Correcting the misunderstandings around carbon tax ~ Hugh Holland



This article reviews why many governments have been so slow in reacting to what is quickly becoming the single most serious threat to Canada and the world – climate change.  It should help to correct the misunderstanding around a carbon tax, and it shows how a carbon tax can drive all initiatives to help ensure that our young people have a livable future.

For over two decades, the world’s leading climate scientists have been warning us about the looming risks of man-made climate change. But climate change is hard to prove.  After all, there have been hot and cold periods, wildfires, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events throughout history. But our own personal observations should tell us the economic and human costs of climate change are now rapidly increasing as the frequency and severity of extreme weather events increases. Every year, temperatures in India reach new highs in excess of 50 C. The impact of droughts on corn and coffee crops in Central America is one root cause of the migration to the USA. In 2018, both BC and Ontario experienced 40 per cent more wildfires than the 10-year average.  BC had 28 early wildfires by April 4, 2019.

Resistance to change is strong, and some will remain skeptical of the science until they are hit by a personal experience. Politicians can’t get too far ahead of voters, but they should not mislead them. Corporations are driven by quarterly reports, but most also make plans to survive 50 years from now.  

Every part of the global auto industry, including Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes, BMW, General Motors, Ford and new Chinese car companies, are working to have an all-electric line-up by 2025. But after that it will take at least 20 years to replace the existing global fleet of over one billion cars and light trucks.  And it will take longer still to convert heavy trucks, rail, marine, aircraft, agricultural and construction equipment.  So, oil will still be needed, albeit in declining amounts, for another 30 to 50 years.

The USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia are locked in a hubris-driven race to be the number-one oil producer and are depleting their proven reserves at an irresponsible rate. But Canada, with the world’s third largest reserves and a relatively low production rate, can supply the needed oil long after the smaller reserves in all but five countries have been depleted.  Royal Dutch Shell, the world’s fifth largest oil producer, and several Canadian producers in the oil sands, are planning to be survivors.  They fully support the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  The tax will provide incentive to use cleaner sources of energy for oil extraction and refining which will reduce legitimate opposition. Oil is a finite resource and by reducing demand, the carbon tax will help to ensure they still have oil left to sell for as long as it is needed.

Yes, China, the USA and India have much higher total emissions, and Canada contributes less than two per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, and if we shut down Canada entirely, the result would be imperceptible. However, Canada’s emissions per capita are among the world’s highest at 15.1 million tonnes of CO2, vs 1.7 for India, 7.5 for China, 9.5 for Germany, 11.9 for Russia and 16.5 for the USA.  Our per capita energy use and emissions are high because we are a big, cold, industrialized country, but we can do better. 

Benefits of the Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
  • Engages all users (private, public and commercial) in the effort to use less coal, oil and natural ga.
  • Creates innovation and jobs in technologies that are cleaner and use less energy.
  • Incentive to use less fuel is proportionate to emissions – Tax on coal is more than tax on natural gas.
  • Simplicity – Easy to apply tax at point of fuel purchase.
  • Helps to conserve finite reserves of oil and gas for long-term applications.
  • Taxes work – While not called a carbon tax, gas taxes in Germany made gas prices double Canada’s. Buyers bought fuel-efficient vehicles. And GDP per capita in Germany is higher than Canada.
  • No extra cost to the consumer (See calculations below).
Transportation – 166 million tonnes of CO2 in base year 2010 > 125 mt in 2030
  • Federal Carbon tax on oil / gasoline / diesel / jet fuel (cars, trucks, rail, marine, air)
  • Federal fuel economy and emissions standards for manufacturers of Cars & Trucks
  • Federal $5,000 cash rebate on electric cars and light trucks
  • Global auto industry is rapidly switching to electric cars and light trucks – 50 models by 2022

Provincial plans for universal Electric Vehicle charging stations (Home, Urban, Highway)

Provincial plans to electrify passenger rail in the dense population corridors

Oil and Gas Extraction, Upgrading, Refining – 154 mt of CO2 in 2010 > 101 mt in 2030
  • Federal Carbon tax on use of coal and natural gas

Advanced nuclear to replace energy and heat from coal and natural gas. This is the key to getting Canada’s massive oil reserves to the people that will need them as smaller reserves are depleted

Electricity Generation – 99 mt of CO2 in 2010 > 10  (BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nfld. are done)
  • Federal Carbon tax on use of coal and natural gas
  • LED lighting conserves 17% of electricity load (Incentives to buy LED bulbs)
  • Small modular nuclear reactors will be available by 2025-2030

Use clean nuclear, wind, and solar energy to replace coal and natural gas (Alberta, Sask.)

