Underscoring that carbon accounting is nothing more than financial voodoo that arbitrarily gives credits for some activities, while unjustly punishing others, consider the following: 'rewilding' agricultural land into forest produces a carbon credit, while at the same time, many forests produce more carbon than they absorb, as is the case in Colorado:
While it is good to be mindful of our ecological footprint, we should not reduce everything to one molecule and definitely not allow that to be accounted for in financial decisions.
Given the ongoing debate in Canada about the necessity of carbon taxes, it is a good time to reflect again on what that means. Let's deconstruct the phony narrative that surrounds it, which goes as follows:
Carbon dioxide is the sole cause of climate change (false). There is an imminent climate emergency (false), which can only be stopped by reducing carbon emissions (false) and the way to get there is by creating surcharges for carbon (false), the amount of which is accurately determined through voodoo carbon accounting (false).
Carbon surcharges only serve to make ultra-rich richer and carbon taxes are nothing more than an additional tax in what is yet another attempt to fill the bottomless barrel of the government.
When Mark Carney states that Canada has no other option than to impose a carbon tax on industry, because trade with the EU will suffer, he is ignoring the reasonable path: we have to totally and completely ban the use of carbon accounting (and other ESG reporting) from any financial decision or transaction.
If the EU wants to do trade with North America (I'm sure they do), than they will have to accept that North America does not account for carbon.
Underscoring that carbon accounting is nothing more than financial voodoo that arbitrarily gives credits for some activities, while unjustly punishing others, consider the following: 'rewilding' agricultural land into forest produces a carbon credit, while at the same time, many forests produce more carbon than they absorb, as is the case in Colorado:
https://coloradosun.com/2025/02/25/colorado-forests-emitting-more-carbon-than-theyre-storing/
While it is good to be mindful of our ecological footprint, we should not reduce everything to one molecule and definitely not allow that to be accounted for in financial decisions.
Given the ongoing debate in Canada about the necessity of carbon taxes, it is a good time to reflect again on what that means. Let's deconstruct the phony narrative that surrounds it, which goes as follows:
Carbon dioxide is the sole cause of climate change (false). There is an imminent climate emergency (false), which can only be stopped by reducing carbon emissions (false) and the way to get there is by creating surcharges for carbon (false), the amount of which is accurately determined through voodoo carbon accounting (false).
Carbon surcharges only serve to make ultra-rich richer and carbon taxes are nothing more than an additional tax in what is yet another attempt to fill the bottomless barrel of the government.
When Mark Carney states that Canada has no other option than to impose a carbon tax on industry, because trade with the EU will suffer, he is ignoring the reasonable path: we have to totally and completely ban the use of carbon accounting (and other ESG reporting) from any financial decision or transaction.
If the EU wants to do trade with North America (I'm sure they do), than they will have to accept that North America does not account for carbon.