‘Ideas and values’


Momentarily departing from her “clean” campaign, Conservative incumbent Cheryl Gallant makes the campaign’s first foreign dictator reference.

Wilmer Verch had super efficient wood furnaces @ Renfrew Home Show.  No carbon tax please, Igaffi!


‘Ideas and values’

  1. This doesn't even make sense. A wood furnace would not need to attract a carbon tax, because the carbon in wood came from the air.

    • and if they're "super efficient," wouldn't the price signal of a carbon tax give Wilmer Verch's wood furnaces a strong leg up over the competition?

      • Actually McC, in this instance, 'super efficient' means more complete combustion of the carbon in the wood. The idea is to produce more heat from each unit of wood.

        In other words, more of the carbon is oxidized to generate heat. However, this means that more CO2 is produced, not less, because more of the carbon is converted to CO2, and less left as residue.

        • But isn't there a filter thingy for that..just asking?

          Efficiency is good though.

        • Yes, but less carbon would be produced per unit of heat

    • actually, all carbon in fossil fuels came at one point, from the air. if you're trying to stop CO2 from being emitted, it really doesnt matter where the CO2 comes from.

      you're breathing out CO2 right now, exactly the same kind of CO2 coming out of exhaust pipes.

      of course CO2 is not harmful, but if you're operating under the delusion that it is, burning wood for energy is just about the least efficient thing you could do.

      • ???

        CO2 can be created by chemical reactions, which form the creation of net new CO2.

        Please make an effort.

        • wow, this is going to be fun.

          yes, of course CO2 is created by chemical reactions. what's your point?

          originally CO2 comes from volcanoes. then plants use it to make oxygen and to build their bodies, and when these decay, CO2 is re-released in the atmosphere. if the plants decay into fossil fuels, CO2 is released in the atmosphere when the fossil fuels are burned.

          also, when marine life dies and falls to the bottom of the ocean, it is eventually transported by plate tectonics back into the earths crust, and the CO2 is re-released from volcanoes.

          CO2 in the atmosphere also reacts with rain water to make carbonic acid, which then reacts with rocks which creates calcium carbonate deposits.

          the idea of "net new CO2" is completely artificial.

          there is a carbon cycle, and gaseous CO2 is only one part of this carbon cycle.

          is that enough of an effort for you?

          • So does it all come from the air or from volcanos? heh. I know, semantic nit. Don't worry about it.

            When plants decay, a small amount of the carbon is released into the atmosphere as CO2.

            A large part of the carbon goes back into the earth.

            You're attempting to confuse potential CO2 that's in the entire system, with the CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon buried in the earth, CO2 trapped in deep sea ice, is no problem. Excessive levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem.

            The carbon cycle, without our input tends to keep the CO2 fairly constant. The plants pull it out of the atmosphere about as fast as the various other sources (decay, volcanos, etc) put it in.

            It's just with our input we're hauling it out of the ground and putting it up into the air much faster than the cycle can pull it back down. And that's when the effects of it become dangerous to our societies.

            Or in short, there's no "net new carbon" but there certainly is "net new CO2"

          • first off, i was just trying to tell Mr. Andrew (NotPorC) that whether Co2 comes from the air or somewhere else, is really entirely besides the point.

            do you agree with Andrew NotPorC, that if you burn wood that CO2 is just fine?

            then, as a response to my response to AndrewNotPorC, genius YYZ tells me that CO2 comes from chemical reactions. you're joking right. co2 comes from chemical reaction. i thought it was little elves who manufactured co2 in our engines.

            as for your post, i dont have a problem with it, except with the idea that atmospheric CO2 is fairly constant. it's not. that's one of the few things which are true in Incoherent Lies by Al Gore – CO2 changes quite a bit, and it follows temperature (not the other way around).

            but i agree that humans are adding CO2 to the system right now, so yes, we are contributing to CO2 increase in the atmosphere. if you want to call it "net new Co2", go for it.

          • No, I don't agree, personally. When we burn the fuel, we're adding CO2, period. Where and whence it came from is irrelevant, in my opinion.

            And it doesn't actually change quite a bit. It's remarkably stable given the amount of intake and outtake that occurs on this planet. The equilibrium, without us involved, is solid testament to the gaia theory.

            That said, it both follows temperature and causes temperature changes. It is a feedback mechanism. When things get warm enough we get natural increases in CO2 because that trapped in Arctic and Antarctic ice is released. This in turn contributes to further warming and so on. The difference is that in this case, the warming wasn't needed to initially start releasing the trapped CO2, because we're doing that job ourselves. Only we're doing it from fossil fuels deep in the ground, meaning that as the feedback kicks in, we're going to get the additional ice mass CO2 as well as our own.

          • Are you a scientologist?

          • That's a very nice effort and I suspect I'm out of my league.

            But help me with this a little – we extract crude oil from the ground turn it into petroleum. At this point it's made up primarily of hydrocarbons in solid form, correct? Then we burn it thus adding oxygen and end up with CO2.

            Isn't that net new? Cause if we didn't do that, wouldn't it still be deep under the earth in solid hydrocarbon form instead of in the air as CO2?

          • All that oil we're sucking up is coming from under volcanoes! Soon all the volcanoes will collapse and create a black hole which will suck all of us into it! Then we'll get to meet Mr. Spock on the other side! Go to the light!

          • LOL!

          • no, CO2 comes from volcanoes, originally. the plants took the CO2 from the air and turned it into more plants. and then the plants decayed and became fossil fuels like petroleum and coal. and then we burned that and created more CO2.

            god, you're stupid.

            honestly i usually have pity for idiots like you. but you're so annoying i take some weird pleasure into reminding you how utterly mindless you are.

          • yes, you're right. we add CO2 to the atmosphere which otherwise would stay locked up in fossil fuels.

            i was confused because my original point to Andrew NotPOrC was so simple and obvious, that I coudlnt believe it was being contested.

            and im not a big fan of the terminology "net new CO2" but in a sense it's right.

          • "god, you're stupid.

            honestly i usually have pity for idiots like you. but you're so annoying i take some weird pleasure into reminding you how utterly mindless you are.

            Two minutes later:

            "Yes, you're right… I was confused because…"

            Maybe you should hold off insulting other peoples' intelligence until you achieve infallibility.

          • i was telling holly she was stupid because she keeps harassing me despite knowing nothing about anything and calling me a liar incessantly. that's how i deal with trolls like her, i call them stupid.

            the 'yes you're right i was confused' was directed at YYZ and my confusion stemmed from his bizarre reply to my reply to Andrew (notPorC).

            So, it all makes perfect sense, i stand by each post.

            Maybe you should hold off on scolding people defending themselves against annoying trolls until you achieve infallibility.

          • I love that you would refer to other commenters as "annoying trolls".

      • "you're breathing out CO2 right now, exactly the same kind of CO2 coming out of exhaust pipes. "
        And we are all right now processing food we will eventually excrete as waste. What harm could possibly come from a natural process?

        Waste water treatment is clearly a huge scam.

        • whats your point genius?

          you agree with andrew notPorC?

          you think that burning wood is ok because it releases "recent" co2 molecules?

          • The carbon contained in wood will be released by decay when the tree dies. Unless we are talking about deforestation, that tree will be replaced by another tree that will accumulate co2 from the atmosphere.

            The carbon contained in fossil fuels will remain sequestered in the ground if we don't release it.

  2. LOL when I saw that this am I assumed it was an April Fool's joke.

    Sad state of affairs when we can't tell the difference anymore!

  3. I don't get it. Why would someone who produces a "super efficient" device be concerned about a carbon tax? One of the benefits of a carbon tax is that it encourages innovation and development of such technologies.

    • Typical ignorance of a Liberal. Because it would needlessly increase the price of the product.

      • Help me out here alfanerd — how does that price increase thingy work? At Canadian tire, it costs me $6.99 for CFL or halogen lightbulbs with the same lux. Sure, the early-adopter price is often higher, but that's the case with any new tech.

        BTW, I have a new low flush toilet that cost me less that it's obsolete predecessor AND saves on my water bill. Care to come over and flush some old ideas down the drain?

