Are you ready to throw away Canada?

The purpose of this essay is to show the Conservative lies and misdirection over the past 20 years or more in regards to Climate change and the urgency of it.

You are correct if you think there have been other instances on record of the oceans rising. I draw on the very informative book of Gavin Menzies in which he follows the old Chinese maps which in turn, show sea levels to be 6 foot higher than they are now. Greenland was circumnavigated as the Chinese Treasure ships tried to get under the north pole to better measure the constellations.

They left their maps with every civilization they came upon to show these same countries the way back to China so they could pay homage. The Maps still exist.  The Chinese Mandarins (First Conservatives) took over and the Treasure ships were left to rot at anchor and books and star charts and other maps were destroyed.  Statues ripped down.

The Paris Agreement talked about put the heads of state and their science at the same table. The charts produced showed the introduction of coal, a 19th-century technology, and the rise in carbon dioxide levels matched perfectly. It was decided to stop the use of Coal as a corrective measure. Not a cure.

The earth orbit as measured by the same constellations the Chinese used in 1423 shows us the Earth is in an elliptical but concentric orbit. Concentric because we are knocked out of the loop by Jupiter’s gravitation. The last time we were in a circular orbit was 65 years ago! Year 0 in a 10,000-year journey.

The bottom line is: We have been moving away from the sun for 65 years in a cooling off period and, we are still heating up. If this continues unabated, we will not; NOT survive as a civilization!

The Conservatives continue to ignore, deny and put out false information on Climate Change. If allowed to continue they will be the end of us.

The Conservatives knew all about climate change before 2006.  Here is an exert from a post, Letter to Ralph Klein October 22, 2004

Friday, October 22, 2004
The Occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein
https://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/search?q=climate+change
Honorable Ralph Klein,
August 26, 2003
Room 307 Legislative Building,
Edmonton, AB T4K 2C6
Re:- The occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein.Dear Premier:
The compelling information you have regarding climate change is near catastrophic and puts Alberta on the course of a climate very similar to Southern Iraq or Turkey more probably on the short term rather than the long.

Extremes in weather and unpredictable weather such as storms, hurricanes, drought and flood are parts of the scenario. Ongoing drought and forest fires are going to be the norm rather than the exception. Forest fires and unprecedented pestilence are but symptoms of the climate change rapidly coming upon us.

Lakes will become mud holes and rivers will dry up. (The Prince George area has massive beetle infestation because the temperatures haven’t dropped to the -40 that is required to kill them off; All in the last 5 years!) The extending drought has already caused the earth to move away from house foundations around Alberta causing them to crack. I would think any one who has built in the last 6 years has recourse on the Government because of a lack of proper building standards to account for these known changes.

When your Environment department confirmed the above they also said studies were being made on how to use the unusable (un-potable) rivers of water from the Viking aquifer. Considering the oil companies have been accessing this "bad" water for year’s further studies would only be for the purpose of stalling for time.

Oil companies site only the added expense, by comparison to surface water, as being the only real draw back! I recall people in Parkland County complaining their water wells went dry after seismic went through their region. They speculated the seismic had damaged the upper water aquifer. Your response was less than caring. "Prove it" you said.

Knowing what you know about the weather change and dwindling water resource it is irresponsible for you to allow oil companies to use any drinkable water for injection into the wells for oil recovery! Your water plan amounts to a charge on Alberta residences for the water taken by oil companies and pumped down hole.When do the oil companies start paying for the damages they have done and the water they have already ruined or wasted?

It seems to be your plan to stall full public disclosure of information on climate change until the oil is gone, the drinking water is gone and the oil companies have moved on?

The Canadian History.
As a one time Conservative Riding secretary and of an age greater than 90% of Canadians I offer this glimpse into our past. More directly the Conservatives have known of climate change for more than 20 years.  Instead of putting in a cure they embarked on a major course of misinformation.

The Liberals built Canada with little interruption to their base until 1919 to 1937 in which case the American Republicans working through the Morman Church, helped them establish "The United Farmers of Alberta"  This party morphed itself into the Veterans and Active force, 1944 to 1948, again the US Republicans were fully involved.  This morphed into the Conservatives which found a hard landing after Diefenbaker and the Avro-Arrow. (You now know the reason Diefenbaker scrapped the Arrow in Canada allowing the US to take up the design) and, Harper sold off the Canadian Wheat Board to US interest in leaving office.  Related:
Related:

They again morphed into the Progressive Conservatives. This party was started by Peter Lougheed and company.  Peter broke away from the Republicans, in fact, took on US oil interests in Alberta in the much-maligned NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM.  Peter became the most popular Premier not only of Alberta but, all of Canada.

When Klein took over he doubled down with the US Republicans.  All this happening while the Wild Rose Party kept the original foundation going with the Church.  Now we had two political parties which could appear as opposition, one extreme and one tame by comparison.  Doing what they do best, played both ends against the middle.

Notably, Klein started the bleed on the Heritage Savings and Trust by freezing the fund at 5% profit taking all above into General Revenue to support his 10% flat tax.  The loss to Albertans 760 billion dollars most of which went directly back to US parent companies.  Norway over the same period banked over 1 trillion dollars.

Take a look at The Huffington Post" to see the teamwork us/Canadian and the treatment you get if you enter an opinion on US politics.

In a final analysis, I see the US is in a position to take over our country!  By putting in a Conservative Government again will facilitate the end of our Dairy Marketing board and any other institutions that may hinder this process.

As if in confirmation of the above post
Jason Kenny backed the running of a Trump campaign worker in the Alberta by-election.
For any of you doubting the Canadian History   Devin Dreeshen, newly elected in Innisfail by-election as PUC was a campaign worker for Donald Trump.  Kelly calls it a good experience.

