Advisory panel recommends carbon pricing -

Advisory panel recommends carbon pricing

Ottawa shouldn’t wait for the U.S. on climate change: report


The National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy, a government-appointed advisory panel, has advised the federal government to stop waiting for U.S. action on climate change and put a price on carbon emissions. Canada would enhance its competitiveness by acting now, while waiting for the U.S. to act would be far more costly in the long run, it said in a report. While Canada currently has vehicle emission regulations that match those in the U.S., Congress is unlikely to make progress on climate legislation any time soon given the legislative stalemate between Democrats and Republicans. “Harmonization, where possible and when feasible, makes sense for Canada,” said the Roundtable’s chief executive, David McLaughlin. But “in the face of persistent U.S. uncertainty as to its own climate policy future, Canada will need to look to its own options, in the right way, at the right time.” The National Roundtable recommends that Canada adopt a cap-and-trade system, with an initial limit of $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide emission. Revenue earned from cap-and-trade should be put into a technology fund that would invest in green technologies.

The Globe and Mail

Filed under:

Advisory panel recommends carbon pricing

  1. Canadians already voted down the green shift. Enough already. There is no need to punish our economy for a non-existent problem.

  2. The same tired and dead arguments get rehashed again.
    Who decides which technologies are green? The nuclear industry? Maybe wind power lobbyists? Or the few die-hards burning French-fry oil that that's not sustainable if everyone does it? Batteries that will one day fill dump sites?
    We need to move on from petrol-based fuels as a primary source of energy but we are a long way from having unbiased technology. Every energy source has unwanted byproducts and some are worse than carbon-dioxide.

    • You speak blaspeme friend, is thee a holocau..I mean climate denier?

      • No I am however tied waiting for the blame game to end so real solutions can be worked on. Personal thoughts tend to be towards building codes and rethinking civic engineering.
        Might as well have dry feet regardless of the reasons behind increased storm surges.
        Also, there's to much drive into mindless air pollution schemes that ignore the consequences of water and land use. Nuclear needs dump sites, batteries need dump sites and not every local is suited to solar or wind.
        That's not denial, it's moving past taxation that leads to zero sum goals.

  3. If this becomes an election issue and Canadians see how phony this tax is and to want us to go on our own with the biggest or second biggest polluter in the world our neighbor instead of working in conjunction.Are we going to put a shield up to stop their pollution from entering our air space.Are we going to quit buying cheap goods from China who have thousands of coal burning generators.Canadian are realist it will not fly and if the Liberals and the NDP try and push it they will be the big time losers and Harper will have his majority

    • If said cheap goods are priced higher because of the import duties assigned them due to their polluting means of manufacture? Yes.

      • Protectionism used to be a dirty word, now it is the holy grail of the left. Just remember, pollution duties or taxes really only hurt the low imcomers. The rest of us couldn't give a rats a%%.

  4. This makes me want to scream!!!!! Don't these idiots read what is going on in other parts of the world? The "oh so green" countries – "oh so dumb" is more like it.

    "The Danish Energy Board – among others – is alleged to be turning a blind eye to what is being dubbed by researchers as one of the biggest climate scandals ever in connection with artificially low Chinese CO2 credits."

  5. this whole cap and trade program is a scam____wake the hell up folks____this isnt being caused by man at all

    • Then what is it being caused by?

      Hint: It's not the sun. Solar activity has been stable or even reducing over the past couple decades. Were it the sun, our global average temperatures should be stable or dropping. Scary bit is, experts predicting that we will see a ramp up in solar activity over the next few years.. and that'll just act as a multiplier to what we've already got going.

      • One need not give an alternate cause to show that CO2 is not a climate driver. You just need to show that those who pretend that CO2 is a climate driver have not made their case properly.

        In fact, the onus is still on the pro-AGW crowd to show how "the science is settled". This involves empirical data, not computer models, or not declarations by scientific bodies.

        But if you are interested in alternate theories, you should check this new paper, which claims that 40% of the 20th century warming can be explained by cosmic ray fluctuations.
        (sorry, couldnt find direct link to paper, this is an article on the paper)

  6. Go look at the site for The National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy and their sources – they have cherry picked their sources AND, GET THIS: Environment Canada provided them with ADJUSTED and HOMOGENIZED CLIMATE DATA. It is now extremely difficult to get the raw station data that used to be publicly available, Environment Canada has circular redirects that your browser back to Environment Canada Sources. The CLEARLY disclose that they use adjusted data but try getting to the raw data. It used to be easy but now I keep ending up back on their site through redirects. Maybe it is just my MAC and my browser but I am suspicious.

    • You are not alone pal.

  7. A tax to stop the climate from changing.

    Take a moment to reflect on the sheer insanity of that proposition.

    Then take a moment to reflect on just how far down the rabbit hole our academic and media betters have gone on this issue to be promoting this with a straight face.

    • People's behavior changing the climate.
      A tax to change people's behavior.

