The human race needs carbon to survive in the form of carbon dioxide. Without it the human race will perish as will most plant and animal life on the planet. This side of the issue is not addressed in the rush to rid the world of carbon gases. That is the wrong approach. If we are looking at fossil fuels only – they do not create most of the carbon gases. A barrel of oil does not all go for gasoline as only about 10% per barrel is used for fuels. The rest goes into a myriad of other products. And if we focus only on fuels what is the alternative? It will take years to develop alternative energy sources that are cost effective and most important available.
When the remainder of the barrel goes into other products, as you’ve correctly stated, carbon and carbon dioxide are still byproducts. Imagine the carbon released over the course of production, of say, a Honda Civic. Significant amounts of carbon are also released in the production of petroleum byproducts in the refining process. In Alberta, we’ve invested a substantial portion of the carbon tax collected in renewable energy development and citizens below a specified income threshold receive rebates, often in excess of what they’ve paid in carbon tax.
Mr Arendt’s comments seem odd to me. There is no prospect of carbon dioxide vanishing from the earth — the concern is whether carbon emitting human activities are raising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases too high, and the evidence for this is abundant. Fossil fuels are not the only source of carbon dioxide, but the article is focused on methods to lower carbon emissions from all sources in the most cost effective manner. Quite a brilliant idea, and simple. Mr Arendt has missed the point.
So often money rules, so why not put a price on those who emit high levels of carbon pollutions that are responsible for climate change. That is a way to hold them accountable and force them to reduce their carbon emissions. Giving this taxed amount back to the pockets of the people is just a bonus. I say support HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, and start the reduction of greenhouse gases that are destroying the earth. This solution is the best thing out there and will help us all keep clean energy ideas in the forefront of the decisions we make every day. We don’t have time to waste.
Good article, but incorrect on two counts on the situation in Canada. The carbon tax is already in place in the four provinces mentioned and it was imposed by the federal government, not by the four provinces themselves. This is better: “In Canada, as part of the nationwide carbon pricing plan mandated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Federal Government has imposed a ‘carbon fee and dividend’ plan in four provinces that refused to implement their own carbon pricing mechanisms.”
The human race needs carbon to survive in the form of carbon dioxide. Without it the human race will perish as will most plant and animal life on the planet. This side of the issue is not addressed in the rush to rid the world of carbon gases. That is the wrong approach. If we are looking at fossil fuels only – they do not create most of the carbon gases. A barrel of oil does not all go for gasoline as only about 10% per barrel is used for fuels. The rest goes into a myriad of other products. And if we focus only on fuels what is the alternative? It will take years to develop alternative energy sources that are cost effective and most important available.
When the remainder of the barrel goes into other products, as you’ve correctly stated, carbon and carbon dioxide are still byproducts. Imagine the carbon released over the course of production, of say, a Honda Civic. Significant amounts of carbon are also released in the production of petroleum byproducts in the refining process. In Alberta, we’ve invested a substantial portion of the carbon tax collected in renewable energy development and citizens below a specified income threshold receive rebates, often in excess of what they’ve paid in carbon tax.
Mr Arendt’s comments seem odd to me. There is no prospect of carbon dioxide vanishing from the earth — the concern is whether carbon emitting human activities are raising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases too high, and the evidence for this is abundant. Fossil fuels are not the only source of carbon dioxide, but the article is focused on methods to lower carbon emissions from all sources in the most cost effective manner. Quite a brilliant idea, and simple. Mr Arendt has missed the point.
So often money rules, so why not put a price on those who emit high levels of carbon pollutions that are responsible for climate change. That is a way to hold them accountable and force them to reduce their carbon emissions. Giving this taxed amount back to the pockets of the people is just a bonus. I say support HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, and start the reduction of greenhouse gases that are destroying the earth. This solution is the best thing out there and will help us all keep clean energy ideas in the forefront of the decisions we make every day. We don’t have time to waste.
Good article, but incorrect on two counts on the situation in Canada. The carbon tax is already in place in the four provinces mentioned and it was imposed by the federal government, not by the four provinces themselves. This is better: “In Canada, as part of the nationwide carbon pricing plan mandated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Federal Government has imposed a ‘carbon fee and dividend’ plan in four provinces that refused to implement their own carbon pricing mechanisms.”
Comments are closed.