Tuesday, July 15, 2008

New polling shows British Columbian hate BC Liberal carbon tax, don't believe government it's revenue neutral, strongly disagree with $100 gift

Bill Tieleman's 24 hours column
Tuesday July 15, 2008

No love for tax


I want to repeat: This tax will be 100 per cent revenue neutral."

- Former B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor on her carbon tax

British Columbians really hate the new carbon tax, they don't believe government claims it is "revenue neutral" and the $100 gift they received from Premier Gordon Campbell makes them even angrier, an exclusive poll for 24 hours shows.

An amazing 73 per cent of those polled say they simply do not believe the B.C. Liberal government when it says that the new 2.4 cents a litre tax on gas, diesel, heating and other fuel is revenue neutral.

And the research conducted for 24 hours by its pollster Strategic Communications also found that 71 per cent of those surveyed disagree with the government giving every British Columbians a one-time $100 "Climate Action Dividend" that will cost the province $440 million.

In fact, 56 per cent of respondents strongly disagreed with the dividend and 15 per cent somewhat disagreed, for a total of 71 per cent.

Only 9 per cent strongly agreed and another 15 per cent somewhat agreed with the $100 gift for a 24 per cent total, while 5 per cent either didn't know or had no opinion.

The results are a powerful rebuke to the government and a stunning reversal of fortune for Campbell since he announced the carbon tax in B.C.'s February budget to acclaim from environmental groups and eastern Canadian pundits.

The continuing and vehement opposition to the gas tax will also likely encourage the New Democratic Party to continue its campaign against the measure into the fall, when carbon taxes on oil and natural gas heating fuel will start being felt.

David Smith, Strategic Communications' senior research consultant, said the poll of 609 eligible voters should worry Campbell.

"Right now it seems they don't like anything about it," Smith said of British Columbians. "I'd be concerned if I was the provincial government."

Smith was somewhat surprised that the Climate Action Dividend was so deeply resented.

"Despite the fact that they're getting $100 back, they're not happy. People associate the $100 with the tax - they react strongly to anything connected to the tax," he said.

The poll was conducted from June 27 to July 7, while the tax came into effect on July 1, boosting gas prices to a record $1.52 a litre. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Smith also noted that the fact respondents reject the government's stated position that the carbon tax is revenue neutral should also trouble the B.C. Liberals.

"They don't believe the government," he said. "There's still time for it to change but it looks now like a hot-button issue."

Opposition to the gas tax can also be seen in the "Axe The BC Gas Tax" protest group I started on Facebook on June 10. As of yesterday the group had more than 9,400 members and continues to grow steadily despite the imposition of the tax.

The government seems to have completely ignored the fact that gas prices have gone up an astronomical 40 cents a litre since February's budget - or more than 16 times the amount of the carbon tax.

Given that the intent of the new gas tax is to reduce consumption through price increases, Campbell might have reasonably decided to drop or at least postpone the tax when the market forced prices to skyrocket.

But it appears the premier was more interested in reading the laudatory news releases of environmental groups and praise from columnists based in Ontario than figuring out what British Columbians thought about the tax.

Now the results are in and they aren't positive. The poll also shows that opposition to the Climate Action Dividend and disbelief about the government saying the carbon tax is revenue neutral are not concentrated in any one region or group of British Columbians.

While 73 per cent of all those polled across B.C. discounting revenue neutrality claims, the best the government could do was on Vancouver Island, where a still strong 63 per cent didn't believe it. But in northern B.C. a whopping 80 per cent believe the premier is telling whoppers about the tax.

And even 64 per cent of B.C.'s lowest income voters - those making less than $30,000 a year - said giving out the $100 Climate Action Dividend was wrong, with 51 per cent strongly disagreeing.

The polling results show more than anything else that imposing a new tax - no matter the reason, even with giving voters cash in the mail - is extremely dangerous for any political party.

If you doubt that, ask a former Canadian prime minister named Brian Mulroney about a little tax called the GST!


7.25 cents

- British Columbia's new carbon tax increased gasoline prices by 2.4 cents per litre on July 1 and will increase each year until it reaches an extra 7.25 cents per litre by 2012.


