Contact us now: Phone: +111111111

CHP

Commentary

Axing the Tax Is Not Enough; We Must Defend CO2!

Tue, April 09, 2024   |   Author: Taylor   |   Volume 31    Issue 15 | Share: Gab | Facebook | Twitter   

With Canadians reeling from inflation, and rising up across the country to “Axe the Tax” on carbon dioxide, we in the Christian Heritage Party certainly support every effort to end the punitive, useless and disingenuous penalty on the use of carbon-based fuels that has caused so much harm to our economy and done so little for the environment.

But often, those calling for an end to the PM’s nightmarish obsession with controlling carbon consumption by taxing the daylight out of hard-working families—instead of confronting the faulty science that has deluded a generation with fears of world-ending, species-destroying climate change—have complained about the Carbon Tax, while offering their own alternative plans to “lower emissions” and “reduce our carbon footprint.”

In attacking the Carbon Tax, while supporting the goals of the anti-CO2 crowd, these folks are sort of missing the point. While there is certainly political benefit in rallying the beleaguered taxpayers who have been hardest hit by the direct and indirect costs of taxing the fuels that heat our homes, provide transportation and grow our crops, the question few are asking is: Where’s the evidence that CO2 is catastrophically changing our climate?

Passionate advocates for reducing the use of fossil fuels insist that the science is settled; they’ve seen Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and heard him explain the hockey stick. But—like many popular opinions over the centuries—just because a majority believe something doesn’t mean it’s true. Al Gore’s claim to “settled science” rests on a flimsy foundation with a massive propaganda campaign by governments, industry and the mainstream media. Oh yes, and the complicit and compromised public education system.

To the deeply committed opponents of CO2—the ones who claim it’s warming the planet at an alarming rate and will destroy mankind and many species unless we sharply curtail its use—it doesn’t matter what science is presented that contradicts their thesis. They will carry on the war against CO2 regardless. For some, this has become a business proposition. As the mandated use of covid “vaccines” benefited Big Pharma, creating instant millionaires and billionaires, so the Green Energy Industry has benefited from the installation of countless solar panels and wind turbines and the soon-to-be mandated use of electric cars, however expensive and however impractical those may be.

We could easily dwell on the social, economic and environmental damage done by ill-conceived government policies, such as:

  • Environmental hazards in lithium brinefields;
  • Wind turbine propellors that not only kill eagles and other migratory birds but that cannot be recycled and must form massive graveyards;
  • Health hazards to man and beast due to deep vibrations (obviously a topic of debate);
  • The destruction of freshwater wells by the deep penetration of turbine pilings into previously healthy aquifers;
  • The loss of agricultural land covered in cement where wind turbines have been installed, . . .

. . . to name a few. The economic damage of relying on inefficient and inconsistent wind and solar is unbelievable and adds insult to injury when combined with the disastrous inflationary impact of the Carbon Tax. Ontario putting up wind turbines so they can sell inexpensive hydro power to the US at a loss is just one example . . .

But what if all this effort and expense were wasted on a false, unproven theory? What if CO2 were actually good for the environment? What if plants actually benefited from an increase in CO2 and mankind were to benefit directly from an increase with more productive crops, healthier forests and more affordable food?

Before the carbon-hating crowd gets out their pitchforks and tries to sequester my carbon-based body once and for all, let me say that I oppose real pollution. I oppose the release of unnatural man-made chemicals into the atmosphere, into the freshwater aquifers, into the soils and into our oceans. There are toxic chemicals that we have no business releasing into the environment. Some of those chemicals, whether produced in manufacturing, or for agriculture or for deliberate tampering with the weather . . . these chemicals should be the target of environmental activism, and we should adjust our practices to reduce or eliminate them. But CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere. It’s good for plants. The carbon from which it is released by combustion is widely available, relatively inexpensive and is responsible for most of the successful economic growth and development in the world over recent centuries.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Axe the Tax crowd. Eliminating the Carbon Tax (really the CO2 Tax) would be a positive step, would help most Canadians and would help us save our economy. But we mustn’t rush to replace it with some other scheme to reduce CO2. We should focus on protecting the environment from toxic chemicals and helping Canada’s farmers to benefit and prosper from affordable fuels and a slight but beneficial increase in our atmospheric CO2. It’s good for us! (PDF)

CHP Canada has always stood against the real pollutants that are released into our land, sea and air. It’s time to fight a battle that can be won. Join CHP today!

For more on the faulty science used by misguided climate change activists, visit the: International Climate Science Coalition – Canada



Download PDF Version

Share to Gab

Other Commentary by Taylor: