View Full Version : Carbon Tax Poll
OK . Here we go. This could get lively. The biggest topic on the Governments list at the moment must be the Carbon Tax debate. What do you think. Will it help ? Will it do nothing at all ? Who's to blame ? Who should pay ?
Mod note: This is an emotive topic. DO NOT GET PERSONAL ... this is the first and final warning - 7 or 21 day bans will be given if needed.
Tommo1965
01-06-2011, 9:46am
the biggest bills that my household has are electricity and fuel for travel.....the carbon tax will push these prices up even further...until there is cleaner cheaper source for me to purchase then all the CT will do is make me poorer....
if miss Gilard will use the extra revenue raised to install a 4 KW solar panel rig on my roof..then d say yes.. until that commitment is promised..I say NO CT.
another thought is .... until china /India are made to pursue a carbon reduction...what real difference will 20 million aussies make ...we are now paying a price for a government elected by many..run by a few..{greens}
dont get me wrong..im all for cleaner air..but what alternatives are there..plus tell my neighborers with their bleedin potbelly's all wound down and choking the neighborer hood
Its a tax without any proof yjay it will lead to any effect at all, so, its just nothing, zero, zilch, waste, a political football
terry.langham
01-06-2011, 9:52am
I voted No, simply because I don't think it is the most cost and job effective way to reduce emissions. However if there was sufficient alternatives to 'dirty' electricity, I think a carbon tax would work to even up the cost of producing 'green' energy. Sadly we are well and truly behind the 8ball in that regard.
Terry
awww!!! sweet!!! :D
:th3::th3::th3:
No!
Why?
Because it will not provide the genuine changes needed and will disadvantage Australia for no real benefit.
It is more about wealth redistribution than, CO2 with 10% (half a billion) going to un-audited, unaccountable
UN funds to 'help' 3rd world countries when in fact none of it will do anything except line the pockets of corrupt governments.
The carbon tax whole thing is a joke!
To whit ... we export nearly 300 MILLION tonnes of coal a year. That will increase to nearly 500 MILLION in the next 5 years.
Coal accounts for 23% of our gross export revenue.
Juliar got this wrong on so many levels.
why is there more than one ving here?
there can be only one!
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 10:08am
It's not that I don't think we should collectively do something about fixing the world in general, but a TAX?!
To achieve what?
What a backwards thought! It would be badly administered, and part of it would be used to "subsidise..." who? what? why?
And someone would develop a scam out of it.
And it wouldn't do much except make us moan and wail more.
And pretty soon they would have to increase it.
Why complificate matters any further?
Whoever Cate wants to look in the I, let her do it without taxing US!
Am. (As in, where coming from.)
Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name. :D
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that India already has a CT of 1 Aust $, Germany 17 Aust $, so why is Australia proposeing a FORTY $ per tonne CT ?
triptych
01-06-2011, 10:19am
I voted NO!
I dont believe a tax should be introduced that will disadvantage tax payers when there is no proof that it will reduce carbon emissions.
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 10:39am
Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name. :D
PH005. And you, half as much for mis-punkchuating it!
Lance B
01-06-2011, 11:02am
A categorical No!
Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no proof of global warming due to man's output of carbon dioxide, a tax will do nothing. Australia emits 1.5%-2% of of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and man's total contribution world wide is only about 3% and 97% is natural! So, Australia's carbon dioxide emissions compared to the total world's carbon dioxide emissions is 1.5%-2% of 3%!!!!! In other words, .06%!!! Even a 20% reduction of Australia's emissions will reduce this contribution to about .05%!! And a tax will fix this exactly how???? Even if we removed everyone from Australia, there would be no change whatsoever in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
All a carbon tax will do is drive industry from Australia to countries which do not have a carbon tax, like India, China, USA etc, and India and China have less efficient methods of producing electricity etc and therefore will produce more carbon dioxide emissions than what we would save here. Australia trying to implement a carbon dioxide tax is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
No one can explain how, over many thousands of years, that somehow the amount of caron dioxide that is present in the atmosphere, up until mans involvement, was magically the correct proportion to sustain life as it is now. In other words, how was it regulated before now and how come it became this magical perfectly equalised amount? There isn't any magical amount and the fact is, there are many contributing factors that result in the temperature of the earth, and carbon dioxide, a completely necessary gas for life otherwise we would all die, is just one of them. Making out that a miniscule alteration of carbon dioxide quantities in the atmosphere due to man's involvement makes no difference to the temperature because the earth has it's own mechanisms for dealing with these small changes as it has been doing for thousands and millions of years.
Having, done much research and listened to many experts on both sides of the argument, my conclusion is that man's involvement is not a causation of climate change. Climate change is a natural occurance that has been fluctuating for thousands of years and will continue to do so regardless of what we do. As Bob Carter, an eminent figure on the subject, put it, trying to stop climate change is liek trying to stop a volcano errupting.
Tannin
01-06-2011, 11:07am
It is mad, absolutely mad, to subsidise bad things like carbon pollution when we tax good things, like wages and housing.
We tax cigarettes, which don't actually do all that much harm (other than kill smokers, which may equally well be considered a benefit), but we DON'T tax carbon, which is destroying the planet our children will have to try to live on?
Not having a carbon tax is just arrant stupidity. Should have been done years ago.
PH005. And you, half as much for mis-punkchuating it!
Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name. :D
Joolia schmoolia, who cares how it is spel'd or punktuatid, if they manage to get this "carbon reduction cure" going I think she will be able to look back on it as probably the last thing she did in office ----
junqbox
01-06-2011, 11:27am
I believe a CT is an important thing to implement for the following-
- It will encourage us to use less electricty made by non-sustainable means.
- The money which will be returned to users, particularly in the lower socio-economic groups, can be spent on purchasing more economical devices.
- Encourage companies to look at more innovative ways to do what they currently do in a less pollutive way. EG- Automobile manufacturers are developing Hybrid, Electric and Hydrogen (among others) cars because of the punative financial measures implemented by governments, particularly Europe and California, which has resulted in more fuel efficient petrol/diesel cars and the proliferation of the alternative based fuel cars, as above.
- The CT is not intended to a long term measure, the process is designed to become a Emmision Trading program after a given period of time.
What is the alternative (be honest with yourself before you start ranting back at me).
Continue as we are? Not very generous towards our future generations. We don't think too hightly of the peoples who have gone before us and created devastating environmental vandalism.
Direct action? Doesn't actually encourage strong action by those who believe they can afford to run un-economical/environmentally unfriendly lifestyles.
At this point in time an actual dollar figure has not been officially announced, so there is much mis-information being spread by the likes of Mr Abbott, Mr Jones (et al), and others. China and India are actually investing in more environmentally power production processes than we are because they know as their usage will increase in the future they cannot be a slave to resources which are only going to go up in price as availability goes down.
The ALP are doing a poor job of communicating the need, The LNP (with a few notable exceptions) are pressing forward with a small minded negative campaign designed to continue the lining of the pockets of their more ardent supporters (anyone still feel sorry for the 'poor boys' club of Rhinehart, Palmer & Twiggy? (top 10 richest) and how they were going to be devastated by a Mining Tax). Given the LNP's track record on infrastructure growth/maintenance it's little wonder their policy is 'do nothing' till it breaks completely.
We as a country, and as individuals, are responsible for our actions and can leaders of how best practice can be implemented. Australia is know as being an innovative country, this is one of our opportunities to prove how innovative we can be.
Or we can sit back and wait for the tele to go blank and die of asphyxiation from poor air quality.
Rant ended.
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 11:43am
Yes but a Carbon Tax being able to fix the world's woes fits in the genre of FICTION, if not specifically SUPERHERO COMICS. Alright, even Fantasy.
(It's intereseting to consider how the sudden imposition of this tax is going to help us find "efficiences" and better them than without it. In fact it makes me think of how the Ptolemaic System of Cosmology had "developed" by the time of the Middle Ages: epicycles upon epicycles to try to coax the universe to work as we (then) thought it to. What is the trend in the modern world: tax upon regulation upon restriction, all applied with a clearly shortsighted view of what will be achieved. I heard this quote in the 1970s: "...it's like driving a car flat out along the road while staring into the rear vision mirror...")
So although we might agree on things needing to be fixed, junqbox - TVs and choking aside, we will have to disagree on the means.
Am.
Thank you, junqbox.
There was a rebroadcast of an interesting program on all of this on ABC Radio National this morning, particularly on what's happening in other countries - the podcast or transcript can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2011/3230710.htm#transcript.
For mine this is a case of good intentions gone hog wild! Apart from Lance's excellent summary of the issues, there is one fundamental thing that should PREVENT Australia from introducing this tax, in the interest of and for the BENEFIT of the whole planet!
There is no argument that when you burn coal you get CO2. The issue is how much coal you burn for how much CO2 output. Australia has high quality coal that burns easily (less moisture content) and produces more heat energy per tonne than many others (high volatiles and low ash content) - the exception being those revolting lignite-burning (brown coal) power stations in the Latrobe Valley which should be replaced with cleaner burning black coal stations yesterday!
[rant start] Instead of taxing coal (carbon) we should be subsidising the production and export of our high quality coal to those countries who will otherwise burn dirtier, wetter coal anyway (like India, China, etc) to reduce their reliance on those dirtier local coals that produce far more CO2 per Kj generated! We already compete despite long and expensive supply chains because of our isolation, our higher wages and standard of living for miners, and the currently high rate of exchange for our dollar. Let's not make it impossible with an ill-conceived and fruitless tax just because we see miners as cash cows to be milked for providing alternatives. Coal is NOT tobacco! It actually produces substantial benefits in all sorts of areas not being discussed in this debate.
The fact is the world has enough proven coal reserves to last 122 years at present rates of consumption and only has oil and gas for around 40-60 years, and yet the are "green" groups suggesting gas-fired power generation as a cleaner alternative to coal (no-one wants nuclear and everything else is too immature in technological terms and so far too expensive to implement). Go that route and we'll exhaust gas in half the time or less and STILL be forced to resort to coal or freeze!
The problem is certainly critical, and we need to find alternatives, but let's clean up sensibly rather than forcing our better quality product off the market with tax-based price hikes! India and China already burn more coal than the rest of the world combined; they just use their own poor quality coal because they can't afford the better stuff we supply, most of the time. Carbon capture and storage is the most promising solution for coal-fired power, and that will still do little to prevent the atmospheric pollution from cars, cows and even political speeches! At least the cars will run dry in 60 years!
[/rant over]
I have No doubt what so ever that any CT will be passed on to the consumer, US. So how can we as individuals make a difference with less money in our pockets. We will not be able to afford to update to a more eco friendly car. We will not be able to afford solar water and power. I feel a CT is a catch 22. If it was 100% certain that Joe Blog will not be effected financially, ( and hey, the Joe Blogs of this world did not make the mess ) then OK tax the Big corps. Otherwise go back to the drawing board.
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 12:31pm
Thanks for that link, nonas. I took this excerpt from it, near the end:
...Monica Prasad: Personally I do prefer a carbon tax, because of all these problems of price volatility etc. But I do think that a carbon tax is not going to work without the alternative energy, it's just going to get you more revenue...
4-get about what other countries are doing/have done, UNLESS you are going to examine in minute detail just how their schemes work and what they're designed to do - AND if they are doing it! Just to introduce a Carbon Tax because [...some northern European countries have one...] does not mean that it is therefore a given that we should do the same, or be considered delinquent if we don't.
Am 4 now.
ricktas
01-06-2011, 12:31pm
I voted NO as well. if they (the govt) intend to give 50% of the tax back to us as tax breaks, why not just halve the tax as it stands now. We need a solution to the carbon/global warming issue, not another tax. All I see this doing is making me pay more for my power, rather than effectively cut how much power I use. Most people I know have been looking at ways to reduce their bills over the past few years, especially the last couple, and have already done all they can to minimise their bills for power etc, the same as they/we have done for groceries etc.
ricktas
01-06-2011, 12:38pm
I believe a CT is an important thing to implement for the following-
- It will encourage us to use less electricty made by non-sustainable means.
.
yes, but here in Tasmania a vast majority of our power comes from Hydro schemes (non/less polluting by a long way), yet we will still be paying the tax! There is no incentive at all to ensure those that source power from a clean source benefit, under the current carbon tax idea. Rather the Govt have decided to minimise the impact on the lower income groups, not those who do reduce their carbon footprints? It is a flawed idea in its present form!
Kym !, give yourself a 7 day ban for deliberately mis spelling Julias name. :D
Can't Rick's and my accounts are locked - we can't even ban each other :p
If the european ets is so successful why have the Germans announced the decommissioning of all nuclear plants by 2020 ?
junqbox
01-06-2011, 12:53pm
If the european ets is so successful why have the Germans announced the decommissioning of all nuclear plants by 2020 ?
ah, ###ushima maybe
F u k u s h i m a
System appears to have a problem with place names
Art Vandelay
01-06-2011, 12:59pm
I'm with Lance's post above and also far from convinced of man made CO2 causing climate change. I am however passionate about caring more for our environment and cutting back our use of the finite supply of natural resources and replacing with sustainable means. A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that, it's just shuffling money for no tangible result.
With some judiscous use of the endless pools of money being spent (and continuing to be spent) on this whole self proficising debacle over the last 10 years or so, we could have have had some real changes instead.
If the Government was serious. Why not Stop the export of coal ? Sort of like opposeing nuclear weapons but selling yellow cake to dodgy buyers. Yes I know the answer.
I've said this before...
There are serious things that can be done that reduce cost and CO2 ... Namely move ALL interstate heavy road transport onto Rail!!
If you use Rail for the long haul the effect is (door to door - i.e including local handling at each end) is 20% of the fuel usage!!
Rail even costs less, around 15% less Sydney to Melbourne and 40% less Sydney to Perth - only vested interests are keeping heavy road transport alive.
This would also mean less road maintenance costs, less drugged up truckies etc.
IF they were serious this is the sort of action that makes a substantive difference.
junqbox
01-06-2011, 1:26pm
Quote "A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that" (same sentiment from various above)
If this was the case, then increasing the excise (tax) on cigarettes wouldn't make any difference either, except that each time the excise is raised there is a matched 10% (+/-) drop off in smoking.
junqbox
01-06-2011, 1:28pm
man made CO2 causing climate change.
The science does not say it CAUSES, rather it says it CONTRIBUTES
NO- just NO, i wrote a response but changed it so I wouldn't get banned.
<2c>
I personally have my doubts as to how much change to the climate we actually cause... human beings as a race are very ego driven and it would be just like us to believe that we have the power to cause catastrophic changes in weather patterns and the like.
in actual fact, what we are calling climate change (and formerly called global warming (but thats a different argument)) is nothing more than a naturally occurring cycle of extreme heat and ice ages... its scientifically proven!
that said a carbon tax isnt such a bad thing as we do tend to pollute the hell outta the place.... but i'd drop another tax that is less fair and possible on a consumable that we generally cant do without....
*sigh* ok, global warming... why dont we call it global warming any more? it is because its not? the climate for sure is changing but try and tell me that a 2 degree night in sydney in may is "warming"... generally i think the name is harder to justify. the climate changes and thats a given, some would disagree on the warming aspect though.
</2c>
I voted yes and I think Junqbox has said most of what I would like to say.
But I would agree with Kym's concerns about the possible(probable) end destination of any money aimed directly to third world countries, but direct aid may be able to overcome some of those issues.
As for Rick's comments regarding Tasmanian hydropower, as its carbon neutral there would be generally no tax, but any tax breaks would be available to all Australians so Tassy should be in front.
The CT, at least on coal power would also help the SA hot rock power to be more competitive, and that is a huge carbon free source, as are the potential sites in the Hunter & Latrobe Valleys and the Otway basin.
http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html
http://www.petratherm.com.au/australia.html
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/7/fbW-aHvjOgM
Art Vandelay
01-06-2011, 1:39pm
Quote "A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that" (same sentiment from various above)
If this was the case, then increasing the excise (tax) on cigarettes wouldn't make any difference either, except that each time the excise is raised there is a matched 10% (+/-) drop off in smoking.
So if the carbon tax is collected off miners/power stations and what not, then 50%-60%* is then redistributed back to "us" users as subsidies for increase costs & the balance sucked up into our forever inefficient gov't coffers, what's actually going to be left to do anything purposeful with ?
* Estimates put forward in recent media articles.
Bennymiata
01-06-2011, 1:46pm
This carbon tax actually has nothing to do with trying to reduce carbon emmissions.
The fact is that governments around the world are broke, and need to find a new form of taxation.
Just increasing income tax, company tax, sales taxes etc are very unpopular, but hey, this new anti-pollution tax is the answer!
We can even introduce it and tell people that they should feel good about it, because it wil save the world from climate change!!
Now we have a way to tax the air people breathe!
Originally, it was called Global Warming, then when they realised that the world is not warming, they changed the name to Global Climate Change.
Duhhhh, of course the climate is changing, it changes not only every day, but even every hour!
Back in the late 70's, they were saying that we are headed for another ice age!
Can't they make up their minds?
How boring would it be if the climate was exactly the same all the time?
The ex US Vice President Al Gore started all of this with his non-factual movie, An Inconvenient Truth(?) (and in the UK, a disclaimer has to be shown before this movie is shown there to tell poeple that what is contained in the movie is mostly BS) so that it would give a big boost to his emmissions trading company, and you know what, we fell for it! :lol:
Here is a guy telling us how diabolical it will be for all of us and if we don't so something right now it will all be too late and the world's weather will change forever, and we will all die a painfull death.
In the mean time, as he's counting all his money, he flys around the world in a private jet, and on land, only travels by helicopter and limousine and rents entire floors of top hotels to stay when he is away from any of his multitude of huge houses that chew more than 5 times as much electricity than any of our homes, and he's telling us that WE have to do something! :lol:
As man is only a very minor player in the various emmissions on earth, why are we worrying about it?
The sun, the oceans, the volcanoes etc etc are the real culprits as they are responsible for around 97% of CO2 etc., and even if we stopped all manmade emmissions, it wouldn't make a skerick of difference to the earth or its weather.
What are they going to do with the money they get from the Carbon Tax?