Statistics Norway reports that country's carbon tax - the highest in the world and five times higher than B.C.'s starting tax - has only reduced CO2 emissions by 2% since 1991.

- Federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion plans to propose a national carbon tax, which is supported by the Green Party and opposed by the Conservative and NDP.


- The tax applies to gasoline, diesel, heating oil, natural gas and propane.


- A one-time $100 "Climate Action Credit" cheque B.C. residents received from the government in June will cost $440 million.


- B.C. will raise an additional $1.8 billion over three years with the carbon tax.


- Most of the remaining extra revenue pays for tax cuts, with $415 million going to cut corporate taxes, $255 million to cut small-business taxes and tax cuts for individuals along with a low-income tax credit.

- Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan all rejected the idea of a carbon tax while Quebec has a 1 cent per litre tax that applies to petro companies directly.

Survey says:

1.The provincial government has sent every British Columbian a cheque for $100 as a one-time "Climate Action Dividend." The total cost of "Climate Action Dividend" is $440 million. This expenditure will be paid for by B.C.'s new carbon tax of 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline and other fuel. Do you agree or disagree with this expenditure? Is that strongly or somewhat?



2. The B.C. government is adding a new carbon tax of a 2.4 cent per litre on gasoline and other fuels to help reduce carbon emissions. The government says that the tax is "revenue neutral" because all of the additional revenue that the government will receive from the tax will be paid back to British Columbians through the $100 "Climate Action Dividend" and cuts to personal income tax. Do you believe the government when it says that the new carbon tax is revenue neutral?




Anonymous said...

So the whole process is to give us back money collected hoping we will drive less, heat the house less as some sort of tax return somewhere down the road? How can it be revenue neutral when the cost of shipping out those cheques after checking files to see who we are and where we live must somehow be covered? And to collect taxes on the bloody cheques as well. Another snow job by Gordo that is already starting to be used by some as a reason to raise costs, not to mention the gas stations that are gouging by raising the fuel by around 10 cents a litre. And at the same time he is talking off shore oil drilling! No wonder people are upset. 154.9 in the little town of Victoria. I noticed oil costs dropped around 7 or 8 dollars today.

Bill Tieleman said...

Thanks DPL - the administration costs to send the $100 cheques has been reported by the government to be a whopping $10 million.

Anonymous said...

The 20% who Believe, are more than likely the same ON THE TAKE CROWD who have personally-profited for their support of the Campbellite Liberals.

For the 2009 budget, expect Campbell to make lease payments on luxary cars to be 100% tax-deductable.

That way the Point Grey Green Crowd can afford their lease payments on the Lexus . . . and even afford to buy more gas to go cruising on Robson Street.


Anonymous said...

Wait til the cold weather hits bc, nice n easy to introduce a fuel tax in the summer,
Colin Hansen's little bit of wisdom I heard on tv the other day "just throw an extra blanket on the bed"
What an insult! how far out of touch with ordinary people can this government get for gods sake!
you can't turn down the furnace when it minus 35 out side

Anonymous said...

If I am getting such a great refund on my taxes, do you think Terasen and BC Hydro will take my word that I will pay them the difference when I get my tax return?
Thought not!

Budd Campbell said...

You're doing a fine job on this issue, Bill. Please keep going! With crude prices starting to fall, I expect to hear fresh demands for more fuel taxes.

I wonder if you could do some interviews with opinion makers on the left, from David Suzuki and Ian Bruce of the Suzuki Foundation, to Gwen Barlee of WC2, to Marc Lee of CCPA, and ask them to explain why they are so eager to promote Campbell's viewpoint, and why there are so dismissive and contemptuous of Jack Layton and Carole James.

There's been quite a change in the political positioning of the senior staff at the Suzuki Foundation since Fulton and Scott left. It's now pretty much like the Board, a purely business/old money/affluent professionals crowd. And it's very chummy too. One of the Directors is Wade Davis, and like Suzuki himself Davis is the proud owner of a property and cabin at Ealue Lake in the Spatzizi country. It's not likely that they get there in Suzuki's Toyota Prius, they either take the 4-Runner or Sequoia that Suzuki doesn't use in his photo-ops, or else the fly by private plane. Either way, a bit more GHG output than would be fashionable for their set.