      Perhaps you should have actually taken that moment, rather than just spewing and tightening your tinfoil cap.

      • "People's behavior changing the climate. "

        Complete and total f*cking hogwash. What makes you so sure anyways? What evidence convinced you that people's behavior was changing the climate, or did you just take somebody's word for it?

        • Just because you are not capable of learning….

        • I've taken a lot of people's word for it. They're called scientists.

          And when most of them agree, they're usually right.

          • That's fine, go and take their word for it, but if you havent yourself looked at the science behind controversial issues, you`re not really in a position to criticize those who have looked at the science and found it to be utterly unconvincing.

            And, usually, scientists are right – that is correct. But often, they are wrong. They have been wrong countless times in history, and the scientific consensus has also been wrong countless times.

            It`s not an argument that there is a scientific consensus – it certainly suggests that a certain conclusion might be true but it doesnt prove that it is.

            Attribution of the last century`s warming is an extremely difficult problem. Yet, the evidence that this century's warming is due to man is only based on the inability of models to replicate the last century's trend unless human CO2 and other fudge factors like clouds and aerosols are tweaked just right.

            If you understand science, like you claim to, you would know that this isnt a proper scientific proof.

          • Except I have to the amount I'm able. And I haven't found a piece of science that convinces me that the science behind those who support AGW are incorrect.

            You do realize that what you're arguing is because science hasn't been right all the time, we shouldn't believe any of it? While perhaps technically true, I think I'll rely on the consensus of experts. They have been wrong before, but they're wrong far less often than the non-consensus, which is what you're suggesting I believe.

            And if you understood science, as you purport to, you'd know that science doesn't provide proofs at all. That's math. Science provides theories and disproves them.

            So far, they haven't yet come up with anything that disproves the AGW thesis, no matter how hard people might wish it was. The evidence that this century's warming is due to man is based on the inability of anybody to provide any reasons as to what else it might be that stand up to scientific scrutiny.

            Besides, I don't need 100% proof to act. Neither do you. If you did, you wouldn't set your alarm because there's no "proof" that the sun will rise each day until it does.

          • You do realize that what you're arguing is because science hasn't been right all the time, we shouldn't believe any of it? While perhaps technically true, I think I'll rely on the consensus of experts. They have been wrong before, but they're wrong far less often than the non-consensus, which is what you're suggesting I believe.

            That's not it. What Im arguing is that relying on the say-so of scientists is far from full-proof.

            And you're right, science provides theories and disproves them. Specifically, a theory makes a prediction, and if that prediction is confirmed by observations, the theory lives on, otherwise it does not.

            Can you provide me with a single prediction made by the theory of AGW which has been confirmed by observations?

            I can certainly provide you with predictions which failed to turn up: namely the hotspot in the tropical troposphere. All models predict it, we've been monitoring the trophical troposphere since 1979. No hotspot has been found. So, applying the scientific method, the theory needs to be thrown out, or more likely adjusted.

            The evidence that this century's warming is due to man is based on the inability of anybody to provide any reasons as to what else it might be that stand up to scientific scrutiny.

            That is not evidence. It's BS. We dont need to find another culprit – we just need to show that the evidence does not inculpate CO2.

            And, I dont need 100% proof, I need convincing proof. I need scientists who will debate their ideas with those who point out flaws, not call them names. I need scientists who share their data and method openly, scientists who are eager to have their findings criticized so that they may be improved upon. None of this can be found in 'climate science' today.

          • You are not capable of understanding the evidence. It's all over the place but you can't or won't see it.

          • That's funny, I work in a office filled with scientists and none of them believe that CO2 or human activity is driving the climate. NONE. And no they are not on the big oil payroll, you can leave that card in your hand.

          • Care to share which branch of science they work in?

    • Enviromarxists were never good in math.

  8. And in case anyone forgets

    The "W" in AGW is "Warming".

    We're supposed to be cooking by now. Our great plains desert wastelands, our coasts flooded due to melting ice caps and winters "a thing of the past" in NY and England. All predicted 15 years ago to be happening by now.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go shovel, my typically snowy driveway right now.

    In the meantime, I'll look forward to more slandering from the likes of Holly for me believing my lying eyes, instead of the "experts" (who in the 70's were predicting a beginning of a new ice age).

    • You lie about some mythical "experts" in the 1970s – here's a hint: there was no consensus back then. You lie about the predictions; give us some actual citations so we can see what they predicted and when. Who said you would be cookin right now?

    • And the G stands for Global. Take a look at all the abnormal weather being experienced around the globe – it's a widespread phenomenon. No one said the effects would be felt in the same way or to the same degree, but please – feel free to explain why there is SO MUCH unusual weather across the entire planet? I'd love to hear YOUR theory…

      • why there is SO MUCH unusual weather across the entire planet?

        Typical idiotic BS from a brain dead follower of the Church of Environmentalism.