Heating and Cooling of Residential and Commercial Buildings – 79 mt of CO2 in 2010 > 71 mt in 2030
  • Federal Carbon tax on use of coal, oil, and natural gas

Provincial Building Code improvements

Provincial Incentives for Geothermal Heating and Cooling where soil depth and area permits

Municipal planning for District Heating in areas of urban development and redevelopment.

  • Uses co-generation of electricity and heat from waste incinerators or small nuclear reactors.
  • Used in European countries that have no reserves and must import all their oil and gas.
Mining, Manufacturing, Construction – 75 mt of CO2 in 2010 > 70 mt in 2030
  • Federal Carbon tax on use of coal, gasoline, diesel, and natural gas

Some electrification of equipment is possible

Agriculture – 69 mt of CO2 in 2010 > 62 mt in 2030
  • Federal Carbon tax on use of gasoline, diesel, and natural gast
Waste and Others – 50 mt of CO2 in 2010 > 20 mt in 2030
  • Federal Carbon tax on use of oil, and natural gas

Co-generation of electricity and heat from high-temperature incineration vs landfill

Reforestation of idle land.

In summary, by adopting these reasonable and responsible economic and technical solutions, Canada can give our grandchildren a better chance of a life without the worst effects of climate change.

Hugh Holland is a retired engineering and manufacturing executive now living in Huntsville, Ontario.

Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.

See below for more detailed notes and sample calculations for the carbon tax ~

  • Engages all users (private, public and commercial) in efforts to use less coal, oil and natural gas
  • Creates incentive and jobs in technologies that use less energy, especially coal, oil and natural gas
  • Incentive to use less fuel is proportionate to emissions from use of that fuel
    • Burning coal emits 1050 gm of CO2 / kwh x $20 / tonne x 1 tonne / 1,000,000 gms = $.020 / kwh
    • Burning oil emits 778 gm of CO2 / kwh x $20 / tonne x 1 tonne / 1,000,000 gms = $.0155 / kwh
    • Burning gas emits 443 gm of CO2 / kwh x $20 / tonne x 1 tonne / 1,000,000 gms = $.00886 / kwh
  • Tax will rise until emission targets are met ($20 / t in 2019, $30 / t in 2020, $40 / t in 2021, $50 / t in 2022)
  • Simplicity
    • Easy to apply tax at point of fuel purchase
    • Tax rebate calculations are simplified by actuarial tables for average use
  • Buyer can save money by using tax rebate $ on energy and fuel reduction projects
  • Helps to conserve finite reserves of oil and gas for long-term applications
  • Taxes work – While not called a carbon tax, gas taxes in Germany made gas prices double Canada’s. Buyers bought fuel-efficient vehicles. And GDP per capita in Germany is higher than Canada.

Europe’s experience shows the tax will be effective despite many other factors affecting price.

  • No extra cost to consumer (See calculations below)
  • Sample calculations for my carbon tax
    • Tax paid for 2019 based on my expected usage
      • Gasoline – 20,000 km / 10 L per 100 km x $.04 per L = $80
      • Propane – 3,000 L x $.02 per L = $60
    • Tax rebate for 2019 based on actuarial tables of use = $154 for 1st + $77 for 2nd + 0 children = $231
    • Net carbon tax for 2019 = $231 rebate – $140 paid = $91 net rebate
  • Tax paid for 2022 based on my expected usage
    • Gasoline – 20,000 km / 10 L per 100 km x $.10 per L = $200
    • Propane – 3,000 L x $.05 per L = $150
  • Tax rebate for 2022 based on actuarial tables of use = $360 for 1st + $180 for 2nd + 0 children = $540
  • Net carbon tax for 2022 = $540 rebate – $350 paid = $190 net rebate

What if I buy an electric car or light truck?

