, carpooling, or EVs.
What percentage of people can truly afford to do so? Consider one example from my own experience: my vehicle was unavailable for a week so I decided to use public transit to get to work. The result? 2 1/2 hour commute (1h 15 min bus, 30 min LRT, plus 45 min walking) instead of 30 minutes by car. Each way. This is not survivable simply in order to then witness China spewing forth vast volumes of pollutants without controls.
The cost of EVs are well out of the price range of most, and they are not carbon neutral to manufacture, nor to charge in a province where most energy is derived from coal and NG.
yggdrasilll wrote:
Heck, people can even use less heating oil just by draft-proofing their homes.
Draft-proofing can be costly and largely outside the reach of much of the populace. Further, the manufacturing of insulation is not carbon neutral. Additionally, sealing one's home too tightly can lead to the accumulation of Radon gas, which can cause cancer. I have lost relatives due to this cause--one of whom was a geo-engineer who built his home into a hill in order to improve insulation only to end up contracting cancer and dying due to Radon build-up.
yggdrasilll wrote:
There are plenty of options to cut down on "necessity" use of oil. But the carbon tax doesn't simply affect oil. It can encourage natural gas plants to use carbon recapture technologies,
Which will drive up costs that will be passed on to the consumer, negating the stance that the Carbon Tax will not affect rate payers.
yggdrasilll wrote:
it can encourage the closing of inefficient coal plants and their replacement by efficient natural gas plants subsidized by provincial proceeds from the tax.
Which will drive up costs that will be passed on to the consumer and tax-payor, negating the stance that the Carbon Tax will not affect rate payers.
Which will also not be a carbon-neutral implementation
yggdrasilll wrote:
So yes, it will have a measurable, positive effect on consumption, just as raising taxes on fuels has always had, and it will have a measurable, positive effect on emissions.
Given that all of the approaches above listed will involve large up-front-emmission expenditures in order to achieve, are any of these truly providing a net benefit?