Why The Carbon Tax is Good in Canada
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- This video was designed as a response to a lot of the misinformation I was seeing about the carbon tax and the rhetoric Pierre Poilievre was using and things I was seeing on the r/Canada_Sub
Below are my socials if you'd like to follow future videos and updates.
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / dddecarbon
Twitch: / dddecarbonization
This video is meant to be informative on the concept of the carbon tax as well as provide examples about how it's applied.
0:00 Intro
1:03 How Carbon Taxes Work
5:05 Peachland Example
7:42 Carlton Mushroom Example
9:45 Carbon Tax Impact on Canadians
11:32 Canada Sub Broad Arguments
12:38 En Roads Example
12:51 "Tax Won't Work" Response
15:04 "Natural Cycle" Response
16:46 "What about Canadian Trees?"
17:52 References
I don't have space to fully reference everything, so I've omitted the peach and mushroom examples since they are shown in the video at the end.
1. A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time. Great River Energy earth.org/data_visualization/....
2. Carbon-Sinks_EN_CH-3_Forests.pdf. cca-reports.ca/wp-content/upl....
3. Agency, C. R. Climate action incentive payment. www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agen... (2022).
4. Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov. www.climate.gov/news-features/....
5. Economists’ Statement | Climate Leadership Council. clcouncil.org/economists-stat....
6. En-ROADS Climate Scenario. en-roads.climateinteractive.o....
7. EU Green Tariffs Are Coming-Are You Ready? Preparing for the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment. Darrel H. Pearson www.bennettjones.com:443/Blog....
8. Flue Gas - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. www.sciencedirect.com/topics/....
9. Copyright © 2023. Healing the Ozone Layer. Planet Aid, Inc. www.planetaid.org/blog/healin....
10. Hydrogen Roadmap | Alberta.ca. www.alberta.ca/hydrogen-roadmap.
11. Al Juaied, M. & Whitmore, A. Realistic costs of carbon capture. ETP-DiscussionPaper-2009-08, 960194 www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/960... (2009) doi:10.2172/960194.
12. US EPA, O. Summary of the Clean Air Act. www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/... (2013).
13. There have been five mass extinctions in Earth’s history. Our World in Data ourworldindata.org/mass-extin....
14. Uranium Supplies: Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association. world-nuclear.org/information....
15. Brandl, P., Bui, M., Hallett, J. P. & Mac Dowell, N. Beyond 90% capture: Possible, but at what cost? International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 105, 103239 (2021).
16. 2023 Levelized Cost Of Energy+. www.lazard.com www.lazard.com/research-insig....
17. Carbon Pricing | MIT Climate Portal. climate.mit.edu/explainers/ca....
18. Infographic: BRICS Nations Still Trail G7 in Per-Capita GDP. Statista Daily Data www.statista.com/chart/30641/... (2023).
19. OECD share in world GDP stable at around 50% in PPP terms in 2017 - OCDE. www.oecd.org/fr/sdd/prix-ppa/....
Great video!
To keep in mind, the tax is border adjusted to take into account trading with countries without carbon taxes.
A number of big polluters are putting in place carbon taxes anyways, and most developped countries have seen their emissions going down recently. If we remove the tax while they keep it, all while having it border-adjusted, we will be the ones at a disadvantage in the future since all of our stuff will be carbon-based, while they'll have transitioned.
Also, I hate how for critics of the carbon tax, us contributing to 1.5% of global emissions is nothing, but experiencing an increase in their bill of the same order of magnitude is enough of a justification to kill the tax outright.
Great comment. It was a lot to get through and those are some points I wanted to add to additional videos.
I thought that Canada hadn't yet implemented a border tax and the EU was on the way too.
www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments/exploring-border-carbon-adjustments-canada.html
Great point about the 1.5%
Came from reddit. Great content, love the approach and the breakdown. It's easy to rile people up and the Liberals are bad at explaining their own shit. The vast majority of economists agree that the federal style zero revenue model is actually the most capitalist approach to carbon reduction efforts and it helps as a wealth redistribution mechanism to combat the income inequality.
Trying to explain the theory behind Pigouvian taxes to anyone in r/canada_sub is impossible. Probably doesn't matter anyways because they don't believe climate change exists or has any consequences.
