...
written by allniter , July 04, 2008 (12:21:19 AM)

Not pessimistic, Mr. Hansen. REALISTIC.

...
written by Mike S , July 04, 2008 (06:47:50 AM)

Mr. Hansen no one cares if you "believe he (Dr. Whitcombe) is far too pessimistic". What people care about are actual numbers. You, not surprisingly, don't contradict any of Dr. Whitcombes. Your lame suggestion is to tell people to do, what many are already doing. It comes across as very condescending as if people are not capable of thinking of these most basic measures.

You also only touch on the two most obvious victims of carbon tax: Personal vehicle fuel and home heating. No where do I even see a feeble attempt to address any of the other multitudes of things that will be affected by this tax. Virtually any product that is transported will be impacted. Do you suggest somehow we should now cut back on the basics of food and clothing?

Using Dr. Whitcombe's numbers - the numbers you didn't even try to dispute, can you in good faith claim this is a 'revenue neutral' tax?

...
written by Pylot Project , July 04, 2008 (08:20:37 AM)

After trying to digest that piece of spin by the (I'm not sure he's completely) Honorable Colin Hansen, I get it now. It's revenue neutral as long as WE do all the cut backs. It's not revenue neutral straight out of the box.

I did the worksheet for myself, and the increasing cost of food alone will wipe out any financial gains from the measly tax cut.

...
written by Mike S , July 04, 2008 (09:42:24 AM)

'Spin' is a flattering word. One thing you have to give the Liberals credit for is knowing mass psychology. It is a very, very powerful tool to hand out an intitial sum of money. Mr. and Mrs. Average with 2 or 3 kids get a cheque in the mail for $400 or $500. That can give even the most pragmatic and practical number cruncher a warm fuzzy feeling, even if they rationally know it will be more than stripped away over a short time. The Liberals have done the 'bribe' thing before, and I'm sure when necessity calls, they will do it again.

You also must give Mr. Hansen credit for knowing his mathematical limitations. Unlike poor misinformed Mr. Egger (on another thread), who is going to do all kinds of things, including buying a Hybrid with his new windfall, Mr. Hansen does not actually take Dr. Whitcombe to task with any of the professor's money numbers.

Perhaps we should cut Mr. Hansen some slack. After all, he is new to the Finance position, and numbers are clearly not his forté.

...
written by Pylot Project , July 04, 2008 (11:08:19 AM)

Actually Colin Hansen has been Finance Minister once before. From 2004-2005 before Carol Taylor took over. Good move on her part, to drop a bomb like this and run out the door, not having to deal with the aftermath.

...
written by Mike S , July 04, 2008 (11:25:56 AM)

Good point Pylot, I stand corrected. He must just be a little rusty then with his adding and subtracting.

...
written by kids3 , July 04, 2008 (06:51:28 PM)

i want to know if mr hansen is gonna do something to get us more rebates to cover the cost of everything else that is on the rise. not everyone can afford the new hybrid crap on market, even with a decent paying job. the price of food and other items used daily is already gone up, so what is his solution for that? feed our children less? cut back on meals like he wants us to do for gas and heat? is he doing all the cutbacks he himself is suggesting? i highly doubt it. those suggestions are just for us lowly people outside of the government jobs.

North and South
written by D.K. Ross , July 04, 2008 (08:38:18 PM)

The people that live in the most populous end of our Province have no clue, I repeat, NO CLUE what it means to shiver in the dark. I recently spent 7 months down there and coming home in March was like a slap in the face! I went from daffodils blooming to three feet of snow that didn't melt until May. They will never understand our situation unless they have to live with 6-7 months of winter each year.
It is no wonder that our elected representatives get a bit stupid and giddy once they make it to Victoria (maybe the sea air?) but to dump this new tax upon us seems at least short-sighted and maybe a little bit evil.

....
written by AmberEN , July 07, 2008 (12:08:41 PM)

Now I could be wrong here but I think its easier for people who have more money then some to make "cut backs". Even if we made cut backs on alot are we really saving all that much with everything on the rise?? I try my best to not use heat when not needed...cut down on the use of hot water...use cold water to wash my clothes and dry most of them hanging up ect, but even with money "saved" its still put to things that are needed for my children. I can understand wanting to try to help save our planet as its our children and their children that are going to live here in the future and I try my best. I teach my daughter about littering and how bad it can be ect but I dont understand how this Carbon Tax is a "gift" to them and their future. With the way taxes are going and everyday living costs rising...our children are going to be hurting more then most of us are already?? How in the world is taxing more a gift??? I just dont understand it...someone please enlighten me here. Am I just dumb or are they trying to make themselves look alittle better??

AmberEN:
written by allniter , July 07, 2008 (03:36:19 PM)

To the first part of your last question: Nope. To the second part of your last question: Yup.