My net carbon tax savings for 2022 would be:

  • Carbon Tax paid = $0 for gasoline and $150 for propane = $150 total
    • Net carbon tax for 2022 = $540 rebate – $150 paid = $390 net rebate
    • The $5,000 rebate on the purchase of the EV makes the net price + gas savings = to conventional car
    • In case of a grid power outage, the electric car or truck can power your home for 2 days
    • Contractors can run power tools on the truck battery vs a costly and noisy generator



  1. Jim Logagianes on

    Energy poverty will become synonymous with the carbon tax. All low and middle income households will suffer the most. As everything they need for survival is priced higher. Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy in this vast country of ours. What kind of people would force you to pay a premium for the necessities of life,food,clothing arnd shelter,when we already pay more in taxes than we do on necessities. Canadian politicians need a slush fund because none of them can understand the implications of running deficits. With our new regressive tax we will be able to provide financial assistance to everyone that is effected by our new regressive tax regime. I for one would prefer a system that charges companies that pollute and forces them to pay the cost.
    We are expected to subsidize industries that pollute with our taxes. Forcing a green agenda without considering the cost to all Canadians is a recipe for disaster. This article does not address
    any of the implications that this regressive tax will have on future generations. And with our vast land mass we are one of the biggest carbon sinks in the world. How much would it cost to plant more trees. Use hemp for paper and textiles. Invest in carbon secretion. There are lots of options
    Let’s get serious here, there are several ways to make our world greener without implementing a regressive carbon tax. And unless the whole world gets on board this scheme will never work.

    • I agree Jim. I want to know what the government is actually doing with our carbon tax dollars? No one can actually answer that simple direct question. The government is taking in way more in carbon tax dollars than the refund via taxes are going to be so what are they doing with it? I see more hunger, unemployment and general poorer population due to this carbon tax. You can not use less fuel unless you quit work or freeze/roast in your own homes. After all they have nothing that normal income people can afford to replace the way the heat and transport themselves around with. They seem to always be financially backing big industry when they have lots of profits and not really doing anything for the general public.

      • Hugh Holland on

        Brenda, please read the calculations on the last page. That shows how the tax rebate works. That will help you understand.

        • Your calculations are way too low for many residents of Muskoka. My wife and myself drive combined about 90,000 km per year with vehicles (large size required, wish I could have a small car again) that get averages of 15 and 18 Liters per 100 km.

          We also heat our house with propane, heat our water with propane, and cook with propane. We use about 4000 L per year.

          We will be PAYING higher taxes based on Carbon, not receiving a rebate like your calculations show.

          I however am in full agreement with you, a Carbon Tax is a good incentive to reduce use of resources that release carbon. As a consumer who uses a lot of oil, I have the choice to reduce or eliminate my use of oil. I can choose to purchase electric vehicles (although not an option yet for the size I need) and I could switch to geothermal heating for the house if I choose to do so. I certainly will not be spending the capital funding to replace my heating system until the current system fails, but the choice falls on my shoulders.

          I am a heating contractor who only works on natural gas and propane systems, and I support any technology that can reduce oil consumption. Keeping fuel burning appliances in good working order will also reduce fuel consumption.

    • Hugh Holland on

      Jim, if you think that the modest carbon tax is too expensive, think again. First of all, the tax will be rebated, so there is NO COST other than for administration. As the article shows, the carbon tax is quite simply the ONLY measure that will MOTIVATE EVERY AND ALL CITIZENS AND INDUSTRIES to get involved in the battle to mitigate the most serious current threat to Canada and the world. If everyone just wants to pick around the edges and push the effort onto someone else, we will surely fail.

      Like with war, It’s hard to put a price on the human cost for families that are forced to migrate TO PLACES WHERE THEY ARE NOT WANTED, because their homes or jobs or safe water supply have been burned or flooded out. The economic costs of climate change are easier to estimate. The cost to slow climate change has been estimated at 1% to 2% of GDP which is much lower than the cost of dealing with the after-effects estimated at 5% to 20% of GDP. But the longer we wait to start, the bigger the gap becomes.