Where did you find the 90/10 ratio for the Canada Carbon tax? I tried looking for that but couldn't find it. Can you link the webpage?
www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html
Look for this heading: Climate Action Incentive payments
This article explains more on it too: www.ctvnews.ca/politics/carbon-pricing-in-canada-what-it-is-what-it-costs-and-why-you-get-a-rebate-1.6627245
You seem to think that it is a good idea while the majority of normal humans hate any taxes.
Sure. That's why I laid out the reasons you implement a tax in the first place for cases like this.
@@DDDecarbon But DDD your reason contradict each other making you argument invalid
People hate tax because the government abuse democracy for political gain***** How to Tax Efficiently
The pivotal question here is whether you're willing to expand your viewpoint and recognize that many of our thoughts are shaped by countless assumptions and biases. Essentially, a considerable significant portion of our thinking can be viewed as ‘wishful’ mental constructs. This is precisely why I strive to base arguments on foundational principles. Let's zero in on the central theme of his argument titled "How to Tax Efficiently," prominently displayed at the 1:05 timestamp in the video. The term "efficiently" within his premise raises a cautionary flag for me. The real issue is determining who has the authority to define "efficiency." Trudeau's interpretation of efficiency, particularly evident in his exemption on home heating oil in the Maritime Provinces, seems to deviate significantly from its dictionary definition. Is it truly efficient, or perhaps just politically expedient? It's essential to be wary of such nuanced distinctions.
Income Tax:
• The assertion suggests that the government can tax efficiently. Let's delve deeper into the realm of income tax-a topic that often misconstrues public perception. Many are led to believe in a Robin Hood narrative: taxing the affluent to support the less privileged. However, this portrayal oversimplifies a complex reality. Consider where income tax funds go: they're allocated to politicians, their pensions, senators, government officials, and their respective retirement benefits. The pertinent question arises: are these individuals genuinely representative of the impoverished? Does this expenditure truly epitomize efficiency?
• Furthermore, when we examine other essential public services like education and healthcare, we encounter dedicated professionals such as teachers, nurses, doctors, and individuals like Phil, the bus driver. While these services are undoubtedly vital, it's worth pondering the circularity of the system. Are tax dollars truly benefiting the less fortunate when, for instance, funds are allocated to teachers' salaries only to be subsequently recollected as tax revenue? Isn't this essentially recycling funds that were, in essence, already derived from taxpayers?
• Can you see essentially, it's a loop where money is circulated within the system. Does this mechanism truly exemplify efficiency in your eyes?
• For those who are younger, it's crucial to recognize that what you may perceive as capitalism does not align with its true principles. If you've been led to believe that current systems represent pure capitalism, you've being misled. It's essential to delve deeper and understand the nuances rather than accepting surface-level narratives.
Canada consumption tax we have GST/PST/HST and who know what else by now:
• Let's delve into the intricacies of sales tax and its implications. Firstly, it's essential to grasp that a sales tax is inherently regressive. This means that individuals with lower incomes end up paying a larger proportion of their earnings in taxes compared to those with higher incomes. The inherent inequity in this structure is evident. So is this tax efficient? The answer is no.
• To address this disparity, governments often introduce tax rebates or credits aimed at alleviating the burden on lower-income individuals. However, this introduces another layer of complexity and inefficiency. Administering these rebates requires an expansion of bureaucratic infrastructure, which entails hiring more government workers and allocating resources for processing-resources that could potentially be used more efficiently elsewhere.
• Let's take, for example, a scenario involving a teacher again. When that teacher what they foolishly think is r hard-earned income because it just recycled tax dollars, a portion of it is subject to consumption tax. As this taxed money circulates back into the tax system, it creates another layer or "loop," so to speak. The question we must ponder is: Does this subsequent loop exhibit any semblance of efficiency, or does it merely add another layer of complexity to an already convoluted system?
Conclusion: How to Tax Efficiently
It's evident to many that the government is inefficient, and the entire Canadian tax system is convoluted and strongly influenced by political interests not the poor or the economy. Remember three key biases from above. A concerning issue in the carbon tax is the allocation: 90% for the people and 10% for the government on the carbon tax. Understanding how this 10% is spent, including its environmental impact, becomes elusive due to longstanding failure in government transparency.