        • well, if the carbon tax were applied to wood for burning, as it normally should, then it will increase the price of operating the product, thereby making it less desirable.

      • I would love to hear your economics lesson on this one. Also not a Liberal.

        • you release CO2 when you operate a wood burning furnace. a carbon tax taxes CO2 emissions.

          • Alfaner went to buy a furnace that would burn so efficiently it would cut his costs in half! So he bought two furnaces so he would have no costs at all!

          • Yes, but this guy apparently sells "super efficient ones" so his would be valued more than his competitors (if wood is included in a carbon tax which it generally is not).

      • But increase it far less than a non-super efficient device. And "needlessly" is something determined by society. If we eventulaly choose to have a carbon tax, then by definition it isn't "needless"

      • You mean like the 'needless' increase in the price of a product caused by any form of taxation?

        The correct argument to use if you don't believe that CO2 is a problem would be to say a carbon tax would distort the economy. If there is no net increase in government revenues (due to offsetting tax cuts), the price of some goods would rise and others fall.

    • I have to agree with you that carbon taxes are the most efficient and effective way to encourage innovation.

      As I wrote above, in this case 'super efficient' means more complete combustion of the carbon in the wood. The idea is to produce more heat from each unit of wood., not generate less CO2.

      In other words, more of the carbon is oxidized to generate heat. However, this means that more CO2 is produced, not less, because more of the carbon is converted to CO2, and less left as residue. Hence, effcient wood burners use less wood to generate heat, but generate more CO2 per wood unit.

      • but less CO2 per heat unit, which is what matters

  4. Igaffy… is someone suggesting hanging their political opponents here?

  5. Folks….she was joking…and she tried to take a shot at Ignatieff as well.

    She has apologized for this blot on her 'clean campaign'.

    • If she has apologized, I would be able to accept that. Not one of those, "If you were too stupid to understand me, I'm sorry about that" kind of apologies that are all the rage, but the genuine kind. Do you have a link or a reference to where this apology might be found?

    • an apology is good, but, come one, this is an MP??? Where do they find these people who are supposed to be capable of responsibility and yet can't quite control themselves not to poke fun at other people's foreign sounding names as an excuse to connect them to a dictator? Exactly how old is this woman. Did she just turn 18?

      Sure, apologize, but, where is this woman's head?

      • It's like that old story about a scorpion and it's rescuer….it's in their nature.

      • Read up on her: she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and she's got a reputation for saying really insensitive, provocative things. And then apologizing. Not long ago, I believe the PMO apologized for her remarks in NL. Asking why they depend on coast guards when people on the Ottawa River do not. Not sure.

        • Remember her shouting "How's your boyfriend?" to Bill Graham after he criticized Stockwell Day? Her apology: "If anyone was offended by the remark, I offer my sincere apologies." Sincere, don't you know.

  6. What does Maurice Vellacott call Ignatieff? I bet it's hilarious too.

  7. Strategically I guess the Libs have a choice between being angry at stupid jokes about ethnic sounding names, or about disrespecting Canadian military operations as they're actually being carried out.

    • Comparing a leader of a political party to a dictator we are currently at war with either cheapens our democracy or cheapens what our soldiers are doing in Libya.

      So, either Gallant doesn't respect the troops, or she doesn't respect what they're fighting for.

      • or she just doesn't respect herself, like most of Harper's minions.

  8. yeah, you're right.

  9. This depends on forestry management, etc. Depending on how the biomass is used, there can be a net increase or decrease in the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil.

    • Which I suppose would suggest a carbon tax applicable to the wood itself.. with better managed forests having less applied, as well as to the method of burning.

      • I think most carbon tax proposals avoid taxing wood fuel, since the CO2 is on a "short" cycle and can be recovered by another tree in the same place within a few decades.

        • Except there isn't a short or a long cycle. There's just the cycle. How much in. How much out.

          When we burn wood we are increasing the CO2 let out above and beyond the natural rate of release.

          • can you believe this cr@p? different co2 molecules should be treated differently, long cycle, short cycle. these people are FREAKING INSANE. They have clearly zero clue what they're talking about yet they act like they're an authority on the matter.

          • Thinking about it a bit though, I think what he's getting at is the idea that if you've grown the wood, you've taken that carbon out of the atmosphere so why be taxed when you release it?

            I think a better method of going for that though is to give growers a carbon tax rebate. So if you grow high-carbon intake plants, like bamboo, for instance, you get significant rebates. If the plant is then used for fuel, the tax should even out what you've received in rebates, or ideally be a little bit higher (because we want to discourage carbon production where possible right now). This would mean if you grew that bamboo to be used in furniture or carpets or the like, you'd receive a decent carbon tax rebate, but not have to pay the corresponding tax, as the carbon isn't being released.

          • Absolutely. I guess the other way to express it would be net-new carbon (formerly sequestered for eons) vs carbon that's not net-new and has been cycled in and out of the atmosphere within the last few centuries.

            Beyond that, I don't *think* there's a wood-for-fuel industry that could be taxed as simply and easily as the fossil fuel industry, nor do I think the volume of CO2 would compare. It could just be a practical decision.

            I guess alfanerd could prove me wrong, however, and provide an example of a carbon tax proposal that recommends taxing wood fuel. Considering I'm (we're?) freaking insane, I'm sure it won't take him but a minute.

  10. You're still probably paying for fuel anyway. It is possible for a device which uses fuel more effectively to be cheaper even WITHOUT a carbon tax.

  11. Seriously? Fer gawd sake I suspect she only forgot the 'n' as in 'Ignaffi" as opposed to 'Igaffi'

    Tempest in a teapot. I for once will assume the best intentions of the candidate.

    • I am all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt……..but when you look at this "mistake", and factor in some of her previous "opps", I tend to be a tad less trusting with Ms. Gallant

      And, it can hardly be chalked up to a rookie mistake – she has been an MP for 11 years!

      • LOL. Good point indeed. She's a real keeper ain't she?

          • I wonder about children's singer, Raffi.

            Raffi? Gadaffi? Hmm.

    • I also meant to say that she is as bad as Hiller, it was an accidental "t" I swear

  12. All this "faux outrage". Geez, Bob Rae calls the Conservatives Harperites and Jihadists on a regulas basis.

    • So far, not one poster here has expressed any outrage, faux or otherwise. Trying to stir the pol pot, Leo?

      • Actually it is the media that is expressing the outrage – I'd never stir any pots :-)

    • So to clarify, are you saying it's OK for both Rae & Gallant to use that kind of language or it's not OK for either? Cause currently your comment smacks of "The Liberals Do it To!" so we'll lower our standards accordingly.

      For the record, I think both Rae and Gallant should not use such terminology. At least Gallant apologized, I do not believe Rae did although I'm happy to be corrected.

      • It upsets me when any of the MPs resort to name calling. It used to be more of a high-brow sarcasm or pointed but clever or witty quip. That bar keeps getting lower and lower.

      • Rae has called PMO staffers as a group '25-year-old jihadis', which I would say is a good description of overzealous, overly partisan staffers who are lacking in experience and in mature judgment.

        What does "Harperite" mean? How is it insulting? Who exactly has used that word, and in what context?

  13. well "super efficient" is a relative term, and specifically when applied to wood. a regular gas furnace could be more efficient then a "super efficient" wood furnace.

    • Yup. Which would, you're right, make the wood furnace less desirable. Which would suck if you make these wood stoves, definitely.

      Just like it sucked for buggy-whip makers when the automobile came along.

  14. thank you. god. i cant believe these people. a co2 molecule from 50 million years ago should be taxed differently than a "recent" co2 molecule.

    why god? why did you put me on this earth with all these idiots??????

  15. Why be relevant when you can be an idiot? Stephen Harper must be proud.

  16. Gallant is our future…glad i'm still a dual citizen…

    Just kidding. That passport ran out god knows how long ago.

    Think i'll stick to my plan to anchor the boat in the heart of the GB rainforest and take my chances with the bears instead though.
    At least they don't tweet or call each other names…now i gotta work on the misses.

    • I love that chart. Charts saved me from buying a panflute once.

  17. Conservative candidate does not like foreign dictators, yet she supports Canada's domestic dictator, Stephen Harper.

Sign in to comment.