      In 2018, insurance claims for extreme weather events in Canada totaled $1.9 billion or 1.2% of GDP, and that does not cover the $520 million cost of fighting wildfires in just BC and Ontario, or the cost to our health care system, or the cost of droughts and floods on food prices, or the cost of measures to prevent flooding and soil erosion, or the cost of repairing the electricity grid, etc., etc. Both the human and economic costs of climate change will be born disproportionately by low income people. Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure.

  2. Jim Logagianes on

    When all Industries leave Canada for other Countries with cheaper taxes, every Canadian will be forced to pay higher taxes to compensate for lost revenue. This is exactly what happened to Greece. Now nothing is manufactured there and the majority of the country is impoverished. The youth are leaving because their is no future in their homeland. Socialism left unchecked has destroyed one of the oldest civilizations economy. I will not sit by quietly and watch and instant replay. No matter what the so-called experts are predicting. No Government can control big money,it will always go where it needs to. Excessive Taxation is Destroying Our Nation, more is not the answer.

  3. Am quite sure that the commenter’s to this article did not read past the word TAX. This tax is a neutral charge tax as the article states. We can all agree that winters are not as cold but more snow than when we were children. We can all agree that summers are hotter and the storms are more extreme than when we were children. The only thing we cannot see past is the TAX. Must all be Conservatives for your hate of taxation.
    Climate change is real, the only good thing for us is that at our age; we will not see the impact in 20-30 yrs but our children/grandchildren will have to live through it. Pay now to relieve the pain in the generations to come.

  4. Thank you for this article Hugh! It’s good to fight ignorance and hate with logic. Climate change is a very real problem, and we need a tested, evidence-based way to combat it. Honestly – I don’t think the Federal government is going far enough, but I guess it’s about balance… for now.

  5. Lesley Hastie on

    Don’t believe a carbon tax can affect huge change? Just ask British Columbia.

    From the Globe and mail April 5, 2019 by Jill Tipping is president and CEO of the BC Tech Association. Maximilian Kniewasser is director of the B.C. clean economy program at the Pembina Institute.

    “With the federal government’s backstop price on carbon pollution taking effect this week in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick, opponents of this vital climate solution have ratcheted up the bombast. However, British Columbia’s experience with its carbon tax provides an effective counterpoint to many of the myths and misconceptions in circulation.

    B.C. strengthened its carbon tax on April 1, raising the rate by $5 per tonne to $40 per tonne. When B.C. first introduced its carbon tax 11 years ago, it was the first economy-wide price on carbon pollution in North America. Among explicit carbon prices, B.C.’s is still tops on the continent.

    While some would have us believe that putting a price on pollution hurts the economy and doesn’t reduce climate-destabilizing carbon emissions, B.C.’s experience clearly shows this rhetoric doesn’t stand up to the facts. We now have more than a decade of data available. Since introducing pollution pricing in 2008, per capita emissions in B.C. are down by 14 per cent, while the economy has grown by 26 per cent.

    How has B.C.’s economy fared during the past decade? In short, excellent. Among Canadian provinces, B.C. has registered the fastest rate of economic growth since 2008. B.C.’s outperformance is forecast to continue – even accelerate – through 2019 and 2020, according to RBC Economic Research. Canada’s westernmost province also boasts the lowest unemployment rate, the lowest personal-tax rate for incomes under $125,000 and one of the lowest corporate-tax rates in the country. Indeed, B.C. is even being described as Canada’s new economic powerhouse.

    Of course, we can’t confuse correlation and causation. But B.C.’s recent history and forecast of strong economic performance suggests that pricing pollution is more likely to help, not hinder, growth – especially as the world increasingly transitions to a cleaner economy.

    B.C.’s booming clean-tech industry is a prime example of the benefits of pricing pollution. Entrepreneurs cite carbon pricing as a key tool for stimulating clean innovation. In B.C., clean tech is on a roll, posting job growth that’s among the fastest of any sector in the province.