“In November 2016, Dreeshen and another conservative political activist penned a lengthy article in the Hill Times in Ottawa chronicling their work on Trump’s campaign.”
Also posted on Ipolitic/WordPress

Finally, since the veil was taken off the Conservative/Republican they have become more aggressive in their campaign.  Their present goal is to seize power in the Federal election and gain governance of at least 6 provincial jurisdictions.  With just 6 Conservative provincial governments they are in the position to open the constitution and totally re-write it!

Huge risk if global warming passes 1.5C, warns landmark UN report

A key finding of the new IPCC report is the dramatic difference that restricting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels would have on the global environment.
The scientists found:
• By 2100, the global sea level rise would be 10cm lower with global warming of 1.5C compared with 2C.
• Extreme heatwaves will be experienced by 14% of the world's population at least once every five years at 1.5C. But that figure rises to more than a third of the planet if temperatures rise to 2C
• Arctic sea ice would remain during most summers if warming is kept to 1.5C. But at 2C, ice-free summers are 10 times more likely, leading to greater habitat losses for polar bears, whales, seals and seabirds.
• If warming is kept to 1.5C, coral reefs will still decline by 70-90% but if temperatures rise to 2C virtually all of the world's reefs would be lost

Was this helpful?

We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or face more floods

Nicholas Stern

Read more

“It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilizes people and dents the mood of complacency.”
Policymakers commissioned the report at the Paris climate talks in 2016, but since then the gap between science and politics has widened. Donald Trump has promised to withdraw the US – the world’s biggest source of historical emissions – from the accord. The first round of Brazil’s presidential election on Sunday put Jair Bolsonaro into a strong position to carry out his threat to do the same and also open the Amazon rainforest to agribusiness.
The world is currently 1C warmer than pre-industrial levels. Following devastating hurricanes in the US, record droughts in Cape Town and forest fires in the Arctic, the IPCC makes clear that climate change is already happening, upgraded its risk warning from previous reports, and warned that every fraction of additional warming would worsen the impact.
Scientists who reviewed the 6,000 works referenced in the report, said the change caused by just half a degree came as a revelation. “We can see there is a difference and it’s substantial,” Roberts said.

Advertisement

At 1.5C the proportion of the global population exposed to water stress could be 50% lower than at 2C, it notes. Food scarcity would be less of a problem and hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in poor countries, would be at risk of climate-related poverty.

Attendees take a photo before the opening of the 48th session of the IPCC in Incheon. Photograph: Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images

At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires.
But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.

Sea-level rise would affect 10 million more people by 2100 if the half-degree extra warming brought a forecast 10cm additional pressure on coastlines. The number affected would increase substantially in the following centuries due to locked-in ice melt.

Oceans are already suffering from elevated acidity and lower levels of oxygen as a result of climate change. One model shows marine fisheries would lose 3m tonnes at 2C, twice the decline at 1.5C.
Sea ice-free summers in the Arctic, which is warming two to three times fast than the world average, would come once every 100 years at 1.5C, but every 10 years with half a degree more of global warming

The final tick box is political will

Jim Skea

Time and carbon budgets are running out. By mid-century, a shift to the lower goal would require a supercharged roll-back of emissions sources that have built up over the past 250 years.
The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology.

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories

Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 – compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway – and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C. This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.

“We have presented governments with pretty hard choices. We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5C, and also the unprecedented shift in energy systems and transport that would be needed to achieve that,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the working group on mitigation. “We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box is political will. We cannot answer that. Only our audience can – and that is the governments that receive it.”
He said the main finding of his group was the need for urgency. Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. Carbon capture and storage projects, which are essential for reducing emissions in the concrete and waste disposal industries, have also ground to a halt.
Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geoengineering, which could have negative consequences.











A nearly ice-free Northwest Passage in the Arctic in August 2016. Photograph: VIIRS/Suomi NPP/Nasa

In the run-up to the final week of negotiations, there were fears the text of the report would be watered down by the US, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries that are reluctant to consider more ambitious cuts. The authors said nothing of substance was cut from a text.
Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said the final document was “incredibly conservative” because it did not mention the likely rise in climate-driven refugees or the danger of tipping points that could push the world on to an irreversible path of extreme warming.
The report will be presented to governments at the UN climate conference in Poland at the end of this year. But analysts say there is much work to be done, with even pro-Paris deal nations involved in fossil fuel extraction that runs against the spirit of their commitments. Britain is pushing ahead with gas fracking, Norway with oil exploration in the Arctic, and the German government wants to tear down Hambach forest to dig for coal.
At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming. The report authors are refuseing to accept defeat, believing the increasingly visible damage caused by climate change will shift opinion their way.
“I hope this can change the world,” said Jiang Kejun of China’s semi-governmental Energy Research Institute, who is one of the authors. “Two years ago, even I didn’t believe 1.5C was possible but when I look at the options I have confidence it can be done. I want to use this report to do something big in China.”

The IPCC global warming report spares politicians the worst details

Bob Ward

The timing was good, he said, because the Chinese government was drawing up a long-term plan for 2050 and there was more awareness among the population about the problem of rising temperatures. “People in Beijing have never experienced so many hot days as this summer. It’s made them talk more about climate change.”
Regardless of the US and Brazil, he said, China, Europe and major cities could push ahead. “We can set an example and show what can be done. This is more about technology than politics.”
James Hansen, the former Nasa scientist who helped raised the alarm about climate change, said both 1.5C and 2C would take humanity into uncharted and dangerous territory because they were both well above the Holocene-era range in which human civilisation developed. But he said there was a huge difference between the two: “1.5C gives young people and the next generation a fighting chance of getting back to the Holocene or close to it. That is probably necessary if we want to keep shorelines where they are and preserve our coastal cities.”
Johan Rockström, a co-author of the recent Hothouse Earth report, said scientists never previously discussed 1.5C, which was initially seen as a political concession to small island states. But he said opinion had shifted in the past few years along with growing evidence of climate instability and the approach of tipping points that might push the world off a course that could be controlled by emissions reductions.
“Climate change is occurring earlier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the current level of 1C warming, it is painful,” he told the Guardian. “This report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2C is dangerous.”

Some insights to the US economy and looking closer at Trump’s blather.

Coal is a 19th-century technology on its way out being recently priced out of the market by natural gas.  In the Appalachians, coal mines have dropped from 580 to just over 300.  The biggest coal mines and generation plants are owned by companies on the west coast of the US, nowhere near the Appalachians in the central east.

The #Appalachians were/are run by the coal Barron’s who have managed to convince the courts they can keep the pension money set aside for their laid off workers.  These #pension grabs have left a million people desolate living in misery.

Unlike Alberta, the US has not tried to institute a #retraining program for these people who knew nothing but coal mining their entire life!   This abysmal political record is thought of as being “just American”

Putting coal miners back to work was an empty election promise.   The market pressures killed the coal jobs, not climate change regulations.  The latter at the forefront because the climate meetings in Paris which Trump is in full denial of, put forward the conclusion “If we do away with coal fired power we can curb the climate change”  This same group of 100 countries said NO to cap and trade as it was nothing more than a scam allowing for the movement of large sums of money across borders without taxation.  Instead, they endorsed a carbon tax.

There is no real Segway into the Galveston and Huston flooding in Texas but; here goes.

The Americans and Conservatives, in general, refuse to acknowledge climate change.  That could be why the link   https://albertathedetails.blogspot.ca/2017/01/climate-change-and-state-of-world-is.html has taken thousands of hits, mostly from the US.

The oceans have already risen 3”.  Doesn’t sound like much; However, it allows for a much greater wave action.  This same wave action brings about an earlier breakup in the Arctic caused by a thinner ice cover.   The cliffs of Herschel Island are falling into the water along with 1000 miles of Arctic coast line erosion.  This dirt into the water will make it darker and will escalate the whole warming thing,

Multiply the much greater wave action by several hundred times when the high and persisting winds swept the ocean into the flood plain of Galveston/Huston effectively blocking drainage of the rivers which had flow increased by heavy and ongoing rains.

This flood plain has been known for close to a hundred years yet; no one Government has stepped up to do anything about it.   By comparison, The Netherlands is more than 50% below sea level with the ocean engineered to stay out.

If the US had taken the problem in hand as the Netherlands did they would not have to be concerned as much about flooding!

Instead, the attitude is  “It is Un-American to engineer our country”   Storms?  No.  The Americans are authors of their own misfortunes including Trump.

This document is even more important today than when it was first published.

NOTE THE DATE OF THE ORGINAL

Thursday, October 05, 2006
Friday, October 22, 2004

The Occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein

This is their history! Make them accountable at the poles!
Honorable Ralph Klein,
August 26, 2003
Room 307 Legislative Building,
Edmonton, AB T4K 2C6

Re:- The occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein.Dear Premier:

The compelling information you have regarding climate change is near catastrophic and puts Alberta on the course of a climate very similar to Southern Iraq or Turkey more probably on the short term rather than the long.

Extremes in weather and unpredictable weather such as storms, hurricanes, drought and flood are parts of the scenario. Ongoing drought and forest fires are going to be the norm rather than the exception. Forest fires and unprecedented pestilence are but symptoms of the climate change rapidly coming upon us.

Lakes will become mud holes and rivers will dry up. (The Prince George area has massive beetle infestation because the temperatures haven’t dropped to the -40 that is required to kill them off; All in the last 5 years!) The extending drought has already caused the earth to move away from house foundations around Alberta causing them to crack. I would think any one who has built in the last 6 years has recourse on the Government because of a lack of proper building standards to account for these known changes.

When your Environment department confirmed the above they also said studies were being made on how to use the unusable (un-potable) rivers of water from the Viking aquifer. Considering the oil companies have been accessing this "bad" water for year’s further studies would only be for the purpose of stalling for time.

Oil companies site only the added expense, by comparison to surface water, as being the only real draw back! I recall people in Parkland County complaining their water wells went dry after seismic went through their region. They speculated the seismic had damaged the upper water aquifer. Your response was less than caring. "Prove it" you said.

Knowing what you know about the weather change and dwindling water resource it is irresponsible for you to allow oil companies to use any drinkable water for injection into the wells for oil recovery! Your water plan amounts to a charge on Alberta residences for the water taken by oil companies and pumped down hole.When do the oil companies start paying for the damages they have done and the water they have already ruined or wasted?

It seems to be your plan to stall full public disclosure of information on climate change until the oil is gone, the drinking water is gone and the oil companies have moved on?

Why are the Oil companies not made to pay for the water used and, the water they have already used? They are largely responsible for the havoc and contamination sludge in the lakes caused by the drafting of water by trucks. An optimistic view of conventional oil and gas supplies runs at 15 years until we are dry. Other views run as low as 6 years.

By then you hope to have the methane tapped from coal reserves always draining fresh water supplies. As usual it is the average family in Alberta financing the oil companies and now the power companies! You have sold off all the cheap and accessible oil and gas leaving Albertans to pay premium prices for this same source while looking forward to even higher costs for British Columbia and Mackenzie Delta gas.

Having already ravaged the water tables you are planning a horrific operation on methane recovery from coal seams. Soon enough; no gas, no oil and no water, living in a desert; Oil companies gone leaving their damages behind them or in shell "management" companies.

I have also received a note from the Minister in charge of power transmission who gave me some hand outs telling me "ALBERTAN’S HAVE ALWAYS PAID FOR THE TRANMISSION OF THEIR POWER." Albertans have never had to pay for exporting electricity! There is no plan where individual rate payers will receive a direct refund on the power lines you are asking them to pay for when these same power lines are used to export electricity to the US!Again it is the individuals of Alberta financing the power companies.

Returns to so called General Revenues are not acceptable. Direct and full refunds to power bills and on going profit sharing on power bills is only just acceptable.