And another question. Given the BC Govt's general reluctance to sell off crown land for private recreational lots, how did Davis and Suzuki manage to secure these properties in the first place?

Anonymous said...

'Wade Davis, and like Suzuki himself Davis is the proud owner of a property and cabin at Ealue Lake in the Spatzizi country'

This is in addition to his mansion in White Rock(?) and acreage on Hornby/Denman ?
Plane ride to the Prince George area, two ferries and vehicle travel to get to the islands.
This is the same man who states we should all live in 800 sq ft homes, and bike wherever we go.
This is the same man who has five children yet states that humans should be eradicated as we are destroying the earth.

So what is it Mr. Suzuki - do as you say, or follow your lead?

Anonymous said...

Frankly, the unpopular tax is Campbell's way of peddling himself as a liberal by philosophy, while he guts social programmes and reduces the justice system to an elite tool.

I have seen an excellent BBC documentary, "The Global Warming Scam," in which scientists who opposed the false science were shown to have faced academic persecution. The planet is warming - as it did after every Ice Age - but the change is too slow to have the catastrophic effects that pundits - and frauds - claim. As for the CO2 effect, the oceans release 10,000 times as much as humans, each day. As for melting polar caps, that produced less than a half centimetre increase in the past 15 years.

The chief GM pundit - Al Gore, pal of Campbell - has made nearly $40 million US from stringing together half truths and outright falsifications. If Campbell is concerned with climate change, then where was he when BC contractors were using California housing construction methods in our wet climate? He sat that one out.

The tax is subsidized Liberal Party image making.

Anonymous said...

Now, the sheeple are being bombarded by radio and newspaper advertisements to try and placate us over this tax. Carbon Tax good, BC best place on earth. How much are these ads costing the public purse? This insult added to injury just makes me steam.

Budd Campbell said...

Anon 10:35 said:

"This is in addition to his mansion in White Rock(?) and acreage on Hornby/Denman ?"

I wasn't aware of these assets. What would their assessed value for property taxes be?

Elected public officials are required to disclose their assets, including real estate. Should leaders/directors of tax exempt charities and foundations who seek to influence law and public policy, such as the Suzuki or the Fraser, be required to do the same?

Anonymous said...

The Carbon Tax is complete nonsense. Period end of story.

There is nothing more that can be said or stated about it.

The Premier found religion in First Nations and Green issues to soften his image and that of his government, when that wouldn't have been necessary if social programs had not been gutted, for example. The Ministry of Children and Families story is an absolute travesty. If he wanted to find real religion somewhere, he could have done it with that, but, lest we forget, it would have actually required real money to fix and specific care. Real care.

Not a shell-game design to cycle taxpayers dollars from one pocket to the other...not the ripping away of prime Vancouver property that belongs to all Lower Mainlanders to give to the Musqueam because they demand it...not offering an almost retired constituency in FNs oodles of cash and otherwise non-negotiable ALR, while the younger generations of natives battle drug addiction and alcoholism, with little prospects of a proper education and face ongoing healthcare issues.

Those would have been issues too tough to address.

After all, bodies which battle such issues and combat such problems are called GOOD governments.

Not spin machines.


Anonymous said...

While we get taxed here in BC for faulty carbon dioxide science, the global warming consensus is crumbling. The American Physical Society (APS) now wants an open debate on the topic.

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
July 16, 2008

[quote]The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method." [/quote]

Physics & Society: Editor's Comments

[quote]There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.[/quote]

Budd Campbell said...

Anon 12:36

Both of your links are broken insofar as the particular page is concerned. What's more, the second one looks pretty commercial and promotional, hardly some exchange of scholarly information.

Anonymous said...

Jon McComb of CKNW98 interviewed Lord Monckton (he's mentioned in my above comment about the APS) for approximately 20 minutes this afternoon. You can listen to the interview here:


Select Thursday July 17 and 3 PM. The interview starts at approximately 35:30.

If Lord Monckton's conclusions regarding CO2 and the IPCC are correct then why do we need a carbon tax?

Anonymous said...