    B.C. is home to seven of the companies on the 2019 Global Cleantech 100 list, more than the rest of the country combined. According to Cleantech Group, the firms on the list have collectively raised more than US$14-trillion in investment. With B.C. companies leading the way and ready to serve the world, B.C.’s clean-tech industry will provide a huge competitive advantage in ensuring an increasingly prosperous future for the province.

    It’s an enviable position to be in, thanks, in part, to B.C.’s carbon tax.

    None of this is surprising, of course. Putting a price on something that you don’t want (pollution) and using the revenue for something that you do want (such as lowering other taxes or investing in better infrastructure) makes economic and common sense. As Spencer Dale, group chief economist for energy giant BP, told Reuters: “If you want to reduce something, if you want to ration something, the best way of doing that is you put a price on it and that then provides incentive for everybody to play their role. … A carbon price, I think, is critical if we are to achieve that rapid transition to a low-carbon world.”

    B.C.’s carbon tax is real-world proof that this simple economic concept holds true. Per capita consumption of fuels covered by the carbon tax is down in the province compared to the rest of the country, while B.C.’s economy has steamed ahead.

    At the same time, we are using money raised by the carbon tax to lower personal income taxes (resulting in the lowest income taxes in the country for all but the highest earners) and corporate taxes; to provide rebates to low-income and rural families to ensure they are better off; and, soon, to fund green infrastructure – improving the overall competitiveness of our economy. It has also helped B.C. become a global leader in one of the world’s fastest-growing industries. In short, the carbon tax is a key tool that’s successfully driving clean growth in B.C.

    With increasing political rhetoric around pricing carbon pollution in Canada, it’s important to look at the facts. B.C.’s experience with the carbon tax – the country’s longest experiment with such a policy – has been unquestionably positive. This should embolden others to follow B.C.’s lead on effectively pricing pollution for both environmental and economic success.”

  6. Folks, I respect the effort that Hugh has done to try and teach us about carbon tax. The reality in my opinion is that Canada is not such a huge polluter in the world stage. All the effort made by our Liberals at the expense of every fill up at the pump will remind us that the design of carbon pricing should not be done at the expense of the middle class. Not every one at this point will get the full benefit as the Liberals lead us to think. They keep talking about a family of four benefitting yet not everyone is a family of 4 anymore. In any event why should the average middle class taxpayer be caught in this tax grab when Polluters will continue to pollute and get around the system by simply buying credits from companies that have not used up their pollution credits. Anything the Government does that takes this much explaining and Convincing should make all of suspect that protecting the average taxpayer is not their priority.

  7. Hugh .. Your comment… “revenue-neutral carbon tax” is so ridiculous! What about the admin cost $$$ to collect and …then admin cost to re-distribute $$$… so funny to think “collect money and than return it” (is “revenue-neutral”) !.. How silly is that!? And will be done “revenue-neutral” !? So funny .. folks as soon as you hear the word ‘tax’ don’t be fooled! Hugh .. your very biased SJW Liberal narrative ideology is playing the game and very humorous to think you can change the global warming on the backs of Canadians by paying more tax!? So funny! What about the huge increase in $$$$ to every citizen for ALL products and services that require to be delivered by combustion engine services because of the carbon tax? I guess some how it will balance out like the Liberal ideology .. “budgets balance themselves”!? You can sure tell that Hugh doesn’t boat, atv, haul a TT, drive a vehicle, skidoo, doesn’t travel via airplane, bus, taxi, rail etc etc …or …use any combustion engine tools ie ice auger, leaf blower, riding lawn mower etc etc … and .. he must grow his own food to avoid using the trucking industry to get his goods and service? This carbon tax will add expense $$$ to EVERYTHING a person does for recreation and ”’ TO LIVE”! This whole narrative is so narrow focused and does address the true impact and consequence to everyone. FOLKS .. do some research and see other opinions on climate change and be aware of the word TAX! …

    • Hugh Holland on

      Bob, carbon tax works because it will (or should) make you think. It should make you think when you buy gas for your vehicle or propane to heat your house or business. You will feel good when you get a rebate. The rebate will make you think about how to get a bigger rebate by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles or planning your trips more efficiently or making your home and business cleaner and more energy-efficient. And that will create even more innovation and jobs.

