Overall, I don’t support the current proposed form of a carbon tax.
I agree, that theoretically it is a great idea that could help Canada curb their emissions and embrace more environmentally friendly ways of living. But, the instilling a carbon tax could hurt Canadian’s too. The Premiere of Alberta, Ralph Klein, says that Albertans agree that the carbon tax is missing a key element-it doesn’t say how much they would have to pay. I agree with his proposal, a carbon tax is a great idea until you have to produce the money to pay for it. A carbon tax could be supported by everyone if it only required to pay $10 a month, but paying $100 a month could cause problems.
I believe that there are better ways to reduce emissions than putting a tax on anything and everything carbon. The Liberal’s deny the idea of supporting a carbon tax, and instead will soon announce a plan for helping large polluters curb their emissions in a way that honours Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.
Similar to the Liberal’s claims and future ideas, The Conservative party of Canada also rejects the idea of having a carbon tax. The Minister of Environment, John Baird, said, "I disagree with the notion of a carbon tax. Our approach will be to provide regulation for industry to ensure we reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollutants."
On a web-journal, an author claims that having a gas tax would wreck havoc on the poor, as they could depend on things like their cars to travel to work so they can make money. I agree with this authors proposal to tax certain specific things, not everything from carbon. It would be too much of a shock to impose a carbon tax on everything all at once.
All in all, I believe that a carbon tax would end up hurting Canadians. If a carbon tax could be refined to certain things that are made of carbon, it would ease the shock and the costs that would be forced on the people of Canada with the introduction of a carbon tax.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Documentary or Docuganda?
After watching An Inconvenient Truth, a small part of me wanted to become a recycling nut and go completely "green". But, the rational part of my brain told me to get a grip. I guess I felt like a should be doing more for the environment on my own, not waiting for a law to be established or a politician to tell me that I have to meet a standard. At the same time, I was second guessing some of the "facts" that Al Gore was presenting in his video. They seemed so drastic that it was hard to believe, but that might just be the reality that hasn’t hit the population yet. I’m not exactly the most qualified person to say what is true fact and what is overblown fiction, so I’ve looked at several resources that either support Al Gore’s documentary or believe that An Inconvenient Truth is rubbish.
On the Support Side:
National Geographic Magazine wanted to help their readers figure out the truth behind the widely debated documentary so they turned to Eric Steig, an earth scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle. Steig proceeds to defend and qualify some of the arguments that Gare presented that are being second-guessed by the public. For the full article go to, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming_2.html.
On the internet, Grist, an environmental news and commentary site, praised Gore for his video. They believed that we could learn a lot from this film, and that Gore presented in a way that brought the truth into the light. The full article can be found at, http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/05/24/roberts/.
Another internet site devoted to stopping Global Warming supported An Inconvient Truth. Author, Robert Ebert, re-iterates how Gore emphasize that global warming is real and that Americans can learn a lot from watching this video. Link: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_feature.asp?id=11
Finally, on the support side, the Washington Post published and article titled, "Scientists OK Gore’s movie for accuracy. The article gives references to the AP and quotes several environmental specialists from universities that support the views that Gore presented. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
On the Opposition:
Website, junkscience.com presents an oppasition argument complete with diagrams, graphs and pictures that criticize the accuracy of Gore’s presentation. They don’t deny global warming, but they deny the accuracy of Gore’s claims. The complete article can be found at: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Canada Free Press published an article titled "Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warnings of Climate Catastrophe" that completely contradicts the Washington Post article that I wrote of above. This article quotes multiple scientists that claim that Gore’s argument is weak and pathetic. These scientists aren’t denying global warming, but they ridicule and provide the supposed "truthful" answers to the global warming debate. Link: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Finally, a CBC journalist criticizes Al Gore for being a hypocrite on all of the claims that he has made through his documentary. Titled "Gore’s power usage an inconvenient truth", the article goes on to claim that Gore uses 20 items the amount of electricity than the average American home. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/28/gore-electricity.html
After reading through arguments that support and criticize Gore’s argument, I can’t say that I wholly believe that Gore is telling the truth. There is just too much controversy for every single fact he presents to be true. As for wether I believe if it is docuganda or not, I’d say that it isn’t a docuganda. I mean, even if every little fact isn’t true, it is still an education video that could inspire people to become more environmentally friendly. And anything that can do that is a good thing. I felt more aware of the environment after viewing this video, and I’m sure others did too, and on the whole, that can be a very good thing.
On the Support Side:
National Geographic Magazine wanted to help their readers figure out the truth behind the widely debated documentary so they turned to Eric Steig, an earth scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle. Steig proceeds to defend and qualify some of the arguments that Gare presented that are being second-guessed by the public. For the full article go to, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming_2.html.
On the internet, Grist, an environmental news and commentary site, praised Gore for his video. They believed that we could learn a lot from this film, and that Gore presented in a way that brought the truth into the light. The full article can be found at, http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/05/24/roberts/.
Another internet site devoted to stopping Global Warming supported An Inconvient Truth. Author, Robert Ebert, re-iterates how Gore emphasize that global warming is real and that Americans can learn a lot from watching this video. Link: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_feature.asp?id=11
Finally, on the support side, the Washington Post published and article titled, "Scientists OK Gore’s movie for accuracy. The article gives references to the AP and quotes several environmental specialists from universities that support the views that Gore presented. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
On the Opposition:
Website, junkscience.com presents an oppasition argument complete with diagrams, graphs and pictures that criticize the accuracy of Gore’s presentation. They don’t deny global warming, but they deny the accuracy of Gore’s claims. The complete article can be found at: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Canada Free Press published an article titled "Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warnings of Climate Catastrophe" that completely contradicts the Washington Post article that I wrote of above. This article quotes multiple scientists that claim that Gore’s argument is weak and pathetic. These scientists aren’t denying global warming, but they ridicule and provide the supposed "truthful" answers to the global warming debate. Link: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Finally, a CBC journalist criticizes Al Gore for being a hypocrite on all of the claims that he has made through his documentary. Titled "Gore’s power usage an inconvenient truth", the article goes on to claim that Gore uses 20 items the amount of electricity than the average American home. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/28/gore-electricity.html
After reading through arguments that support and criticize Gore’s argument, I can’t say that I wholly believe that Gore is telling the truth. There is just too much controversy for every single fact he presents to be true. As for wether I believe if it is docuganda or not, I’d say that it isn’t a docuganda. I mean, even if every little fact isn’t true, it is still an education video that could inspire people to become more environmentally friendly. And anything that can do that is a good thing. I felt more aware of the environment after viewing this video, and I’m sure others did too, and on the whole, that can be a very good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