Most of it will just be given back to the lower income people (and how is THAT going to get them to reduce their emmissions?) and most of it will go into administration so Juliar can keep her union bosses happy with all the extra workers she has to hire to look after it (actually, these people have been employed on this for the last 3 years in a very fancy, expensive building in Canberra with leather lounges everywhere, 50" plasma TV and Blu Ray players and Nintendo games etc - a friend of mine helped build the building, and these people have just been twiddling their thumbs for the last 3 years, some of them on salaries over $200K a year), yet not ONE word has been said as to how this will help the Global Climate change BS.
In fact, with all these extra people working on this, in their fancy office buildings chewing up even more electricity and fuel to get around, it will actually make things worse!
Now, if they said that they were going to use the money to put up catalytic converters on all the active volcanoes, and do something about the gaseous emmissions from the frozen methane at the bottom of the oceans, then I would think that they may do something, but just to take money away from us is not going to help one iota.
So what happens if we have no ice on the polar caps in summer?
Not much actually.
The last time this occured in the 14th century, mankind explored the world, and mankind actually did pretty well out of it, and the polar bears survived and in fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that polar bears would be better off, by having more food, if there was no ice on the poles.
There have been many long periods in earth's history when the CO2 levels were actually THOUSANDS of times higher than they are now, and the earth survived, as did the plants and animals.
The fact is that we don't know what changes the weather will have in the short, medium or longer terms, and there is no evidence to show that we will be worse off IF the climate does change.
In fact, if the CO2 levels double, plants will grow 40% better than they do now, and food production will increase accordingly.
Perhaps we should try and make more CO2 to help the environment!
kill all cows and termites... that will fix the problem.
Lance B
01-06-2011, 1:59pm
I believe a CT is an important thing to implement for the following-
- It will encourage us to use less electricty made by non-sustainable means.
- The money which will be returned to users, particularly in the lower socio-economic groups, can be spent on purchasing more economical devices.
- Encourage companies to look at more innovative ways to do what they currently do in a less pollutive way. EG- Automobile manufacturers are developing Hybrid, Electric and Hydrogen (among others) cars because of the punative financial measures implemented by governments, particularly Europe and California, which has resulted in more fuel efficient petrol/diesel cars and the proliferation of the alternative based fuel cars, as above.
- The CT is not intended to a long term measure, the process is designed to become a Emmision Trading program after a given period of time.
What is the alternative (be honest with yourself before you start ranting back at me).
Nuclear. I know I will be lambasted for this, but it is our only real alternative. Please read on.
Did you know that coal kills more poeople due to cancers than every other power source ever used? Yep, it has stored radioactivity in the coal which is released when burnt and this accounts for huge numbers of deaths each year. In fact, nuclear has the lowest death rate per terawatt of electricity production!!
This is just one good article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+realistic+nuclear+option+safer+than+fossil+fuels/4474439/story.html
Take note of the following excerpts:
"Premature deaths as a result of exposure to radiation released during the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor 25 years ago are now predicted for just over 200 people a year. That totals 16,000 deaths by 2065. This looks like a scary figure until you compare it to the premature deaths caused by inhaling fine particulate matter released during the burning of fossil fuels, of which coal is the worst.
Over the same period of time, the number of people dying prematurely from exposure to fossil-fuel pollution will be 108 million. So, for every person killed by radiation from the Chernobyl accident, 6,750 will be killed by coal-fired electrical generating stations, household furnaces, fireplaces, barbecue briquettes, mowing the lawn and, of course, driving to the drugstore to pick up those potassium iodide pills."
And
"One should also, I suppose, add in the 63-million premature deaths that will occur between now and 2065 because of traffic accidents — one more consequence of burning fossil fuels.
So let’s add them up. It turns out that for every person expected to die prematurely because of exposure to radiation from the worst nuclear accident in history, 12,741 will die before their time thanks to exposure to fossil-fuel emissions.
Put another way, the calculation of premature deaths per terawatt hour of energy production comes to this conclusion: for coal, 161; for oil, 36; for biofuels, 12; for natural gas, four; for nuclear, 0.04."
The thing is, everyone focuses on things like ###ishima and the nuclear accident, yet not one person has died from it yet and only a handful will over the comign years, yet everyone has lost sight of the fact that the death rate from the actual tsunami was in the tens of thousands!!!
Continue as we are? Not very generous towards our future generations. We don't think too highly of the peoples who have gone before us and created devastating environmental vandalism.
Direct action? Doesn't actually encourage strong action by those who believe they can afford to run un-economical/environmentally unfriendly lifestyles.
At this point in time an actual dollar figure has not been officially announced, so there is much mis-information being spread by the likes of Mr Abbott, Mr Jones (et al), and others. China and India are actually investing in more environmentally power production processes than we are because they know as their usage will increase in the future they cannot be a slave to resources which are only going to go up in price as availability goes down.
The ALP are doing a poor job of communicating the need, The LNP (with a few notable exceptions) are pressing forward with a small minded negative campaign designed to continue the lining of the pockets of their more ardent supporters (anyone still feel sorry for the 'poor boys' club of Rhinehart, Palmer & Twiggy? (top 10 richest) and how they were going to be devastated by a Mining Tax). Given the LNP's track record on infrastructure growth/maintenance it's little wonder their policy is 'do nothing' till it breaks completely.
We as a country, and as individuals, are responsible for our actions and can leaders of how best practice can be implemented. Australia is know as being an innovative country, this is one of our opportunities to prove how innovative we can be.
Or we can sit back and wait for the tele to go blank and die of asphyxiation from poor air quality.
Rant ended.
Asphyxiation due to poor air quality? Hmm, you are way overstating the facts. That will never happen as carbon dioxide accounts for .039% of our atmosphere and mans contribution to that has increased it by a miniscule amount.
Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these optioons, they require electricity to function. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world.
Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/electricity_consumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China and India just to name the big two!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!
Now, all this pie in the sky talk of solar, wind etc is just that, pie in the sky. How on earth does anyone think we can add double to our worldwide output of electricity without a mix of nuclear somwhere in there?
Lance B
01-06-2011, 2:08pm
This carbon tax actually has nothing to do with trying to reduce carbon emmissions.
The fact is that governments around the world are broke, and need to find a new form of taxation.
Bingo. You've just hit the nail right on the head.
The beauty of a carbon tax is that it is exactly the same as religion as there is no proof and we need to wait hundreds of years before we would even begin to know that it is real or not, just like having to wait until you die to know if there is a God. So, all these arguments are irrelevent to the government as they will be well out of office and all of them dead before any proof that it is a hoax ever comes to fruition. It is the new religion replacing God as their new deity. Since religion belief has been decreasing in the western world, there has been a direct correlation to the uptake of green thinking and the concern that man is detroying the planet in some way or other. In other words, people are trying to clutch onto some form of thinking whether it be religion or whatever. Back in the early 70's, the same "respected" scientists were even saying we were going to have another ice age. Then it was the hole in the ozone, which they have since found has always been there and just fluctuates (like climate) and now there is evidence (hushed up be many greeeny types) that it actually is helping to rebuld ice over Antarctica by the tune of 100,000kms every 10 yeasr!!!!
Just increasing income tax, company tax, sales taxes etc are very unpopular, but hey, this new anti-pollution tax is the answer!
We can even introduce it and tell people that they should feel good about it, because it wil save the world from climate change!!
Now we have a way to tax the air people breathe!
Originally, it was called Global Warming, then when they realised that the world is not warming, they changed the name to Global Climate Change.
Duhhhh, of course the climate is changing, it changes not only every day, but even every hour!
Back in the late 70's, they were saying that we are headed for another ice age!
Can't they make up their minds?
How boring would it be if the climate was exactly the same all the time?
The ex US Vice President Al Gore started all of this with his non-factual movie, An Inconvenient Truth(?) (and in the UK, a disclaimer has to be shown before this movie is shown there to tell poeple that what is contained in the movie is mostly BS) so that it would give a big boost to his emmissions trading company, and you know what, we fell for it! :lol:
Here is a guy telling us how diabolical it will be for all of us and if we don't so something right now it will all be too late and the world's weather will change forever, and we will all die a painfull death.
In the mean time, as he's counting all his money, he flys around the world in a private jet, and on land, only travels by helicopter and limousine and rents entire floors of top hotels to stay when he is away from any of his multitude of huge houses that chew more than 5 times as much electricity than any of our homes, and he's telling us that WE have to do something! :lol:
As man is only a very minor player in the various emmissions on earth, why are we worrying about it?
The sun, the oceans, the volcanoes etc etc are the real culprits as they are responsible for around 97% of CO2 etc., and even if we stopped all manmade emmissions, it wouldn't make a skerick of difference to the earth or its weather.
What are they going to do with the money they get from the Carbon Tax?
Most of it will just be given back to the lower income people (and how is THAT going to get them to reduce their emmissions?) and most of it will go into administration so Juliar can keep her union bosses happy with all the extra workers she has to hire to look after it (actually, these people have been employed on this for the last 3 years in a very fancy, expensive building in Canberra with leather lounges everywhere, 50" plasma TV and Blu Ray players and Nintendo games etc - a friend of mine helped build the building, and these people have just been twiddling their thumbs for the last 3 years, some of them on salaries over $200K a year), yet not ONE word has been said as to how this will help the Global Climate change BS.
In fact, with all these extra people working on this, in their fancy office buildings chewing up even more electricity and fuel to get around, it will actually make things worse!