I'm doing the same things to cut back on usage of energy, but the more we do the more thay take.

It's a gift alright--to the government. A gift we are being FORCED to give.

...
written by White Eyes , July 07, 2008 (05:46:18 PM)

Did you know that DDT is legal and safe to use again. The western world hysteria to ban DDT was fueled largely by Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. The book pumped up some junk science fiquires and prayed on peoples fears by linking DDT to Strontium 90 to create a belief in the public that DDT should be banned. Radiation was really new and scary in the early 60's, so linking DDT to the sinister and little recognized partner radiation, was just plain clever.

If you believe we control global warming you are an idiot. But you are not a lonely idiot. The Carbon Tax is simply another tax that is sweeping the world, like the VAT and GST did a few years ago. Global Warming was an opportunity to tax by taking advantage of people fears pumped up by some pompus jerks that are looking to be famous.

So add the Carbon Tax to the rest of the taxes. I wonder what the next tax will be? New and scary is used up, production tax has been used, so how about a tax on government! That would be a first. We would still have to pay for it of course.

...
written by Mike S , July 07, 2008 (08:15:18 PM)

Interesting thoughts. I think DDT has been used in some places, and banned in others. To state it is 'safe' is a little simplified. There is evidence on both sides. I think it is a case of 'lesser of evils' and could help with the vast number of malaria cases each year in much of the world.

I have yet to see anyone claim 'we control global warming'. However, I think only an idiot would claim we have no effect at all on the climate. I don't think I have seen that claim either.

...
written by allniter , July 08, 2008 (11:42:39 AM)

Trouble is, there are legitimate scientists on both sides of the issue of global warming. One side says that humans are very responsible, the other side says it is a combination of sun activity, earth cycles,etc., and that human activity is a small part of it. I've dug around all over the web to try and fimd all theories relating to the issue, and it's almost impossible to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I think the biggest barrier to finding the true story behind it are the politics. If politicians find a way to dig deeper into our pockets, evidence and theories that contradict the cause may be suppressed. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but it wouldn't be the first time they suppressed an opposing view to justify a new tax, and it won't be the last.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I find the DDT references rather interesting--and amusing. Amusing because I read an article on the CBC website last winter that a bedbug problem has been cropping up in hotels in the Lower Mainland, and the calibre of the hotel was no barrier. That article disappeared rather quickly after I saw it. The bedbugs found show a resistance to pyrethrins. I'm still digging around the archives to try and find it. Hmmmm...

If there is a bedbug problem, that could put a damper on the 2010 fiasco, eh? I'll keep my eyes open and I'll keep trying to dig up that story...

...
written by Mike S , July 08, 2008 (12:07:47 PM)

Very true that it is often difficult to know what, and who, to believe on this and many issues.

I find your conspiracy theory interesting, but in reverse. While the governments here are imposing a carbon tax and need a justification, I think generally there is an honest belief that humans can affect the environment. The 'reverse' part is that overwhelmingly it has been governments (eg United States), denying human impact on climate change. To the point where they muzzled their own (NASA) climate scientists. Obviously in that case, big oil lobbyists and others could provide the 'conspiracy' motives.

Global warming is not disputed. The temperature trends are obvious. I also think the majority of scientists believe humans contribute (to varying degrees). While trying to separate "wheat from the chaff", as you say, I often look to the source. It almost never fails, that the 'deniers' are the ones with ulterior motives, often funded by oil companies.

Good point Mike S.
written by allniter , July 08, 2008 (04:25:59 PM)

IMO, there's no doubt that our existence on this planet has had an effect on climate. My question is 'just how much'.

Remember when the push was on for people to switch from oil and other types of heating to natural gas? NG was touted as the clean-burning alternative--incentives such as affordability and government grants for changeovers were given and many people switched. For awhile, it was way cheaper to heat your home with it, then we noticed the price edging up and up and up...look where it is now.

So the question is--just how clean is it? Many long-term homeowners I talked to feel like they got sucked in.

Propane is touted as a clean-burning fuel--there was a letter in this paper extolling its virtues--but now, with the carbon tax being law, we don't see any incentives for people to switch to propane. Since propane exhaust doesn't bother me like gas or diesel fumes do, I think is is cleaner-burning. Unlike solar powered and electric vehicles, which can be rather cumbersome, propane has practicality on its side, so again, where are the incentives? Was any mention made of the carbon tax being used to fund such incentives? I haven't heard of any--if anyone has, by all means please post!

I sure don't doubt the comment on the US's attitude towards global warming--I've read the reports, too, and rather than being based on science, their position, too, is based on greed, further muddying the waters. Again, it's a bad case of politics blocking the facts.