This is completely scientific and scholarly, budd. Nice try though.

The first link can be found at http://www.dailytech.com/ Look under the latest blog posts for the words "APS Opens Global Warming Debate".

Here's a link to the APS http://www.aps.org/ a scientific body called the American Physical Society.

Click on Membership Units. Select Forums and then select Physics and Society. Select FPS Newsletters July 2008. Then select Editor's comments.

BTW, Lord Monckton's paper was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You can find the paper here:
Monckton Paper

Jon McComb interviewed Monckton on The World Today this afternoon. You may want to have a listen over at CKNW in their audio vault. Link and information in the above post.

Budd Campbell said...

No doubt the APS is a valid organization of physicists in America.

However, I do think you other site is a bit promotional.

As for Monckton, the Wiki article said that many were astounded that a guy with a education in the classics was Margaret Thatcher's "science advisor" and is proposing to take on the IPCC. As someone who had little use for Thatcher, I think it's rather fitting in a way.

Budd Campbell said...

To Anon 5:38

You can put down the Monckton paper and revise your APS speaking lines. Here is a blog entry from The New York Times Caucus Blog:


17.July 17th,
9:22 pm

Right, hey did you hear the one about how the APS came out against the notion of CO2 increasing our temp? Did you see this on “Our Planet in Peril” CNN?

— Posted by Chris Price

You don’t know any physicists, do you? I do. Lots. You don’t know how the scientific method works, either, do you? Nope, thought not.

My knowledge of both physicists and the scientific method was why it was perfectly obvious to me that you couldn’t possibly be right about what you posted. And sure enough, right there on the aps website, http://www.aps.org, you will see the following:
APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

“peer-reviewed” is the relevant point. Physicists ARE pretty smart, and when you publish a real physics research result your work is first scrutinized by one or more other physicists who do similar research, to make sure you didn’t make any errors. On the other hand, you’d be amazed at how many people think they have something to say about physics without actually having studied it rigorously. The ones I know are quite regularly sent long and carefully worked out documents whose authors say demonstrate conclusively that Einstein was wrong, or there is no such thing as gravity.

But no, “Good Will Hunting” was just a movie. Things almost never really work that way, and there is no theory of the speed of darkness, nor any of the other things you routinely find in my friends’ email, or http://www.crank.net/physics.html, or in the APS Forum on Physics and Society.

— Posted by Patricia Monger

Anonymous said...


Wikipedia? They are political and a complete joke. Anyone who regularly keeps abreast of climate change and global warming knows that they censor their entries to promote anthropogenic global warming. They are not a balanced or complete resource by any means.

Next time, do your homework. And thanks for the laugh.

Better yet, read Roger Piekle Sr.'s website Climate Science. You'll enjoy that one. He's a well-published climatologist currently working on the IPCC's theory of AGW due to carbon dioxide emissions. He doesn't believe the IPCC's dire predictions either.

We don't need a carbon tax when the science is faulty, incomplete and more than likely is politically based. And as for revenue-neutral, it's only revenue-neutral for Campbell and the Liberals not the general public.

Budd Campbell said...


I think you're using your head by remaining anonymous.

The APS does not support your position.

Anonymous said...

Feel what you want about the Carbon Tax. Frankly, I am skeptical it will do enough for the environment or anything at all. And I am a person who strongly believes we need to do more now to protect the environment.

As for those who debate that human-caused global warming is a lie or a myth, you're ignorant. The extent and long-term impact is debatable and still not understood. But just taking into account the greenhouse gases we've been spewing into the atmosphere for over a century is undeniable. Sure, our climate may be naturally heating up in addition to the change we're causing. There is no debate amongst the legitimate majority of the scientific community to whether we are causing an effect. The hold outs aren't backing the truth as much as their own love of the spotlight and their financial backers likely from the automobile and gas industries. But if you choose to think this is just left-leaning propaganda so be it - you might as well also believe the world is flat, we're the center of the universe and four vital humours circulate through our body because in this great society you're allowed to believe whatever you like and there's undoubtedly some people who still believe one or more of these things.

SmartlikeStreetcar said...