Now, if they said that they were going to use the money to put up catalytic converters on all the active volcanoes, and do something about the gaseous emmissions from the frozen methane at the bottom of the oceans, then I would think that they may do something, but just to take money away from us is not going to help one iota.
So what happens if we have no ice on the polar caps in summer?
Not much actually.
The last time this occured in the 14th century, mankind explored the world, and mankind actually did pretty well out of it, and the polar bears survived and in fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that polar bears would be better off, by having more food, if there was no ice on the poles.
There have been many long periods in earth's history when the CO2 levels were actually THOUSANDS of times higher than they are now, and the earth survived, as did the plants and animals.
The fact is that we don't know what changes the weather will have in the short, medium or longer terms, and there is no evidence to show that we will be worse off IF the climate does change.
In fact, if the CO2 levels double, plants will grow 40% better than they do now, and food production will increase accordingly.
Perhaps we should try and make more CO2 to help the environment!
ApolloLXII
01-06-2011, 2:42pm
If we do nothing then the levels of pollution will continue to rise and the disrupted weather patterns and systems will continue to become more severe. Rather than thinking about your hip pocket, think about the future generations who will have to deal with the mess we and previous generations have created. Should we allow greed to come before the future of the entire planet? That is what is driving the opposition by industry who are thinking only of their profit margins and shareholders. Everything has it's price, including the very future of the human species who seem hell bent on profiteering themselves out of existence.
The truth of the matter is that we have to make sacrifices in order to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy a similar kind of lifestyle that we have today. Rather than listening to boffins and scholars etc saying "Yes, we need a carbon tax" or "No, it's a load of rubbish", try taking a look at the very thing that will be adversely affected if nothing is done, the world (and I mean THE WORLD, not just Australia or your own backyard). Unseasonal weather, killer tornadoes, the snow on Mt. Everest becoming less and less, glaciers that have existed for hundreds of years disappearing, above average rainfall, record snowfalls, bigger and larger hurricanes. Don't you think nature is trying to tell us something? It cannot be written off as "100 year events" or just a blip in the weather. If there is no action taken on carbon emissions then all of those things are, over time, going to accelerate and get worse.
If Australia leads the way in instituting a carbon tax, other countries will follow. Those that don't will find themselves frozen out of the world market place because, as we all know, money talks and the stuff that drops out of the bulls' behind walks (although I've never seen a walking bull-pat. ;)). Yes, prices will rise with the introduction of a carbon tax but that's the whole point. Our consumeristic society is to blame for part of the problem in the first place and we are going to seriously have to reduce, reuse and recycle more than we as a society do now otherwise we all stand to be condemned by those who will follow us in years to come. They'll say, "They knew or denied what was happening but, for the sake of a few bucks, they weren't prepared to lift a finger to ensure we have a future."
Nuclear. I know I will be lambasted for this, but it is our only real alternative. Please read on.
Did you know that coal kills more poeople due to cancers than every other power source ever used? Yep, it has stored radioactivity in the coal which is released when burnt and this accounts for huge numbers of deaths each year. In fact, nuclear has the lowest death rate per terawatt of electricity production!!
This is just one good article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+realistic+nuclear+option+safer+than+fossil+fuels/4474439/story.html
Take note of the following excerpts:
"Premature deaths as a result of exposure to radiation released during the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor 25 years ago are now predicted for just over 200 people a year. That totals 16,000 deaths by 2065. This looks like a scary figure until you compare it to the premature deaths caused by inhaling fine particulate matter released during the burning of fossil fuels, of which coal is the worst.
Over the same period of time, the number of people dying prematurely from exposure to fossil-fuel pollution will be 108 million. So, for every person killed by radiation from the Chernobyl accident, 6,750 will be killed by coal-fired electrical generating stations, household furnaces, fireplaces, barbecue briquettes, mowing the lawn and, of course, driving to the drugstore to pick up those potassium iodide pills."
And
"One should also, I suppose, add in the 63-million premature deaths that will occur between now and 2065 because of traffic accidents — one more consequence of burning fossil fuels.
So let’s add them up. It turns out that for every person expected to die prematurely because of exposure to radiation from the worst nuclear accident in history, 12,741 will die before their time thanks to exposure to fossil-fuel emissions.
Put another way, the calculation of premature deaths per terawatt hour of energy production comes to this conclusion: for coal, 161; for oil, 36; for biofuels, 12; for natural gas, four; for nuclear, 0.04."
The thing is, everyone focuses on things like ###ishima and the nuclear accident, yet not one person has died from it yet and only a handful will over the comign years, yet everyone has lost sight of the fact that the death rate from the actual tsunami was in the tens of thousands!!!
