In Canada we have a carbon tax. We are all poorer and no one can afford a house. We have all the pain and even if we reduced our carbon use to zero it would make no difference in the world. When we get rid of our current government we are going to axe the tax. Poverty is all it has done. God bless.
In Canada, our government wants to raise the carbon tax to at least $180.00 per ton of CO2. Ok, I'm not certain about the current cost, but I believe it's around 60.00 per ton. The 180 is going to be a killer. Here's the kickker, the CO2 level is still going up, hasn't missed a beat.
Have you ever thought that chaos and poverty might be the goal? Create and "emergency" that justifies even more loss of freedoms? If you don't have freedom to spend your money your way, how free are you really?
@@carboniignacious2607 I believe that is the exact plan. They would love to start an uprising so they could take total control. Divide and destroy Canada.
Thanks Hartlands, all sane people know that CO2 is not the enemy of our planet . We appreciate the scientific information you supply us with to destroy climate alarmism.
You are talking about the above conversations I take it? Seen it numerous times before mentioning the same person & how good she is, all fixed of course. They hope to bring people in this way into trading.
I really appreciate these to the point fact filled videos from Linnea Lueken. Keep up the good work. BTW, I repost these videos on my own hobby blog because of the high quality of their content.
If a CO2 tax makes conventional energy too expensive and favors wind and solar, there's another devastating consequence - the power grid will become unstable. Blackouts will be common. That's what's happening in South Africa where, in some places, they now have power for only a few hours per day.
As a Canadian, this describes my experience with having a carbon tax impacting my life. Everything is more expensive, and my pay doesn't go as far as it once did. I'm in the mid-tier pay scale for my profession, the jobs have dried up, so I don't have many options for competitive employment. Because I work in food service, the carbon aggressive regime will eventually crush the industry, either through expensive equipment upgrades, or by pricing the product and service beyond affordable for most people.
Here is the worst part. It is absolutely unnecessary to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact, if the emissions were reduced to the levels activists want, it will cause great harm. Plants need CO2 to grow. Reduce CO2 enough and plant growth will be affected significantly, which will harm the farmers, and consumers. Farmers will have less produce to sell, prices will go up, and, there may even be food shortages. All that pain to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Tell me how that makes any sense.
Thank you for an excellent talk. We have carbon tax in the UK. I saw a chart recently comparing and breaking down the cost of different ways of generating electricity. Gas was the highest because of the carbon tax. In fact the carbon tax was more than the actual cost of the gas which price is relatively low at the moment. The cost of renewables is rising all the time. So the carbon tax has to rise too. The renewable companies are always asking for bigger subsidies. It's not just the basic cost of energy which hits people. Carbon Tax ripples through the economy filtering down to us in almost everything we buy.
Christiana Figueres, The Top UN CC Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference. quote” The process has nothing to do with the Environment but the destruction of the industrial world by taxing them out of business.” United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore" The goal of environmental policy is to redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy, said Edenhofer.
MORE IMPOTANT is the fact that carbon dioxide can't do what the IPCC says it can. An increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide can't cause any warming unless there is also an increase in radiation trying to leave the planet for the carbon dioxide to react with. And the only frequencies of infrared radiation that do not pass harmlessly through a carbon dioxide model are 2.3, 4.7, and 15.0 micrometers. All others (677 frequencies from 2.0 through 70.0 micrometers measured in tenths of a micrometer) have no effect. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide means that lighter gases like water vapor are being forced higher into the atmosphere where clouds can for increasing solar reflection -- a cooling effect. Ice Core readings show that increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature, not the other way around, so the causality assumed by the IPCC is a flat out lie. The ice core data also says it is now cooler than we were 400,000 ice layers ago.
No Carbon taxes nor emissions limits imposed on the 7 billion people outside the Western World, including China, India, Indonesia, South America,.. It's just a tax!
And you can tell like others the information being shared in this video is absolutely incredible and correct as RU-vid has placed UN misinformation banner on it.
Yes, I agree but tough topic to cover in 3 minutes or so. Another frustrated Canadian here with the carbon tax; clearly government and people are on 2 different pages. It sends the message that carbon is universally bad, a concept I cannot entirely endorse. Taxing people burning natural gas required for survival in cold climates is cruel, especially when there are no good, reliable alternatives. Perhaps I could support the tax if government could demonstrate that it is reducing emissions or creating better alternatives but that is not happening. The notion of changing our climate predictably and favorablely by eliminating carbon emissions is very risky and costly. Sadly, we are no better prepared for extreme climate events wheather they are caused by human influence or not. It is a poor investment of resources.