I wish that anonymous had the balls to leave a name; he (or she) made the mistake of getting his global warming skepticism from web sites with official-sounding names like the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) and Friends of Science that have duped millions of amateur writers into believing global warming is a plot. At these sites you will find “climate scientists” who spout all manner of opinion that muddies the evidence to support global warming. But if you did deeper, you’ll find that SPPI and their ilk are sponsored by companies like Exxon that have borrowed from the tobacco industry’s moral guidebook. Their experts aren’t climate experts; they either pocket oil industry money, or they can’t publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Bill... I also want to take issue with your claims about Norway.

To whit: Statistics Norway reports that country's carbon tax - the highest in the world and five times higher than B.C.'s starting tax - has only reduced CO2 emissions by 2% since 1991.

If you're going to fight against the carbon tax and its implementation of it, that's fine. But you shouldn't cherry pick facts to make your point. But the simple truth is that carbon taxes do work, and they ARE working in Norway. I'll show you how.

1) Norway is an oil producing nation, so when you suggest that they've only reduced their emissions by 2 percent, you should compare that stat with the 25 percent increase in Canadian emissions because of the oil sands. Norway is an oil producing nation, and still they've lowered emissions! Which leads to the fact that most countries that have established carbon taxes have reduced their emissions dramatically, and all of the 27-member EU, Japan, have their Kyoto targets within sight.

2) As well, Norway had a huge problem at one liquified gas plant, which spewed ton after ton of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere, which inflated their emission numbers dramatically. They're actually doing much better than your quote suggests.

EU neighbors that implemented heavy carbon taxes like Norway in the 1990s, including Denmark, Sweden, have cut GHG emissions by up to 15 percent, and boosted they green technology and renewable investment substantially, so that we might never be able to catch up with them. We;re losing out in the technology race. Denmark's reduction is particularly noteworthy, as in the 1990s, most of their energy came from coal. Yet in two years, they'll have a nationwide recharging network that will support thousands of electric vehicles!

3) Norway will significantly reduce its emissions in the next few years as their investment in new technology comes online. They will have a fully functional carbon capture and sequestration power plant in 2014... years before anyone else.

4) Norway is building huge offshore wind farms that will be able to produce 8 gigawatts of clean, green electric power by 2020. That's the same as 18 medium-sized nuclear plants. Which would you rather have in your province?

5) Norway is growing trees to export as biomass fuel across Europe, helping other countries reduce their emissions, and making money as they do it.

6) Norway promises to be carbon neutral by 2030!

I write for an environmental publication for business types, and I have my facts down tight. The problem is that Canada's lack of a carbon tax is hurting the country for we don't have to innovate, and we're falling so far behind. I see deals worth hundreds of millions each day, and none of that money is being spent here.

If you don't believe in global warming, maybe that argument will make sense to you.

Budd Campbell said...

Thanks to smartlikeastreetcar I have had a laugh filled day. His unintentional humour is a riot.

"I wish that anonymous had the balls to leave a name; ...

But if you did deeper, you’ll find that SPPI and their ilk are sponsored by companies like Exxon ...

But you shouldn't cherry pick facts to make your point. ...

2) As well, Norway had a huge problem at one liquified gas plant, which spewed ton after ton of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere, which inflated their emission numbers dramatically. They're actually doing much better than your quote suggests.
4) Norway is building huge offshore wind farms that will be able to produce 8 gigawatts of clean, green electric power by 2020. That's the same as 18 medium-sized nuclear plants. Which would you rather have in your province?
6) Norway promises to be carbon neutral by 2030!

I write for an environmental publication for business types, and I have my facts down tight."

He wishes anonymous had the guts to use his name, and his name is smartlikeastreetcar. And if you look really, really hard you'll be able to find him in the Lunenburg phone book!

And one shouldn't cherry pick facts, but don't you see, there was this big accident at an LNG plant, so the official GHG figures are thrown off by this. Get it?

Windfarms producing 8 gigawatts. As much as 18 N-plants! By way of comparison, 8 gigawatts is about twice BC Hydro's power capacity of roughly 3.3 gigawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Hydro includes this statement: "BC Hydro's capacity is about 3.3 gigawatts). How does Norway plan to use that much extra electricity?

