Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
And yet no growth since 2007 despite both substantial GDP and population growth. Displacement which at this point can't be attributed to changes in industrial forestry. What's clear is that BC's carbon tax has avoided all emissions growth, but hasn't been high enough to cut emissions further.
It's amazing that William Nordhaus and Paul Romer got a Nobel Prize (equivalent) for economic theory detailing the relationship between carbon pricing and emissions reductions but FUDsters still want to insist there's no link.
|
I understand that there are people out there that don't believe there is no link. Common sense is that there is of course a link. I personally agree with their conclusive answer:
Laureate William Nordhaus’ research shows that the most efficient remedy for problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions is a global scheme of carbon taxes uniformly imposed on all countries. The diagram shows CO2 emissions for four climate policies according to his simulations.
(
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nobel-...mics-1.4854371)
The key to the conclusive answer is:
a global scheme of carbon taxes uniformly imposed on all countries.
Reality is that the globe is no uniformly imposed on all countries. So when another tax is imposed domestically, and those domestic taxes aren't even imposed evenly, what impact does it truly have?
It's nice that subsidies are given to say the O&G sector to build things like the ATL, or in my opinion that financing should be generated from say the Carbon tax, or as it was done since 2007 from the Alberta CCS Fund.
But again, aside from the image that Canada is infact spending billions of dollars to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and in my opinion, with the ATL removing 339,000 cars worth is significant, though it still does not provide much of a dent in the global scheme of things, especially evident that the worlds largest banks are pulling out of Canada's O&G sector while investing in other portfolios that include other countries O&G sector that likely aren't advancing technologies such as the ATL... (That is where I think it is on Canada's O&G sector themselves failing to market themselves as a sustainable market, through associations such as CEPA and CAPP).
Anyway, nonetheless, I think conversations like these need to be had which will help advance technologies, not only in markets like the EVs, but FFs as well. The O&G sector does not want to die, and need to make advancements like these in order to be competitive with battery storage market, essentially capitalism working as it should, through competition. Previously, FFs had no such competition, but now they the realistically do, continual advancements like this will be made, which is, everything considered, very good.
My outlook on things of course. Please don't attack me!
Good chat!
(BTW, I appreciate you providing such information, as you have enabled me to educate myself on things like this... education is key to advance sustainable investment)