Cheers
Like death and taxes, two things Canadians can rely on heading into 2024 are that the Trudeau government’s carbon tax will keep going up while greenhouse gas emissions will keep rising.
Yes, your point is true because of the Trudeau government immigration policy ensure the Canada carbon foot print will raise
Wait so for BC we wont get 90% back? also why did you show BC Family benefit? Lastly why would a single parent family with a child get less than a non single parent family?
BC gets a benefit under a certain income threshold. Also BC implemented their carbon taxes back in 2008, it's never had anything to do with the federal. Even if Poillivre "Axe'd the Tax" it wouldn't affect BC.
The values are additive for families, so it's 700 + 300 + 300 + 300
@@DDDecarbon Ok but like I feel like CCR you will get more money back as 90/10 but in BC there’s set maximums regardless of how much u spend!! So which party would support CCR in BC?
@@Soovii I'm not sure. BC's system seems to be supported by both parties for decades.
Thank you for this information, I hope that all Canadians can come to understand this rationale.
The Carbon tax is not good for Canada since most country are not adopting a carbon tax we are 39 million in a world of almost 8 billion do the math of cost benefit analyses and you see the irrationality of have a carbon tax in a country of 39 million ----- China, India, USA all missing
Note: Currently, all provinces and territories are subject to a carbon pricing mechanism, either by an in-province program or by one of two federal programs.[1] As of April 2023 the federal minimum tax is set at CA$65 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, set to increase to CA$170 in 2030.
Note: There are currently 27 countries with a carbon tax implemented: Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union (27 countries), Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, and Ukraine.
Look you've commented a number of times on this post so you seem to feel very strongly about it. The issue I take with your points is that you are not only strawmanning them but also taking the least charitable interpretations of what I am saying. This makes me feel like you're engaging in bad faith.
But if you do want to discuss this in more detail, feel free to join the discord (linked in video description) and we can have a broader discussion about the topic.
I'm happy to learn and be corrected but you have not been engaging with the substance of my arguements which is frustrating to say the least.
Good content! Transparent, objective, concise.
Well done sir.
Thanks so much. I plan to make more videos on this subject and Canadian politics broadly
You didn't really address the problem of countries like China, or India. How does taxing Canadians help reduce carbon emissions globally?
I address it to some degree. And the answer is kind of complicated but it's based on including a carbon import tax. So even if a country doesn't have a carbon tax their imports do. Making everything fair and competitive here. The EU is implementing it. Then if a country can show they produced X goods with lower emissions the tax is subsequently reduced. That's why I mentioned the economic power of the G7. But it's a video in and of itself. But even without it I believe in the carbon tax due to the harm principle.
@@DDDecarbon Is Canada's carbon emission only 1.5% globally? I belive this is why Canadians have a difficult time understanding and being taxed when there's heavy carbon polluters such as China, India, and the US.
@@SuperCody888 approximately, that's why I laid out the principle of the tax. Imagine saying something like Canadians factories only pollute 1.5% of Canadians drinking water. This also why I showed the relative costs and that at least for a city dweller like myself the carbon tax is positive if you are a low carbon producer.
Your a fucking knob you don’t care about the cost of living cause it doesn’t effect you people are going homeless and the gov continues to virtue just like YOU get Trudeaus cock out of your mouth EVERYONE KNOWS U HAVE A BELLY BUTTON RING !
@@DDDecarbon That does nothing for the CO2 levels in the world Canada does not import that many goods that claim fails
and try to deny the fact that canada is so low of a pollution emitter that we really cannot do any more than we are, nothing we do makes a notable impact, canada could stop all emissions tomorrow and it wouldnt make a difference.
I address this in the video.
the liberals also constantly push the lie that we get back more than we pay, their own pbo debunks this lie, if its so great why lie to us about it? in fact nobody gets more back as this tax goes down the line and affects everything, making things more expensive for us all, we also have to heat our homes as contrary to what the liberals believe but this is canada and it does get cold here. good luck convincing anyone with an ounce of intelligence that a carbon tax is a good thing, you're not a good salesman.@@DDDecarbon
"Carbon is a harm" ... this is insane
Very good point.... You contradict his argument and reduce it to absurdum****Cheers
@@ardentenquirer8573 You can use the absurdity arguement, but you have to prove absurdity you can't just say something is true then say absurdum.