Another fact! Norway promises to be carbon neutral. And that's a fact! Do you know how you can prove it? That's simple:

"I write for an environmental publication for business types, and I have my facts down tight."

So there. Case closed!

SmartlikeStreetcar said...

Glad to have given you a belly laugh, Budd! Always glad to play the fool for other's amusement. :-)

So I'm here to add to your mirth. I've also been having a climate change debate with Harper supporters on a Conservative blog, but they're actually been kinder to me.

The name Smartlikestreet connects to a blog, where my name is posted, as well as contact info. In fact, people who have read my blog have contacted me at home. And your blogger profile leads where...? But perhaps you're well known. I most certainly am not.

How does Norway plan to use that much extra electricity?

I'll give you a hint. Norway also produces WAYYY more oil than they can use, too.

So here's the story, my summary:

A new study suggests that Norway could be a key player in the European Union's goal to reduce carbon emissions by more than 20 percent in 2020 by becoming the continent's "battery." Norway is blessed with oil and natural gas, making it the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, but it is also blessed with a long, undulating coastline with a huge wind energy potential. A 30-page report compiled by Norway's Energy Council suggests that Norway should develop huge sea-based wind farms off the coast that could each produce up to 8,000 megawatts of capacity at a cost of $44 billion US. That would correspond to about eight large nuclear power plants.

Interestingly, the plan calls for hydro-power reservoirs that would be filled with water using excess energy generated on windy days. When the winds are light, the water is released to generate electricity, thereby overcoming wind power's intermittent nature, the technology's most common criticism.

Norway's Oil and Energy Minister Aaslaug Haga likes what she sees in the report, and will be discussing it with EU leaders in Brussels. The wind farms could cut CO2 emissions in Norway alone by 20,000,000 metric tons per year by the 2020s.

Earlier this month, StatoilHydro announced that it will pay $80,000,000 to build the world's first full-scale floating wind turbine off the Norwegian coast. Ths offshore wind farm will be brought online in 2009. (Source: Reuters, May 27, 2008).

Another fact! Norway promises to be carbon neutral. And that's a fact! Do you know how you can prove it?

The United Nations Environment Program launched a web-based project called Climate Neutral Network (CN Net) on February 21, and already four countries - Norway, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and Iceland - have pledged to go carbon neutral. The project is designed to merge, report, and track the progress of the nations, regions, cities, and companies that have announced plans to reduce their carbon emissions to zero. In addition to those four nations, the cities of Arendel, Norway, Vancouver, Canada, Rizhau, China, and Vaxjo, Sweden have also joined CN Net. The five companies joining the CN Net are: Co-Operative Financial Services, Britain; Interface Inc of the United States; Natura, Brazil; Nedbank, South Africa and Senoko Power, Singapore. (Source: People and Planet, February 21, 2008).

Climate Neutral Network

SmartlikeStreetcar said...

And one shouldn't cherry pick facts, but don't you see, there was this big accident at an LNG plant, so the official GHG figures are thrown off by this. Get it?

And the link that I forgot to include, leading to Statistics Norway.

The relevant quote:

"Following two years of decreases, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) increased by almost 3 per cent in 2007... The increase is mainly due to CO2 emissions from flaring at the new LNG plant at Melk√łya."

Ummm... Case closed? :-)

Don Quixote said...

http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/update-on-my-tax-on-tax-fight.html and http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/update-on-replies-from-leaders-re-gst.html

Update on replies from the Leaders re GST charged on Carbon Tax

Only May of the Federal Greens has given an answer so far.

Perhaps you can a response?

Unknown said...

seeing as this carbon tax or it was changed to a pollution tax a few weeks ago not sure what it is this week, anyways abit confusing i know, look to the source i guess, if this carbon tax adresses 34% of pollution in BC what about the 66% of pollutors?why are they off the hook?i remember back in the liberals first term it would cost us $180,000 to find who the biggest polluters in BC are(thats alot of green). if this tax works we would have had a cancer tax a homeless tax a child poverty tax an education tax yrs etc etc yrs ago. its just another tax and if it werent then every single penny collected from this tax should be used 100% for pollution reduction.