Does Heartland Institute recognize and address the CO2 Saturation? That is, according to basic physics, Beer's - Lambert's Law* taught in college, absorption of IR or heat from the surface is maxed out just a few meters from the surface at under 100ppm. Attempts to consider widening the main absorption band from 14.97um to 13.8um - 16um does not produce any significant increase in absorption. Therefore, increase in atmospheric CO2 does not result in further heat and therefore global heating. There is no need to have, or consider, any carbon tax. * A = K x C x L. K absorption coefficient C concentration of CO2 L path length Measured by FTIR spectroscopy and reported by H. Hug about 50 years ago. Climatologists ignore or are ignorant of this. See also Michel van Biezen, RU-vid.
I think the government needs to put out vote sheets ' that if they plan meager projects of infrastructure projects ' a vote on paper is sent ' because the government has dropped the ball on tomany things Americans don't want ' for way too long! It shouldn't be a hand full of greedy 'self centered ' mormons! How some of them get into Office is bewildering '
It doesn't mention the huge inflationary effect the tax would have on almost everything else as everything item you buy in a store has to be delivered to the store, most often by truck. Transportation costs add to product price inflation, which makes the cost of living even more unaffordable. Besides that, 'renewable' energy isn't available to take up the slack, so energy will not just become both unaffordable to the many but also unavailable due to lack of supply. So not only will you be unable to afford to heat/cool your home, you won't be able to afford to eat, or likely even pay the mortgage on your house...all because of a carbon tax...that won't achieve anything in regards to 'climate' but will achieve a LOT in regards to Globalist WEF goals. You'll 'Own nothing and be happy' 🤣🤣
The problem is taxes never go away, carbon taxes are the wef "equity" tax, nothing more nothing less. Like new zealand who now charges a milage tax against EV's, which doubles on hybred vehicles not only milage tax but also the equity tax.
You're doing a terrific job, Linnea! Love these short bits. I downloaded the app, which is quite succinct and offers quick resources should you find yourself in a verbal contest. As others have noted, the references to studies make these far stronger (even if the notes take up some screen space).
We tried this in Sweden. Sure, taxpayer money will make wind turbines to be put up because taxpayers make the calculation good even though only 70% of the wind turbines are ever active. But as soon as this subsidies expire, the'll lose money and go bankrupt. About 80% of all wind farms have huge losses or almost break even. Check out Prof. Jan blomgren's work from Sweden regarding this.
Unfortunately, countries around the North Sea basin didn't heed the Swedish experience, and instead doubled down. On an exponential scale. (Or is that logarithmic?)
@@nicktecky55 Problem is that it self-cannibalize. If it's a small amount, sure it could work. But since it's too much wind power at the same time, the intermittent energy source makes the energy prices to plummet.. because the wind blows at the same time everywhere. And talking just about one country, here we have alot of countries doing the same stupid thing. Estonia had hit the price-roof in recent years due to intermittent energy sources. When the wind doesn't blow or it is too cloudy, you will have a freezing cold experience during the winter.
Some cannot see further through the fear mongering, and the video originally stopped playing for me at 2:26, so I just refreshed and skipped right to it.
Linnea, I have a question... With Human emitted CO2 a mere estimated 3% of the total 420ish ppm. Very little is said about the 97%. It might be of interest to many to discuss the 97%?
Wa. State imposed a carbon tax on us, we didn't vote for dem dominated legislature enacted it. $.40-$.50pg, on fuels, then it hit our homes/ businesses, no reduction in pollution. We're going to repeal it and never do it again. We never voted for and have no say on how the money is spent.
As much as they have been fighting the climate for the past twenty years and the climate has only gotten worse, you would almost think they have no idea what they are doing.🤔
How did the climate get worse? Would you prefer the temperatures of the little ice age? We have very little influence on the earths climate cycles, if any. I agree with you that we're being governed by dangerous inapt people
Did it gotten worse or has the reporting gotten more deceptive and dramatic? Not that long ago the temperature got reported as the factual measurement today they have some sort of feels like index that is several degrees higher then the real thing.
It isn't going to happen. The signs are it was already too late by the time we noticed there was a problem. My guess is Henry Ford and mass production was the end state. We are just going to have to adapt. Is the nation state as currently constituted more important than human survival? How does the Netherlands exist with 75 metres of sea level rise? The Mediterranean? That's what's coming, but not for a while yet. We have time to plan, but all the time we just worship at the altar of St Greta, we are going nowhere.
@@RogerBlakeway What's that got to do with it? We are currently in the Holocene Interglacial Period, which has roughly 4000 years to run before the ice returns. That's along time to wait.
The factor in this problem is the absence of acceptable alternatives. You can't stop using diesel when you don't live in a city. Where the roads are not paved you can guarantee there are no cell towers or charging points. She is right. Ask any Canadian. Just allow a lot of editing time to remove the profanity.