@@DDDecarbon Mr. jamespearson8630 suggests that your perspective is irrational, while I consistently point out the flaws in your reasoning. Reflect on why Mr. jamespearson8630 views your stance as unreasonable or insane. The reason is straightforward: CO2 is essential for life, and without it, human existence would cease. This aligns with basic biology principles. Do you comprehend why your perspective is flawed and your argument lacks validity?
So jamespearson8630 is correct **** I think he is saying it is not you that is insane it is your thinking that is insane but I could be wrong
You're inaccurately invoking the harm principle, as all humans naturally produce CO2 when they breathe. Therefore, you cannot categorize it as a harm principle or deem it an externality. Can you grasp the inconsistency when taken to its logical extreme? It is absurd or insane thinking
Please feel free to present another argument, as your current video lacks validity due to flawed reasoning on your part. When you construct a consistent argument without contradictions, you'll gain a clearer understanding of the broader perspective.
Cheers
You fool this will make the cost of living MUCH worse!
I see you didn't watch the video, as I show examples of what the cost actually is. It's 30 cents on a 100$ grocery bill or 0.3%
I've had a hard time wrapping my head around this and I found this video much easier to understand! Thank you for putting in the effort and sharing
The video is full of contradictions
@@ardentenquirer8573 I appreciate the engagment you've brought to my video though. If you'd like to point out the contradictions discord is open. We can chat after work or at some time that is convient to you and I.
Do a video on the cost of servicing the debt in the next 10 year cycle the liberals policys are endebting my great grand children your percentage of tax servicing the “ cheap debt “ will be over 15 cents for every dollar given just to service the interest of the debt our country is fucked WE NEED TO LOWER COSTS and reduce tax for Canadians and your saying 30% isn’t a inflationary pressure your A BAD FAITH ACTOR
I said 0.3%....... I agree we need to lower costs and working on reducing housing prices will do wonders for lowering costs. But living in a world with lower crop yields due to climate change will outweigh the small cost now of 1.5% in 6 years.
Nowhere did I state 30%
@@DDDecarbon it’s definitely much higher then that
@@jpo4779 that's not what the data seems to show. Or my calculations but I'd be happy to look at a different analysis if you have one handy.
@@DDDecarbon Crop yields are not down because of climate change it because of government policy please be truthful
And there it is, "incentivize behaviour changes". Again, the tax penalizes Canadians, but there is no alternatives available, depending on your location. Whether its home heating or what a person uses for transportation, it is a costly penalty if there is no alternative available. It may be OK in cities, but what do people do in the far north, where it is cold and dark? Or in rural areas? Where other options for heat does not work? And where EV batteries are nothing but huge useless dead weight? Trudeau and GEE-BOO are stuck on this EV BS. When the mining of the various minerals to construct batteries, is a huge pollution causing activity. Companies should be given incentives, to improve on what we already have available.
Again, we do not live in a bubble, quarantined from the rest of the world. So why destroy Canada's economy, when people are already struggling to survive. How are families supposed to pay for all the extra expenses, for change overs, when they are pushed into it. People have already lost a lot of money over the past 4 yrs. We cannot keep paying high taxes, so Trudeau can jet around the world, on his vacations, on Canadians dime. Or so he can get caught in another money wasting scandal. It's hypocritical Liberal agenda, that does not work. Other countries had the Carbon Tax and scrapped it. Canada should do the same BTW what was the flavour of the Liberal Carbon Tax Kool-Aid
There's a lot here and I plan on making another video regarding rural Canadians impacted by the carbon tax. There is a boost for them but you could possibly argue it's not enough.
I also disagree with destroying our economy. I tried to show the impacts are relatively minimal all things considered. There are also significant economic positives to pursuing renewables like lower power costs.
Allow me to streamline your argument and address your concerns by emphasizing a key point: You argue, "Why jeopardize Canada's economy when its citizens are already grappling with survival?" Implementing carbon taxes puts us at a competitive disadvantage, THAT IS A FACT especially when our primary trading partners lack such taxes. Consequently, this approach will weaken our economy, leading to job losses and missed opportunities. So the truth or fact of the carbon tax is it put the economy and households at a disadvantage therefore is is causing more harm then good since other countries are not putting a carbon tax on*****
@@ardentenquirer8573 these are arguments I talk about in the video which lead me to believe you either skimmed or did not watch it. Again I will extend my invitation to a discussion if you'd like.
I think you are missing hidden carbon tax in the farming examples. Not so much mushrooms but other produce diesel is burned to harvest and run water pumps that irrigate the crops. The farmer is going to include this in the price of the crop before it gets transported. Also refrigeration and heating of trailers is powered by diesel. A lot of foods that spoil quickly are actually flown anyway. If you are eating strawberries or whatever from a long way away when they are not in season, they are being flown.
Much of the farming costs in Canada are actually exempt along with a lot of power systems. I plan on making another video using the life cycle emissions from several different crops and foods. I stated the mushroom example cause of the specifics brought up in parliament.
Climate change is a politically motivated scam ignorantly uttered and repeated by scientifically primitive individuals who are incapable of understanding the most simple scientific concepts. They are generally uneducated in the sciences and motivated by political ideology. They parrot what the globalists tell them. When listening to them, one realizes that they don’t understand the scientific principles that cause climate change. The fact is that the world climate has been changing since its inception millions of years ago and there is nothing that man can do about it. Volcanic eruptions are a major driving force in climate change. One volcanic eruption can exceed the carbon footprint of all men who have ever lived on this earth. Mount Etna alone has spewed out more carbon than all men who have lived on this earth. Consider what all the volcanic eruptions have done to change the climate.
Trees and plants require carbon dioxide. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04%. One should wonder how such a small amount can be harmful when it is a necessary constituent for plant life. The left don’t explain how such little carbon can support all the required and desired plant life. Humans and animals require oxygen for life which is abundantly available at 21% concentration in the atmosphere. Humans convert the oxygen to carbon dioxide for use by plants. Plants convert the carbon dioxide back to oxygen for use by humans. Plants and humans have a critical interaction. How can the 0.04% carbon dioxide level be a bad thing?
Many of us educated in the sciences know that climate change is the new hoax. The climate has been changing for millions of years. It is a natural cycle. The left are using it to their advantage to push their political agenda onto the ignorant. Children are being indoctrinated with false scientific information to convert them to the left’s ideology.
Climate change is the new hoax that is replacing the covid pandemic and vaccines so that globalists can push their agenda onto the population. Trudeau is using it to destroy the Canadian fabric by taxing the population so brutally that it will disrupt their lives sufficiently to bring in the great reset as he is obligated to do by his WEF masters. Half of the Trudeau cabinet are WEF followers and traitors as well. Trudeau’s own carbon footprint rivals that of a small city. Lefty politicians don’t seem to care about their own carbon footprints even though they eagerly discuss ours every chance they get.
The Vikings discovered Greenland and so named it. Recently, Viking farm implements have been found after glaciers have melted in Greenland. Archeologists have uncovered much evidence of farming by the Vikings. The left like to tell us that the Vikings named Greenland as such because it was all ice and they did not want people to go to Iceland, which supposedly was named with similar dishonesty. According to lefties, the Vikings wanted Iceland all to themselves and so the reversal in names. One would have to be a moron to believe that. Unfortunately, the left is populated with morons and the semi-conscious. They have no problem believing that bed-time story.
Here is evidence of how the Vikings farmed in Greenland for about 400 years and how a massive Indonesian volcano, the largest in the last 7000 years, increased solar shading which then caused the earth to cool in the 13th century and thereafter so much so that the resulting cold temperatures wiped out the Viking farming settlements:
www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/
Prior to that volcanic eruption, there was a large one around 535 AD that changed the climate severely. Here is the video on that event:
ruclips.net/video/Azu6NN5bZWc/видео.html
Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the most knowledgeable experts, has an excellent video on what is actually occurring with the changing climate:
ruclips.net/video/lX1z_6pvM-Q/видео.html
Here are 3 excellent meteorologists discussing climate change:
ruclips.net/video/qJv1IPNZQao/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/eDWq7-eP5sE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/9Q2YHGIlUDk/видео.html
The volume of air in the atmosphere is about 5 billion cubic kilometers. The volume of water on earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers. Water has a much higher heat capacity by almost 4000 times by volume and, if cooling, will heat the air much faster than the water can cool down. A one degree loss in temperature of all the water on this earth, if absorbed totally by the air, will result in an air temperature increase of more than 900 degrees. When one considers the earth’s crust, then the disparity become exponentially higher. These 2 heat sources, or more correctly these 2 heat absorbing bodies in consideration that they can moderate the earth’s atmospheric temperature with ease, dwarf that of the atmosphere itself. The climate alarmists are out of their depth and think in too simplistic terms, much like toddlers overwhelmed by a spinning yo-yo. They think that a billion cars can actually make a significant difference to this massive amount of energy.
The voters are being had by lefty politicians such as Trudeau who himself has the carbon footprint of a small city while, at the same time, eagerly explaining how our carbon footprints must be reduced substantially. Hopefully, we can educate the semi-conscious among us so that they realize that they are paying these carbon taxes out of ignorance.
Can’t say a carbon tax is effective when the majority of people live too far from their typical destinations to bike and public transit sucks. Living in downtown areas of cities it’s realistic (and even advantageous) to take transit or bike but in most other places it’s too much of a hassle. Therefore for most people it’s just an added tax because gas is inelastic to them, they will keep using their car (unless gas goes to like $10/L or something crazy). And in winter no one wants to sit at a bus stop for 10-30min in freezing cold, and they definitely don’t want to bike in that weather. The design of our cities is a major hurdle to sustainable transportation.
The majority of Canadians live in cities. The reason it progessively increases is to give time to change or add. Biking in cold weather is a video better covered by Not Just Bikes: ruclips.net/video/Uhx-26GfCBU/видео.html. But the main hurdle is infrastructure. I live in Alberta and bike in the winter, I have a studded tire and wear the same clothes I would to walk from my house to my car (basically skiing clothes). Most of the winter is -10 anyway which is not bad at all. I agree city design is a hurdle that's why edmonton is spending money on bike lanes.
It will be interesting to see what your opinion will be in 5 or 10 years …. I used to agree until I researched the inefficiencies in government. They do not have the capability to fix any problems
That's really fair. I guess I would look at in regards to other goverment policies like the clean air act. If we assume goverments are broadly inefficient then we should get them to do the simplest solution possible. That seems to be in regards to taxes, where cap and trade or more sophisticated options are more likely to fail.
I live in BC where there's been a carbon tax since 2008. Its made zero difference in terms of reducing carbon, and only made life more expensive. Where I see it visibly the most is at the pump, look at the cost of fuel in BC compared to Alberta its .20 cents a litre cheaper.
@@SuperCody888this is just a cursory glace but from what I can find it looks like it has had a positive effect on emissions reduction. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carbon-Tax-Fact-Sheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjO78yZ-r6DAxUbMDQIHZmkAiUQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MuqMlxVJnT9oAZxq7XZs8
@@DDDecarbon Thats and interesting link, however its 10 years-old. Seems a little bias as well. BC did experience a huge boom it that time period, mainly in the oil/gas industry, logging and construction. It would be interesting to see an updated version of this report.
He’s well off only rich tone deaf knobs want more costs on there living this guy probably loathes homeless ppl and fixed income households it’s a attack on the poor this retard isn’t poor that’s the problem “if it doesn’t effect me it isn’t a problem” China and India eat our lunch and we take in there terrorists and unwanted and we pay for it 😂 only this guy can pull the mental gymnastics to think any tax on the working is a good thing traitors to our nation
I initially subscribed but then I realized that you don't understand how CO2 is necessary for plant life. I have now unsubscribed.
This is a good video that goes deeper.into that position. ruclips.net/video/VJoijPh2i-A/видео.htmlsi=U2EygSME-5JOeiQj
CO2 is one metric. There's lots of "plant food" and the negative consequences of climate changed caused by CO2 is much worse for the other foods overall being for for the crops we care about.