The oil and gas is all but gone. All sold out from under us leaving no advantages at all. You are looking for gas supply now in British Columbia, the Fort St. John area (down some 7000 feet) and twisting arms tying to get the finance in place to move gas from the Mackenzie Delta.

You have moved Albertans from access to inexpensive self sustained gas to the highest utility in Canada with promises of going still higher I don’t accept your BS on NAFTA stopping energy rebates. NAFTA concerns its self with industries. A rebate program would be seen as a "district" issue and not of interest to them. I also don’t agree with your multi billion dollar fund set aside to get you elected again although you may consider that an emergency.

But then again I don’t agree with your creeping taxation on drink containers and access fees which goes directly to lunch boxes and families, hitting every person in this province to get millions in funds to put into your "surplus."Wreck the water supplies, plunder the gas and oil utility. Sell off the citizen owned electrical power at pennies on the dollar; exploit the people further by making them pay the highest rates in Canada for the use of the utility you gave away.

Further, tax them to finance the building of the power lines for the same people who took over the utilities for nothing in the first place.Your policy has long been Oil or nothing. We end up with nothing. Kill any industry that may lean upon the oil companies, stifle any other growth with high costs use police to entrap or coerce to this end regardless of the toll on families and health. The oil is gone and we have nothing.

As I write this letter every province in Canada is exporting up scale manufactured items ranging from pharmaceuticals to hardware to packaging. Your mega government is thinking "maybe microbiology as an industry"

The world has moved on but this province is still mired and dying in your private sunshine.I wrote you regarding the gas burning studies which are in place showing the toxic nature of regular gas and sour gas give off high levels of ferons and bi phenols as well as a long list of noxious gases because of improper burns. I gave you the doctor’s name that did one of the more recent studies asking when you were going to release this information to the public. You sent it forward to Environment and, they have never answered.

It is good to see your on going support of insurance companies is coming back to haunt you, big time. Millions spent in developing hail controls, all turned over to the insurance companies to administer. They invested their accident "reserves" into stock and dot coms which crashed. This, according to conversation with the insurance bureau early 02. If we have to bankroll their business investment losses as least all insurance should be a tax deductible! The harsh and unreasonable premiums have every thing to do with investment and little or nothing to do with driving records!

I have been told that conversations regarding turning photo radar clips over to the insurance companies as a means to increase their revenues has enjoyed more time than it should.You continue to drag this province into oblivion.

John ClarkCc;/various.net. pdf
Posted by: John Clark / 11:24 PM

# posted by John Clark @ 12:35 PM 0 comments

The occupation of Alberta by the Conservatives.

Honorable Ralph Klein, August 26, 2003
Room 307
Legislative Building,
Edmonton, AB T4K 2C6

Re:- The occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein.

Dear Premier:

The compelling information you have regarding climate change is near catastrophic and puts Alberta on the course of a climate very similar to Southern Iraq or Turkey more probably on the short term rather than the long. We do not have the river systems of these countries.

Extremes in weather and unpredictable weather are parts of the scenario. Ongoing drought and forest fires are going to be the norm rather than the exception. Forest fires and unprecedented pestilence are but symptoms of the climate change rapidly coming upon us. Lakes will become mud holes and rivers will dry up.

The extending drought has already caused the earth to move away from house foundations around Alberta causing them to crack. I would think any one who has built in the last 6 years has recourse on the Government because of a lack of proper building standards to account for these known changes.

When your Environment department confirmed the above they also said studies were being made on how to use the unusable (un-potable) rivers of water from the Viking aquifer. Considering the oil companies have been accessing this “bad” water for years further studies would only be for the purpose of stalling for time. Oil companies site only the added expense, by comparison to surface water, as being the only real draw back!

I recall people in Parkland County complaining their water wells went dry after seismic went through their region. They speculated the seismic had damaged the upper water aquifer. Your response was less than caring.

Knowing what you know about the weather change and dwindling water resource it is irresponsible for you to allow oil companies to use any drinkable water for injection into the wells for oil recovery! Your water plan amounts to a charge on Alberta residences for the water taken by oil companies and pumped down hole.

When do the oil companies start paying for the damages they have done and the water they have already ruined or wasted? Is seems to be your plan to stall full public disclosure of information on climate change until the oil is gone, the drinking water is gone and the oil companies have moved on?

Why are the Oil companies not made to pay for the water used and, the water they have already used? They are largely responsible for the havoc and contamination sludge in the lakes caused by the drafting of water by trucks.

An optimistic view of conventional oil and gas supplies runs at 15 years until we are dry. Other views run as low as 6 years. By then you hope to have the methane tapped from coal reserves always draining fresh water supplies. As usual it is the average family in Alberta financing the oil companies and now the power companies!

You have sold off all the cheap and accessible oil and gas leaving Albertans to pay premium prices for this same source while looking forward to even higher costs for British Columbia and Mackenzie Delta gas.

Having already ravaged the water tables you are planning a horrific operation on methane recovery from coal seams. Soon enough; no gas, no oil and no water, living in a desert; Oil companies gone leaving their damages behind them or in shell “management” companies.

I have also received a note from the Minister in charge of power transmission who gave me some hand outs telling me “ALBERTAN’S HAVE ALWAYS PAID FOR THE TRANMISSION OF THEIR POWER.” Albertans have never had to pay for exporting electricity! There is no plan where individual rate payers will receive a direct refund on the power lines you are asking them to pay for when these same power lines are used to export electricity to the US! Again it is the individuals of Alberta financing the power companies. Returns to so called General Revenues are not acceptable. Direct and full refunds to power bills and on going profit sharing on power bills is only just acceptable.

The conventional oil and gas is all but gone. All sold out from under us leaving no advantages at all. You are looking for gas supply now in British Columbia, the Fort St. John area (down some 7000 feet) and twisting arms tying to get the finance in place to move gas from the Mackenzie Delta. You have moved Albertan’s from access to inexpensive self sustained gas to the highest utility in Canada with promises of going still higher.

