Global Warming is Dead

Trevor, if your only concern is perception/interest/boredom, then you have made your case. But nature doesn’t really care about what we perceive, or if we’re interested. She will react in accordance with physical law, in ways we don’t yet fully comprehend.

What we do know with certainty is that today’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 387 parts per million and rising. Pre-industrial levels of 150 years ago were 260-280 ppm. Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years, and certainly higher than in the last 800,000 years. Such a sudden reversal is unlikely to be without consequences. Our planet has experienced these higher levels of CO2 (and higher temperatures) before, but humanity has not. More seriously, we have no idea of how we can undo these changes we have started, because of complex feedback effects (like melting polar caps and methane release).

When Galileo was condemned of heresy in 1633 for advocating that the earth moved around the sun, and sentenced to spend the rest of his life under house arrest, the inquisition believed they’d destroyed such an idea forever. Indeed, they key evidence for the Earth’s periodic motion, namely stellar parallax, was unobservable: it wasn’t demonstrated until 1838 because of the vast distances of the stars. During those intervening two centuries the Earth didn’t stop orbiting the sun just because everyone wasn’t convinced. Are we making a similar error today?

Yes, not all data are perfect, and yes, scientists are as corruptible as other human beings. That doesn’t negate the overwhelming evidence for climate consequences that arise by reversing 200 million years of natural carbon sequestration in the earth’s crust, all within a few generations.

http://www.dreamgreen.ca

The public is sick and tired of being fed alarmist campaigns in our on-going media culture of fear and sensationalism.  Remember we were all going to die from; a terrorist attack, H1N1 virus, bird-flue, and so on… going right back to when the whole civilized world was going to totally collapse in Y2000  - they never happened.

So its only natural that the scare campaign about global warming only worked for a while. The pendulum has swung back and now unfortunately and inaccurately, its seen by the public as yet another ‘cry wolf’.

That’s why screaming and yelling won’t work anymore. People want positive solutions, not another guilt trip and the specter of more indiscriminate taxes especially when Canadians are among the highest taxed people in the world. 

Basing the next election campaign on a ‘flat carbon tax’ is political suicide. Its not my opinion, its the opinion of the Canadian electorate who voted overwhelmingly to reject it - handing the Liberals one of the biggest defeats in their recent history in the last election.

A campaign needs to be more than harping on a single issue. Communication needs to be much more balanced, comprehensive, intelligent and connect with voters. It needs to go beyond vocal complaining, and outline the positive steps to rebuild our shattered economy and struggling planet: subsidies for green businesses and new jobs, removal of subsidies on dying industries, tax relief for individuals and small business, and yes, taxes on pollution.

The best platform in the world is pointless if its not communicated in a balanced manner, fully and effectively to voters. 

There is a lot of myth's that Canadian's rejected the carbon tax.  

1) The fact is that you can look at the Liberals poll numbers in the spring of 2008 compared prior to the Carbon Tax versus those afterwards and they actually went up when they announced the carbon tax and were pretty stagnant for most of the election.  

There were larger issues of leadership and personalities that decided the election and not a singular policy.

2) In BC, the Carbon Tax introduced by the BC Liberals was a major issue in the 2009 Election and the Liberals retained their majority.  Yet, the federal Liberals in BC in October 2008 received huge losses.

3) The carbon tax is a financial policy, and not purely an environmental one.  It is ensuring that polluters and heavy infrastructure users pay closer approximation to their real costs.  The one thing we have to be clear is that "revenue neutral" does not mean some individuals won't pay more.  Companies that are labour intensive or efficient receive benefits, while those that are not receive pay more.

4) My experience in BC, living in both Vancouver as well as the commuting suburbs of the Fraser Valley is that people would rather see a portion of the revenue raised go directly into projects such as mass transit in their area than receive the income tax cuts.  Yes, industrial emissions taxes should go into payroll reductions, but a good portion of the carbon tax revenues should be earmarked for projects that will provide people with green options.    People feel suspicious if money is being taken out of their pocket and given to someone else.  Yet, people are willing to pay more taxes if they think its going to something worthwhile.

5) We are $50 billion in deficit.  There is no such think as revenue neutral at this point..

Economics is weird and is half psychology..

It would be bad economics to "ADD" a new tax during a recession (while the declines are happening), especially during the credit crunch,  (IE.. the last 16 months).

It would be good economics to "ANNOUNCE" consumption tax increases during recessions provided they are in the distance future.  (Since they actually spur on short term buy trends to avoid taxes)

Announcing a carbon tax now, but applying it in a year or so would be a good economics as it would spur on spending in efficiencies and new equipment.  Especially if the initial year or two were at minimal tax rate (so companies could factor in the budgeting considerations).  

The big question for consideration though is that government tax revenue needs to increase to make up for the structural debt shortfalls, so keep that in mind.