Why Canada needs a CARBON BENEFIT -not a ‘CARBON TAX’
Written by Dr Klaus L E Kaiser
Yes, you read that right, Canadians (and others) should be encouraged (tax-wise) to consume carbon-type fuel and NOT be (carbon-)taxed for that! Furthermore, this ought to be a CARBON-BENEFIT, not a CARBON-CREDIT! [Editor’s note: how much does this apply to Australia?]
The reasons are easy to explain:
- Canada, like many other countries, demands taxes via a variety of mechanisms on consumers of gasoline, diesel, kerosene, natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. For example (varying by Province), all such provincial and federal “taxes” added together amount to roughly one half of the entire (consumer) cost at the pump. The simple fact is that there are already numerous direct and indirect duties, excise, and consumption taxes (including taxes upon taxes) on fuels of any kind, especially gasoline, diesel, and natural gas.
- In the western Provinces (primarily Alberta and British Columbia), Canada has carbonaceous fuel type resources (bitumen sands, oil and natural gas) rivalling the largest other known “fossil” hydrocarbon deposits in world (e.g., Venezuela and countries in the Near-East).
- Canada is exporting (infrastructure limited) crude oil (and/or derivatives like “Syncrude”) as fast as possible. In fact, these resources are often discounted at large percentages to the West Texas Intermediate and the Brent crude oil bench mark prices.
- Canada, with most of its lands north of latitude 49 N, is much of the time cold and frozen, a few hot summer days in the prairies and the “banana belt” notwithstanding.
- While trying to export carbon resources into the international market, the federal government is imposing use restrictions within the country (via a “CARBON TAX”) to domestic consumers of natural gas and oil derivatives (like gasoline or diesel fuel).
- All that CARBON TAX is nothing but a giant “Save-the-world-from ‘global-warming’- [or ‘climate change’-] swindle.” In reality, it’s nothing but a tax on another tax, on a duty, …. and so forth.
- Moreover, neither this globe’s nor Canada’s “Climate” will be affected by such “taxation”, anywhere. At best, it’s nothing but wishful thinking.There is no scientific proof of carbon dioxide (CO2) having any effect on the global climate.
- That is not to mean that human civilizations have had no effect on the local “climate.”
- However, those effects are from changing the water-drainage and- evaporation patterns, as already ongoing over centuries.
- “Energy-Change” propositions, as touted in Germany, by various politicians and NGOs, etc., show a lack of understanding of the orders of magnitude of the energy, both in terms of consumption and provision by “alternative” sources.
- “Electric vehicles” may be OK on a nice spring day in California, but are entirely useless in a frigid winter environment in Canada. The recent demise of the BONJOUR enterprise (https://canadafreepress.com/article/good-night-bonjour ) shows that.
- “Climate-warriors”, like Greta and associates are total hypocrites, ”making the circuit” by using more non-alternative (i.e. fossil resource-based) energy than most average consumers.
- The most “environment-friendly” way of transporting large quantities of oil or gas natural is by pipelines. Other methods, like via ship or rail, can lead to larger problems (e.g., like the Exxon Valdez).
- The total length of existing pipelines (for various commodities) in North America is in the neighborhood of millions of miles. The idea that a few more miles of new ones, built with the most advanced technologies and safeguards, are “a scourge on the environment” is, in polite terms, ridiculous fantasy.
- Every action we undertake comes with a statistically calculated risk of failure. In fact, one could choke on the “daily bread.”
8. Quite simply, there never was nor ever will be a way to do anything at all without a level of “risk.” Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar!The country of Qatar, on the Arabian Peninsula, is one of the world’s largest exporters of natural gas (NG), primarily in the form of liquefied nat. gas (LNG).
- Compression, liquefaction, and shipping of LNG consumes already in the order of 1/3rd of the entire LNG so processed. There are now, at least fifty, giant LNG tankers in operation (worldwide).
- None of that sizable energy (CO2-producing) component of LNG production and shipping, to my knowledge, is even included in any “carbon-footprint“ calculations by anyone (though irrelevant in “climate” terms).
- To put it bluntly: Society must to come to grips with the competing desires/needs: do you want to live a normal life or follow some type of fanatic eco-religious zeal back into the energy-limited dark ages?
It’s your choice to make (at the ballot box), in the near future.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.