I don’t by your BS on NAFTA stopping energy rebates. NAFTA concerns its self with industries. A rebate program would be seen as a “district” issue and not of interest to them. I also don’t agree with your multi billion dollar fund set aside to get you elected again although you may consider that an emergency. But then again I don’t agree with your creeping taxation on drink containers and access fees which goes directly to lunch boxes and families, hitting every person in this province to get millions in funds to put into your “surplus.”

Wreck the water supplies, plunder the gas and oil utility. Sell off the citizen owned electrical power at pennies on the dollar; exploit the people further by making them pay the highest rates in Canada for the use of the utility you gave away. Further, tax them to finance the building of the power lines for the same people who took over the utilities for nothing in the first place.

Your policy has long been Oil or nothing. We end up with nothing. Kill any industry that may lean upon the oil companies, use police to entrap or coerce to this end regardless of the toll on families and health. The oil is gone and we have nothing. As I write this letter every province in Canada is exporting up scale manufactured items ranging from pharmaceuticals to hardware to packaging. Your mega government is “thinking maybe microbiology as an industry”

The world has moved on but this province is still mired and dying in your private sunshine.

I wrote you regarding the gas burning studies which are in place showing the toxic nature of regular gas and sour gas give off high levels of ferons and bi phenols as well as a long list of noxious gases because of improper burns. I gave you the doctor’s name that did one of the more recent studies asking when you were going to release this information to the public. You sent it forward to Environment and, they have never answered.

It is good to see your on going support of insurance companies is coming back to haunt you, big time. Millions spent in developing hail controls – all turned over to the insurance companies to administer. They invested their accident “reserves” into stock and dot coms which crashed. This according to conversation with the insurance bureau early 02.

If we have to bankroll their business investment losses as least all insurance should be a tax deductible! The harsh and unreasonable premiums have every thing to do with investment and little or nothing to do with driving records! I have been told that conversations regarding turning photo radar clips over to the insurance companies as a means to increase their revenues has enjoyed more time than it should.

You continue to drag this province into oblivion.


John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca

Cc;/various.net. pdf

Climate Change first publlished in 2003

This document is even more critical today than when it was first published.
NOTE THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL August 26, 2003.

Thursday, October 05, 2006
Friday, October 22, 2004

The Occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein

This is their history!  Make them accountable at the poles!
Honorable Ralph Klein,
August 26, 2003
Room 307 Legislative Building,
Edmonton, AB T4K 2C6

Re:- The occupation of Alberta by Ralph Klein
Dear Premier:

The compelling information you have regarding climate change is near catastrophic and puts Alberta on the course of a climate very similar to Southern Iraq or Turkey more probably on the short term rather than the long.

Extremes in weather and unpredictable weather such as storms, hurricanes, drought and flood are parts of the scenario. Ongoing drought and forest fires are going to be the norm rather than the exception. Forest fires and unprecedented pestilence are but symptoms of the climate change rapidly coming upon us.

Lakes will become mud holes and rivers will dry up. (The Prince George area has a massive beetle infestation because the temperatures haven’t dropped to the -40 that is required to kill them off; All in the last five years!) The extending drought has already caused the earth to move away from house foundations around Alberta causing them to crack. I would think anyone who has built in the last six years has recourse to the Government because of a lack of proper building standards to account for these known changes.

When your Environment department confirmed the above, they also said studies were being made on how to use the unusable (un-potable) rivers of water from the Viking aquifer. Considering the oil companies have been accessing this "bad" water for year’s further studies would only be to stall for time.

Oil companies site only the added expense, by comparison to surface water, as being the only real drawback! I recall people in Parkland County complaining their water wells went dry after seismic went through their region. They speculated the seismic had damaged the upper water aquifer. Your response was less than caring. "Prove it," you said.

Knowing what you know about the weather change and dwindling water resource it is irresponsible for you to allow oil companies to use any drinkable water for injection into the wells for oil recovery! Your water plan amounts to a charge on Alberta residences for the water taken by oil companies and pumped downhole.When do the oil companies start paying for the damages they have done and the water they have already ruined or wasted?

It seems to be your plan to stall full public disclosure of information on climate change until the oil is gone, the drinking water is gone, and the oil companies have moved on?

Why are the Oil companies not made to pay for the water used and, the water they have already used? They are primarily responsible for the havoc and contamination sludge in the lakes caused by the drafting of water by trucks. An optimistic view of conventional oil and gas supplies runs at 15 years until we are dry. Other aspects run as low as six years.

By then you hope to have the methane tapped from coal reserves always draining freshwater supplies. As usual, it is the average family in Alberta financing the oil companies and now the power companies! You have sold off all the cheap and accessible oil and gas leaving Albertans to pay premium prices for this same source while looking forward to even higher costs for British Columbia and Mackenzie Delta gas.

Having already ravaged the water tables you are planning a horrific operation on methane recovery from coal seams. Soon enough; no gas, no oil and no water, living in a desert; Oil companies have gone leaving their damages behind them or in shell "management" companies.

I have also received a note from the Minister in charge of power transmission who gave me some handouts telling me "ALBERTAN’S HAVE ALWAYS PAID FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF THEIR POWER." Albertans have never had to pay for exporting electricity! There is no plan where individual ratepayers will receive a direct refund on the power lines you are asking them to pay for when these same power lines are used to export electricity to the US!  Again it is the individuals of Alberta financing the power companies.

Returns to so-called General Revenues are not acceptable. Direct and full refunds to power bills and ongoing profit sharing on power bills are only just adequate.

The oil and gas are all but gone. All sold out from under us leaving no advantages at all. You are looking for gas supply now in British Columbia, the Fort St. John area (down some 7000 feet) and twisting arms trying to get the finance in place to move gas from the Mackenzie Delta.

You have moved Albertans from access to inexpensive self-sustained gas to the highest utility in Canada with promises of going still higher I don’t accept your BS on NAFTA stopping energy rebates. NAFTA concerns its self with industries. A rebate program would be seen as a "district" issue and not of interest to them. I also don’t agree with your multi-billion dollar fund set aside to get you elected again although you may consider that an emergency.

But then again I don’t agree with your creeping taxation on drink containers and access fees which goes directly to lunch boxes and families, hitting every person in this province to get millions in funds to put into your "surplus."Wreck the water supplies, plunder the gas and oil utility. Sell off the citizen owned electrical power at pennies on the dollar; exploit the people further by making them pay the highest rates in Canada for the use of the utility you gave away.

Further, tax them to finance the building of the power lines for the same people who took over the utilities for nothing in the first place. Your policy has long been Oil or nothing. We end up with nothing. Kill any industry that may lean upon the oil companies, stifle any other growth with high costs use police to entrap or coerce to this end regardless of the toll on families and health. The oil is gone, and we have nothing.

As I write this letter every province in Canada is exporting upscale manufactured items ranging from pharmaceuticals to hardware to packaging. Your mega government is thinking "maybe microbiology as an industry."

The world has moved on, but this province is still mired and dying in your private sunshine. I wrote you regarding the gas burning studies which are in place showing the toxic nature of regular gas and sour gas give off high levels of ferons and bi phenols as well as a long list of noxious gases because of improper burns. I gave you the doctor’s name that did one of the more recent studies asking when you were going to release this information to the public. You sent it forward to Environment and, they have never answered.

It is good to see your ongoing support of insurance companies is coming back to haunt you, big time. Millions spent in developing hail controls; all turned over to the insurance companies to administer. They invested their accident "reserves" into stock and dot-coms which crashed. This, according to the conversation with the insurance bureau early 02. If we have to bankroll their business investment losses at least, all insurance should be a tax deductible! The harsh and unreasonable premiums have everything to do with investment and little or nothing to do with driving records!

I have been told that conversations regarding turning photo radar clips over to the insurance companies as a means to increase their revenues have enjoyed more time than it should.  You continue to drag this province into oblivion.

John ClarkCc;/various.net. pdf

Weather

The weather document has a lot of good, current information in it. I can't let it die.

Bush wasn't the only guy covering up climate change implications! The Government of Canada and more important to us, the Government of Alberta burried climate change by calling any one who complained about the environment a "tree hugger" in the most critical manner.

This document was the first in the public media to map out the implication of climate change.

Google some time after this put in a program to locate and log original source material. They catalogued this letter.

For a year, any time you Googled "Weather" the first page that came up was this letter, posted on Welcome to Ralph's world.

After I left that site, some needed housekeeping was done and directories were changed. This letter was moved or deleted, I'm not sure which and the world wide listing for Google was lost for ever.

Lesson to be learned here!

John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca

 

Critique of the English Debate 

Critique of the English Debate

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 JOHN CLARKLEAVE A COMMENT

It is time to put the Liberals in strong! Trudeau made a deal with Quebec to put 8 billion dollars into their child care program. Today the Premier of Quebec said “it wasn’t needed” It is time to clean the slate of Conservatives!

My view is it is all Verbal diarrhea Can you Imagine what kind of shape we would be in now if O’Toole was leading us through this pandemic? We would have been on the “let God sort it out” train for the duration. #leadership

From <https://www.linkedin.com/feed/>

Critique of the English Debate.

Much was left out and curtailed by the Conservatives because of their accounting methods!

They made much of “no Conditions”

Conservatives put all the incoming cash into General Revenues then, spend at random out of that account.

Health payments from Ottawa would go into General Revenues if they had their way!

Ottawa has asked for an accounting that health care money was spent on health care and, the Conservatives don’t care for this.

On the Quebec pipeline pushed by O’Toole.  Firstly Quebec lost a major electrical contract with the USA .  This, leaves them short billions.  They have suggested they will accept a pipeline from the west if, the west will agree to buy their surplus generation.   Unfortunately, Alberta’s electricity is owned by the cities, Edmonton (EPCOR) and Calgary (ENMAX) this supplements our tax base so, there is no way wean work with PQ on this item. Quebec, on the other hand picked up 3 billion a year from California when Ford cancelleld Ontario’s cap and trade program. However, that should be gone now, as in timed out.

O’Toole is fanning the flames of dissent trying to start something with a  pipeline. 

Irving Oil Company gets it’s oil off the ocean on the east coast and supplies Montreal refinery with I think, finished product.    Montreal Refinery gets its bulk oil in over the
Great Lakes.  Both these systems are far less expensive than is pipeline construction and oil paying for it.

So the debate went round and round, the truth was never heard.  Trudeau kept quite though the whole exchange, showing good sense. He did point out the 8 billion paid into Quebec’s daycare was the first province to get it, the plan is in mothion to cover all the other provinces the same way, to scale.

Trudeau came under attack on the Kabul people left behind. He barely got out that  20,000 people were on their way using a third country and Jagmeet Singh

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042>

 jumped in with the complaint about 20 or so people remaining even though Trudeau said they were working on it.  Sing spent the night trying to make a hit he lost ground from the French debate.

Mr. Blanchet made a good show for PQ even when he was on the defensive from Jagmeet.

Jagmeet bounced Trudeau on having the worse record of the G7.  Actually Canada has the lowest GDP in the G7, Must be what he was talking about. 

Canada has the 10th largest economy in the world, valued at around $U.S. 1.74 trillion as of 2019.

And, that is pretty dam good!

From <https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/group-of-seven-g7-countries.html>

More on the G7 Comparison. 

In 2019 — the first year of the federal carbon pricing system, commonly called the “carbon tax” — Canada produced 730 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, an increase of one megatonne — or 0.2 per cent — over 2018.

However, the economy grew faster than emissions did in 2019 — which means the country’s “emissions intensity” is lower than it has been in the past.