It would ruin the economy and ironically also wipeout much tax revenue that the government would be collecting. Sales tax, income tax and so on. Second: Wind and solar are not reliable and also a poor substitute for generating power. Third: Its far more expensive. Forth: There is no infrastructure for these sources of power. We would need to build them, and it would take decades to complete. Also, a huge long-term investment. Fifth: Ironically, Solar and wind power would be harmful to the environment. Solar would require large areas cleared for solar panels and wind turbines would do harm to birds. Finally the government doesn't have the right skills to make this work. As it would be at best, be wasteful with the money. Something like this would need to be given to the private sector for them to develop. Which they don't seem interested in doing. If they really want this to work then they would need to incentivize the private sector do develop this. But they don't and only want another excuse to tax people to death. Geothermal power would be best in conjunction with a plasma drill to dig deep enough to tap the heat.
A tax is a tax is a tax. The government should work.out how to achieve the results it wants from the existing tax take not take more. That is a governments job and if it imposes ever higher taxes with no obvious voter benefit it is making its life leading the country shorter. Voters will not stand for ideological spending.
Well, I picked the challenge to put my finances in order. Then I invested in cryptocurrency and stocks, through the assistance of my discretionary fund manager
The video contains some important logical mistakes and false statements, which I’d like to correct. The purpose of the carbon tax is actually totally different: to compensate the damage (or at least its part to start with) made by the carbon producing industries to the climate and hence to the biosphere and therefore to the human population (in the form of hurricanes, draughts, sea level rise, famines and mass migrations caused by the above). Also, there is a critical fallacy in your argument: people will continue buying petrol and natural gas as a source of energy for a long time since there is simply not enough solar and wind energy available now; and much longer - for the chemical industries, etc. Therefore, the government can get additional money and return them to the people. There is also a point which you (I think intentionally) omitted - the cost of production of solar, etc. energy is decreasing every year. If more money is invested in the renewable energy - the process will even accelerate. At some point, such energy will inevitably become cheaper than the carbon emitting energy (mind you, the extraction of oil becomes more and more expensive, we are running out of easily accessible fields). Finally, you do NOT propose a SOLUTION. Leaving everything as is is not an option - see the above plus the climate change is already causing more financial losses (not mentioning deaths of people and irreversible damage to ecosystems) than the cost of all measures intended to slow it down - and the gap will only grow. What would be the cost of living in the unlivable conditions, hm? It is difficult to accept for a person struggling with everyday expenses that he has to pay more to avoid something that will only seriously damage (or even stop) the lives of their children, but come on, grow up, you pay taxes for hundreds far less important things than THAT. Finally, the argument “someone else job” (why the US should do if others won’t) is demagogic and dishonest. First, do what you can - and THEN convince the others. Second, the US is the biggest CO2 producer, so even its effort will be noticeable, and it is also a country with a high per capita income, so, do not pretend that this will turn you into Albania or Zimbabue. Third, many other countries, for instance, in the Western Europe, are already doing more than you. Join the club.
@@glenbard657 yeh, and the Earth is flat, I know; the science says it is a 5 sigma proven fact, you say the opposite, it is a really difficult choice whom to believe.
The long term cycles that determine how much the weather changes have been around long before we even existed. Wake up, it’s a huge scam, where many suckers are already falling for it. Take for example the Australian government. CO2 rise happens after the increase in temperature.
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone that carbon dioxide from human activity was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” - Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus MIT
You have the wrong focus. Why is climate change happening on other planets in our solar system at the same time? Man made co2 must have a really far reach! Fixed it for you. 😇
The argument in this vid is flawed. If the goal of a (well thought out, revenue neutral) Carbon tax is to reduce CO2 emissions, then it CAN work - a little. The key mechanism is that it (should) incentivize INDUSTRY (the larger users) and people who spend a lot of energy (on driving, flying, home heating etc.) to be more efficient in their energy use, i.e. ideally finding lower-energy ways of performing the same tasks, while people who are already using very little energy (Condo and transit dwellers) are effectively getting back more in refunds than they pay to the Carbon tax. To SOME extent, this actually works - but it has a bunch of different flaws that were not covered in the video. Politically the problem is that rural people will always end up paying more than they get back in refunds due to needing to travel longer distances and having fewer transit and other communal services available. Since rural ridings are typically overrepresented in Government (more effective votes per capita than urban areas), and feel more pain than urban voters, this argues that as the Carbon tax increases, it is more likely to be voted against, so is politically unsustainable. As far as Industry goes, it is usually MUCH easier for manufacturers (or other heavy industry) to simply relocate to other parts of the world (e.g. China) with lower or no Carbon tax than to find more energy efficient methods of doing their processes. Considerable forethought (in drafting such laws) is needed to avoid a serious loss of both jobs and security of product supply, never mind potentially much higher product prices (ie. huge inflation) given the costs of R&D, compliance monitoring, and investment in new processes with dubious track record. As far as urban dwellers go, a Carbon tax is all well and good and not of much concern - as long as there is ALSO concurrent significant investment in: a) additional new energy production infrastructure, b) transit and other urban transportation alternatives so that cars are less necessary, and c) financial support for the agricultural and transportation (trucking, rail, shipping etc.) sectors. Cities simply don't work if farmers are priced out of business due to rising fertilizer and farm machinery expenses (all driven by fossil fuels), or they can't get their products to market because truckers can't make a living with higher fuel prices. At present there isn't any viable solution to replace the current fossil fuel model for those agricultural and transportation sectors. It's amazing how no governments seem to have recognized that you CANNOT transition away from fossil fuels unless there is plentiful NEW energy that is CHEAPER than existing fossil fuel energy. Making the fossil fuels more expensive while the alternatives are still incredibly limited in availability (and higher in price too) is terribly short sighted.