        Because weather is ALWAYS unpredictable, and there is ALWAYS unusual weather somewhere on the planet. It does get reported more often now though, because of globalization.

  9. Hey, all you deniers, Canada had record warm temperatures in the north, probably partly because there was less sea ice:

    And 2010 was Canada's hottest year on record:

    So you can keep lying to each other about how anthropogenic global warming is not happening and is a fraud and blah blah blah, but you are simply making fools of yourselves. Grow up and face reality.

    • Once again, "Global Warming" is not "Canada Warming".. I give them hell for using that when they say, "Oh look.. it was really cold here this year" and I'll give you hell for using it in the reverse.

      • The warmth in the north may be one reason for the colder winters in Europe and eastern Canada. And of course the climate scientists predicted polar amplification, that the Arctic would warm up at a faster rate, so their predictions are coming true.

        You can't say warmth in the Arctic proves global warming by itself, but it is one of many many pieces of evidence which do add up to global warming in toto. Remember, some of these idiots are still trying to argue that we have an ice age coming, base on having a normal cold winter.

        • The trouble with the many pieces of evidence is that climtatologists have predicted everything now, so no matter what happens they are correct. When a theory is always correct it is infallible. A theory ceases being a theory when its infallible, it becomes a faith.

          • Actually, that's a false meme. They haven't predicted everything, and if you look at the accepted science through the journals, rather than confining your education to the wing-nuts and yahoos on the internet, you'll find that the predictions of effects are fairly homogenous. There's a few outliers here and there, but certainly no more than you'd find in any science.

  10. Wake up Holly and read "The Deniers"

    I'm very grateful that the Feds are "foot dragging" on the climate change scam. Hopefully they can continue to do so until most people recognize the hoax for what it is. I say most people because there are some who just won't learn.

    • So, what you're proposing as the rational reason is one of the biggest conspiracies on earth, spread across climatologists in every country, as well as the associated media, infecting the review board of every scientific journal that examines weather phenomena, all for the nebulous goal of…. uh.. damn, didn't get my tinfoil shipment this week, so can't remember what that goal was.

  11. If it's a good idea at $30 a tonne – wouldn't it be a great idea at THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS A TONNE!

    • It would be.. eventually.. once we get the lower hanging efficiency fruits that smaller amounts can net us. The key is to ramp up slowly.

      After all, your body can handle giving 100s of pints of blood over the course of a few years.
      Do it all at once though and.. well.. things don't work out so well.

      • Or maybe present some direction other then business as usual at a lot more money. Economies are just as likely to respond with inflation and abuse if the herd is forced towards particular resources or technologies.
        Any solutions that can't make it on their own are going to be resented.

        • By that argument, we should never have had a railway.

          • It depends. If we're discussing the railroad that was vital in transportation of goods across the country, then you have an argument.
            If we're taking about the bloated number of sub-lines that leached the rail system to inefficiency to appease wealthy pockets, then you lose the argument.

    • $300 a tonne, I love it. That will make poor people hurt! I don't know what the enviromarxists have against poor people, but $300 a tonne will sure make it hurt. Rich people, not so much.

  12. Climate Change, the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Woe be unto us should some green believing waco party get any hint of power in this country.

    • Please see my response to Len Pryor.. that is, assuming you're not the same sock-puppet.

    • You are not alone in this opinion.

  13. Very true, yet people build cottages of glass on sand dunes and cry when they're damaged by winter storms.
    One thing that does have to change is the impulse of architects to design god awfully ugly pieces to get attention. Design small, practically sized houses for mainstream instead of niche buyers.

  14. While both sides are hurling insults and trotting out preferred authorities on the issue of climate change, here's a macro-prediction (which, at my age, I probably won't live to see fulfilled):

    When the losses due to calamitous weather events (droughts, floods, prolonged heat waves, hurricanes, sea level rise, etc.) become too commonplace and burdensome for the massive global insurance industry to absorb, major corporations will begin to lobby national governments and international forums to take measures to minimize the catastrophic consequences. Only a player as large as the insurance industry will catch the attention of governments.

    It will, by then, be too late to mitigate the worst effects; momentous changes in the behaviour of the species (transmigration patterns and resulting conflicts, in particular) will occur.

    And I've never believed in conspiracy theories.

  15. Of course the REAL issue is … what will the CPC actually DO with this report?

    At the least, they will ignore it. If those who wrote it start making a fuss, well… one less government advisory board would be my guess. That would seem to be the CPC's idea of positive action on the environment portfolio.

    Nothing will change while the CPC is in power; the anti-greens (the smogs? the greys?) should perhaps focus on saving us tax dollars by telling their party to stop wasting our tax dollars on this pretense.

  16. "Revenue earned from cap-and-trade should be put into a technology fund that would invest in green technologies."

    Ok let me guess, the people who would benefit from this green technology investment are the same people who comprise the advisory board. Have these people no shame?