The 730 megatonnes of emissions recorded in 2019 is slightly higher than the 723 megatonnes Canada churned out in 2015, the year Trudeau first took office. This was because of increased industry!

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042>

O’Toole has said that, if he’s elected, he will push the reset button on Canada’s climate plan, returning to the previous national target of reducing emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Trudeau said O’Toole threatens to drag Canada back to “the Harper years,” when former prime minister Stephen Harper committed to less ambitious environmental action.

Typical Conservative who, a month ago had no plan at all has decided to go back to 2005 numbers because they are lower. The man seems to want to play it bent as a first choice!

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042>

“We have to win back trust on this issue — we haven’t met the expectations of Canadians on climate change,” O’Toole said. He defended his lower target, saying his plan is actually doable and would not tank Canada’s resource-rich economy.

He could have started with the current truth if he wanted to win back trust!

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042>

“Mr. O’Toole can’t even convince his party that climate change is real because they voted against that,” Trudeau said, referring to a failed Conservative party convention motion to declare that “climate change is real.”

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042>

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh also piled on, saying “Justin Trudeau has failed all of us. You had six years and you’ve got the worst track record in the G7 after six years.”  jAGMEET can go sit with O’Toole.

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042>

Canada’s housing stock is among the priciest in the world, with the average price of a single-family home costing well over $1 million in the Toronto and Vancouver urban areas. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association’s MLS system, the average price of a home in Canada is $716,000, an eye-popping figure that means property ownership is a distant dream for many.

“There’s a housing crisis and Mr. Trudeau is making it worse,” O’Toole said. To address this, the Conservative housing plan commits to building one million new homes over three years while easing mortgage requirements and making more federal land available for development.  The point is, you have watched for 3 weeks while our lumber out of the midwest BC and the US has been Torched.

This was our lumber inventory!  Lumber is now a semi-precious commodity and housing is being built on current costs, older housing is going up to reflect the value of the lumber in them.  Don’t sell cheap.  In answering this O’Toole decides to game it. Make a deal with the most fluent party of our population giving them tax concession or access to cheap money.

From <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-leaders-debate-election-2021-1.6170042

Share this:

Tax vx. Cap-and Trade- Dion wins!

Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade
Note: The New York Times’ Nov. 2, 2007 on-line piece, The Real Climate Debate: To Cap or to Tax?, is a superb primer on the carbon-pricing debate. CTC’s Charles Komanoff is quoted for the carbon tax side. In addition, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer presented an excellent series of conversations about possible approaches to deal with global climate change. CTC’s Dan Rosenblum presented the carbon tax side in an April 11, 2007 interview.
CTC regards carbon taxes as superior to carbon cap-and-trade systems for six fundamental reasons:
1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

3. Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

4. Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

5. Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.

6. Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through dividends or progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.
1.

Carbon Taxes Will Lend Predictability to Energy Prices. With carbon taxes ramped up through a multi-year phase-in, future energy and power prices can be predicted with a reasonable degree of confidence well ahead of time. This will make it possible for literally millions of energy-critical decisions — from the design of new electricity generating plants to the purchase of the family car to the materials used in commercial airframes — to be made with full cognizance of carbon-appropriate price signals. In contrast, a cap-and-trade program will exacerbate the volatility of energy prices since the price of carbon allowances will fluctuate as weather and economic factors affect the demand for energy. The vaunted advantage of cap-and-trade — that future levels of carbon emissions can be known ahead of time — is mostly notional, moreover, since most cap-and-trade systems under discussion include a "safety-valve" for auctioning off additional carbon allowances if the price of allowances exceeds a predetermined level. And even certainty in future emission levels is of questionable value, since there is no agreed-upon trajectory of emissions for achieving climate stability and preventing disaster. The real target for which the U.S. must aim is to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible, and then more.

Carbon Taxes Will Provide Quicker Results. The taxes themselves can be designed and adopted quickly and fairly. Cap-and-trade systems, by contrast, are devilishly complex and will take years to develop and implement. Thorny issues must be addressed intellectually and resolved politically; the proper level of the cap, timing, allowance allocations, certification procedures, standards for use of offsets, penalties, regional conflicts, the inevitable requests for exceptions by affected parties and a myriad of other complex issues must all be resolved before cap-and-trade systems can be implemented. During this time, polluters will continue to emit carbon with no cost consequences.

Carbon Taxes Are Transparent and Are Easier to Understand than Cap-and-Trade. A carbon tax is transparent and easy to understand; the government simply imposes a tax per ton of carbon emitted, which is easily translated into a tax per kWh of electricity, gallon of gasoline or therm of natural gas. By contrast, the prices for carbon set under a cap-and-trade system will vary with market fluctuations and be impossible even for big business (let alone small businesses or consumers) to predict. A cap-and-trade system will require a complex and difficult to understand market structure in order to balance the many competing interests and ensure that the trading system minimizes abuse and maximizes real carbon reductions.
A Carbon Tax’s Simplicity Inoculates it Against the Perverse Incentives and Potential for Profiteering that Will Accompany Cap-and-Trade. In contrast to the simple and straightforward process of implementing a carbon tax, the protracted negotiations necessary to implement a cap-and-trade system will provide constant opportunities for the fossil fuel industry and other invested parties to shape a system that maximizes their financial self-interests as opposed to an economically efficient system that maximizes societal well-being. If allowances are allocated based on some type of baseline reflecting past pollution (which has been the practice with NOx and SO2trading programs), rather than being auctioned, polluters will have perverse incentives to maximize emissions before the cap-and-trade system goes into effect in order to "earn" those pollution rights. (The voluntary carbon cap-and-trade system currently operating has already been criticized for questionable offsets that have produced huge profits but little environmental benefit. See Outsize Profits, and Questions, in Effort to Cut Warming Gases, New York Times, Dec. 21, 2006.)
Carbon Taxes Address All Sectors and Activities Producing Carbon Emissions. Carbon taxes target carbon emissions in all sectors — energy, industry and transportation — whereas at least some cap-and-trade proposals are limited to the electric industry. It would be unwise to ignore the non-electricity sectors that account for 60% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
Carbon Taxes Can Produce a Far More Equitable Result than Cap-and-Trade. As discussed in our Issue Paper, Managing the Impacts, carbon tax revenues can be returned through dividends or can be used to fund progressive tax-shifting to reduce regressive payroll or sales taxes. The costs of cap-and-trade systems, both implementation and the costs incurred as more expensive technologies replace older and less expensive coal-fired combustion, are far more likely to be imposed upon consumers with less possibility of rebating or tax-shifting. Moreover, because cap-and-trade relies on market participants to determine a fair price for carbon allowances on an ongoing basis, it could easily devolve into a self-perpetuating province of lawyers, economists, lobbyists and other market participants bent on maximizing their profits on each cap-and-trade transaction. As Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. stated in his Jan. 24, 2007 Wall Street Journal "Business World" column (subscription only):