Sorry Linnea, but I don't agree on this one. Here's why: Our situation is that the airplane of modern economics and the civilization depending on it is critically life-dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and yet we, the crew and passengers whose lives depend on this airplane staying aloft don't really know how much fuel is left in its tank. A tax that will encourage us to switch over to virtually eternal fuels and also encourage us to be far more efficient & frugal in our energy use is a wise measure. Please note that this has zero to do with the Chicken Little alarmism and BS of the climate change-global warming fear-mongering crowd, but is simple undeniable physical reality...fossil fuels are finite and whether we know exactly how much are left in the tank, we do know it's less than yesterday. Since our ability to keep flying in modern economics is 100%-dependent on exosomatic energy sources, and since we'd better do all we can to avoid the "sower's paradox", we'd better be moving away from fossil energy whose pricing has never and most likely will never truly reflect the fact that it is dwindling in supply because the price-setting process is based on extraction rate-costs (so often we wrongly say oil is being "produced"), along with processing, transportation costs, and miscellaneous political factors. The price of oil as it's currently set looks very unlikely to signal depletion until it's too late in the game to have enough left at reasonable pricing to make the transition to next energy. Shouldn't we be acting to make sure we don't fail to make a smooth energy transition in a timely manner, and not take unnecessary&unknown risks of crashing the airplane that's carrying all of our lives and our children's future?? A couple of links to review: inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-oil-prices-chart/ qz.com/2107452/oil-and-gas-discoveries-are-at-the-lowest-level-since-1946
You just copied and pasted that. 40 years ago, oil was going to run out in 20 years and here we are using more than ever. Cheap efficient and clean coal fired power stations have vast reserves of coal available, but people like you won’t allow us to use it. Wind and solar are inefficient and don’t provide a reliable power source as well as being far from green. And yet the good renewables such as hydro and tidal energy are very rarely used because I guess there’s no money in it.
@@senseofthecommonman "Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. This is your captain speaking. Happy to have you all aboard on our fossil-fueled modern economy airliner. I just wanted to pass along some great news: According to Mr. Senseofthecommonman, our fuel supply is just never going to run out. His argument is shear genius...since it hasn't run out yet, we need not worry that it ever will, and since our airplane is still flyin' high and fast, there must still be plenty left in the tank."
@@Bobo-ox7fj No, we're not clueless. We've long had Hubbert's analysis of peak oil, and you might want to bother reading the link I gave about what we know now about finding rate. Thing is that we still don't have certainty. As a pilot, I can tell you I don't want to make a transatlantic flight if I don't have a reliable, accurate fuel gauge.
Wind and solar are about 30% cheaper than natural gas and 40% cheaper than coal. If a carbon tax is applied to coal and natural gas, this raises their rates during the time they are operational but no charge is applied to wind or solar. This is a motivation for the power companies to use more wind and solar altering the market system. At the end of the year, customers get a tax rebate for the fossil fuels consumed. Coal produces twice the CO2 than natural gas making coal even more expensive. Linnea Luken would have you believe this is an added cost when the opposite is true. What the carbon tax actually does is force power companies to use less coal quicker.
You really need to stop believing the propaganda, wind and solar are most certainly not cheaper than gas. They only exist because of the MASSIVE subsidies applied to every one of our energy bills. Research how much is paid to these companies as compensation when they are NOT producing power. They are also not reliable and energy storage is not economically viable. A series of coal fired power stations would provide cheap and totally reliable energy but sheeple like you have bought into the government propaganda and that can never happen in the west. Unlike China and India that is building them like they are going out of fashion. In future open your eyes and do some proper research rather than being a propaganda sponge that you currently are.