  8. Hugh your numbers are very confusing when you relate them to per capita instead of portion of the worlds mass. It makes it look like India and China are relatively lower contributors. By over taxing Canadians and rebating a portion of their actual tax back to them is just s shell game where the pea always ends up under the wrong cup. It is what it is which is an empire building scheme to create more government jobs thus securing the Liberals subservient control over the population. Put large taxes on everything coming from India and China will reduce the number of ships, trains and trucks needed to move their product throughout our massive country. Put a huge carbon tax on Travel outside of our country by planes , trains and automobiles. We can bring the economy to it’s knees. People won’t be able to afford to travel but they will be able to afford to eat a reduced diet of things grown locally or by them, afford to heat their homes and reduce use of electricity not increase it by producing more cars that need to depend on it. I have always been in favour of incinerating garbage to create electricity rather than spending billions to collect and bury it.
    To impose huge carbon taxes on Canadians is to say the tail really wags the dog.

    • Hugh Holland on

      John, every country has different circumstances to contend with. We could spend the next 10 years arguing about who should take the first step in reducing emissions. But that is as productive as debating who should get the best deck chair on the Titanic. It’s a waste of precious time. The only way to prevent the worst effects of climate change is for all countries to do their best and there is much that we can do. If the wealthy G7 countries do not lead, then who will? Why not take advantage of the many scientific, economic and moral benefits of being among the leaders?

  9. Peggy Barrett on

    Thank you Hugh for your informative comments re the carbon tax. I noticed people who replied and were very anti the carbon tax did not give an alternative to reduce green house gases. Also, certain officials who are so against the tax have not given any viable explanation how to decrease green house gases.
    The fellow who wrote stating we will be able to eat locally is not that well informed as Canada lost 12% of its agriculture crops last year due to unusual weather patterns.

  10. Kathy Henderson on

    I agree with Jim. What is the point of us already overtaxed, under funded poor and middle class paying Carbon Tax? and then getting it back? Are we paying more staff to implement this taking and giving of tax? Will I go to work 3 days a week instead of 5. I can’t afford to go joy riding so no extra gas is used. How much carbon tax are we paying for our Prime Minister to jet all over the place????
    This is yet another area that our Government has messed up by allowing all the pollution and by NOT thinking 50 or 100 years ahead. It is just me me me and greed for the big guys. Now we, not the government is left to try and clean up their mess. I don’t want to leave a carbon footprint but everything was engineered for greed and simplicity. I was happy with paper grocery bags and wax paper for my sandwich’s. My opinion of the carbon tax is like sticking your finger in a dyke and expecting that to stop the leak.

  11. Jim Logagianes on

    Welcome to a dark era in Canadian Politics. They want to make slaves out of us all, and you thought slavery
    was abolished. Go ahead drink the carbon koolaid, I personally do not believe anything coming out of Ottawa these days. Start storing food and hoarding cash your gonna need it.

  12. Jim Logagianes on

    What timing now the Liberals are subsidizing Loblaws with 12 million dollars. So now politicians can use the funds from the carbon tax to pay political favours. That’s what you get in Canada for price fixing for ten years. As George Carlin once said, it’s a big game and your not in it.

  13. U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
    by Tyler Durden
    Feb 3, 2017
    Submitted by Martin Armstrong via,
    A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.
    Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, does not have the goal of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
    She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
    I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?
    All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future? reminds Figueres that the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
    Martin ArmstrongGlobal Warming

  14. Linda Mathers on

    The good news is we are talking about climate change. The bad news is the context. Solutions to climate change (only one of which is the carbon tax) are not political footballs to be tossed about hoping to gain points in whatever the field of play. When will we recognize that real solutions must be generated by all levels of government, industry and yes, you and I, working collaboratively and with compromise. To do otherwise is to deny a future for the next generation. Conspiracy theories, denial, not in my backyard and we are not part of the problem are points of view that do not advance the solution seeking we so desperately need. Let’s support every initiative that contributes in any way to reducing the warming we are facing.

Leave a reply below. Comments without both first & last name will not be published. Your email address is required for validation but will not be publicly visible.