General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar and other industrial pigpens this week endorsed cap-and-trade limits on carbon dioxide, which would turn their established habit of using the atmosphere as a free waste disposal into a property right, worth billions. Talk about a low-hanging fruit. They are accustomed to treating carbon dumping as a gimme. Now they’d at least be in a position to get paid for dumping less.

The dollars that will be funneled into making the market work could be better spent reducing regressive taxes, protecting poorer households and/or helping consumers use less energy.
* * *
Addenda
The "emissions certainty" touted by cap-and-trade supporters was recently put in perspective by the Financial Times: "[Carbon cap-and-trade systems] fix the amount of carbon abated, not its price. Getting the amount of emissions a little bit wrong in any year would hardly upset the global climate. But excessive volatility or unduly high prices of quotas on carbon emissions might disrupt the economy severely. [Carbon] taxes create needed certainty about prices, while markets in emission quotas [i.e., cap-and-trade systems] create unnecessary certainty about the short-term quantity of emissions." Financial Times, Carbon Markets Create a Muddle, April 26, 2007.

Note these two developments in the cap vs. tax debate last May:
First, CTC co-director Charles Komanoff examined the unsettling environmental politics behind cap-and-trade systems in a May 22, 2007 piece in Gristmill, while also debunking climate crisis denial from Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn. Environmental Defense posted a response, also in Gristmill. Our rejoinder to Environmental Defense can also be found in Gristmill. The full discussion is here on our blog. (In Feb. 2007, Gristmill also carried Environmental Defense’s argument against carbon taxing, and CTC’s rebuttal.)

Second, the Los Angeles Times ran a superb and comprehensive (1,600 words) editorial during the 2007 Memorial Day weekend, Time for a Carbon Tax. Under the banner, "A carbon tax is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to combat cataclysmic climate change," the editorial delivers a point-by-point refutation of arguments for settling for a carbon cap-and trade system. Here are key excerpts:

[F]or all its benefits, cap-and-trade still isn’t the most effective or efficient approach [for reducing carbon emissions]. That distinction goes to … a carbon tax. While cap-and-trade creates opportunities for cheating, leads to unpredictable fluctuations in energy prices and does nothing to offset high power costs for consumers, carbon taxes can be structured to sidestep all those problems while providing a more reliable market incentive to produce clean-energy technology.

To understand the drawbacks of cap-and-trade, one has to look not only at the successful U.S. acid rain program but the failed European Emissions Trading Scheme, the first phase of which started in January 2005. European Union members each developed emissions goals, then passed out credits to polluters. Yet for a variety of reasons, the initial cap was set so high that the polluters fell under it without making any reductions at all. The Europeans are working to improve the scheme in the next phase, but their chances of success aren’t good.

One reason is the power of lobbyists. In Europe. as in the U.S., special interests have a way of warping the political process so that, for example, a corporation generous with its campaign contributions might win an excessive number of credits. It’s also very easy in many European countries to cheat; because there aren’t strong agencies to monitor and verify emissions, companies or utilities can pretend they’re cleaner than they are.

The latter problem might be avoided in the U.S. by beefing up the Environmental Protection Agency. But there’s reason to suspect that many of the corporate interests pushing for a federal cap-and-trade program are hoping for a seat at the table when credits are passed out, and they will doubtless fudge numbers to maximize their credits; some companies stand to make a great deal of money under a trading system. Also hoping to profit, honestly or not, would be carbon traders. Large financial institutions would jump into the exchange to collect commissions on carbon trades, just as they do with crude oil and wheat. This presents opportunities for Enron-style market manipulation.

Cap-and-trade would also have a nasty effect on consumers’ power bills. Say there’s a very hot summer week in California. Utilities would have to shovel more coal to produce more juice, causing their emissions to rise sharply. To offset the carbon, they would have to buy more credits, and the heavy demand would cause credit prices to skyrocket. The utilities would then pass those costs on to their customers, meaning that power bills might vary sharply from one month to the next.

That kind of price volatility, which has been endemic to both the American and European cap-and-trade systems, doesn’t just hurt consumers. It actually discourages innovation, because in times when power demand is low, power costs are low, and there is little incentive to come up with cleaner technologies. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists prefer stable prices so they can calculate whether they can make enough money by building a solar-powered mousetrap to make up for the cost of producing it.

Carbon taxes avoid all that. A carbon tax simply imposes a tax for polluting based on the amount emitted, thus encouraging polluters to clean up and entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives. The tax is constant and predictable. It doesn’t require the creation of a new energy trading market, and it can be collected by existing state and federal agencies. It’s straightforward and much harder to manipulate by special interests than the politicized process of allocating carbon credits.

And it could be structured to be far less harmful to power consumers. While all the added costs under cap-and-trade go to companies, utilities and traders, the added costs under a carbon tax would go to the government, which could use the revenues to offset other taxes. So while consumers would pay more for energy, they might pay less income tax, or some other tax. That could greatly cushion the overall economic effect.

http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/