Asphyxiation due to poor air quality? Hmm, you are way overstating the facts. That will never happen as carbon dioxide accounts for .039% of our atmosphere and mans contribution to that has increased it by a miniscule amount.
Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these optioons, they require electricity to function. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world.
Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/electricity_consumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China and India just to name the big two!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!
Now, all this pie in the sky talk of solar, wind etc is just that, pie in the sky. How on earth does anyone think we can add double to our worldwide output of electricity without a mix of nuclear somwhere in there?
Yes of course it's safe. Self regulation works beautifully. Oh hang on they do all the checks don’t they. It must work though they had some pretty big buckets of water ready to throw on that nuclear power plant so they must know what they're doing. Money and corruption wouldn't come into it.
You can put on a breathing apparatus if you work in an area of airborne particles. Try seeing how effective that is with radiation.
Maybe you have forgotten about the wonderfull birth defects that go on for generations. Or the fact that the area contaminated cannot be lived in used for farming it's just dead.
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 2:53pm
(ASIDE: Hmm! Just thought of something. In this explanation (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?85229-Using-the-coding-available-on-AP-%28BB-Code-tutorial%29) of code tags, I didn't see any or tags.)
Rattus79
01-06-2011, 2:59pm
It gets even better though!
Australia is about to open another 3 Coal mines, Alpha site, and 2 others out past Emerald.
The coal being pulled out of there is the cleanest burning coal that has yet to be found. Hancock Coal has been given permission for the rail link and it's going to go ahead. Where will this coal go? India.
Which coal will we be burning to power our plants? The old dirty stuff. Go Figure.
Meanwhile, It's illegal to Tax a Tax, yet we pay World Parity Pricing (Fancy name for a 70% tax) Fuel Levy (fancy name for tax), and GST (fancy name for yet another mony grab!) on fuel. Now they want to put a Carbon Tax on it too???!!!
Even better then that is the fact that we produce approx 70% of our own fuel yet we pay top dollar (Singapore's prices as they import 100% of theirs)
Wake up Julia and smell the Ahem ******, Oh, and stop selling all our resources!!!
Lance B
01-06-2011, 3:04pm
You didn't read the article.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+realistic+nuclear+option+safer+than+fossil+fuels/4474439/story.html
As stated in the article (and other similar facts on the issue) coal fired power station and fossil fuels in general cause more deaths than you would beleive. Chernobyl will kill 16,000 people in the 80 years after it's melt down. Coal fired power stations and fossil fuel use will kill 108,000,000 in the same 80 year time period!!!!! Due to cancers and other related illnesses caused from the release of radiation stored in the coal and toxic chemicals.
Nuclear is the safest of all forms of energy production and coal already produces levels of radiation that cause cancers and deaths far in excess of all or any of the nuclear reactors ever built. France's power is produced by 80% nuclear.
I implore you to do some more research and not listen to the alarmists and knee jerk reactions of the ill informed.
Self regulation can be converted to government regulation as well as self regulation and have a more stringent regulation process.
Lance B
01-06-2011, 3:12pm
If we do nothing then the levels of pollution will continue to rise and the disrupted weather patterns and systems will continue to become more severe. Rather than thinking about your hip pocket, think about the future generations who will have to deal with the mess we and previous generations have created. Should we allow greed to come before the future of the entire planet? That is what is driving the opposition by industry who are thinking only of their profit margins and shareholders. Everything has it's price, including the very future of the human species who seem hell bent on profiteering themselves out of existence.
The truth of the matter is that we have to make sacrifices in order to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy a similar kind of lifestyle that we have today. Rather than listening to boffins and scholars etc saying "Yes, we need a carbon tax" or "No, it's a load of rubbish", try taking a look at the very thing that will be adversely affected if nothing is done, the world (and I mean THE WORLD, not just Australia or your own backyard). Unseasonal weather, killer tornadoes, the snow on Mt. Everest becoming less and less, glaciers that have existed for hundreds of years disappearing, above average rainfall, record snowfalls, bigger and larger hurricanes. Don't you think nature is trying to tell us something? It cannot be written off as "100 year events" or just a blip in the weather. If there is no action taken on carbon emissions then all of those things are, over time, going to accelerate and get worse.
If Australia leads the way in instituting a carbon tax, other countries will follow. Those that don't will find themselves frozen out of the world market place because, as we all know, money talks and the stuff that drops out of the bulls' behind walks (although I've never seen a walking bull-pat. ;)). Yes, prices will rise with the introduction of a carbon tax but that's the whole point. Our consumeristic society is to blame for part of the problem in the first place and we are going to seriously have to reduce, reuse and recycle more than we as a society do now otherwise we all stand to be condemned by those who will follow us in years to come. They'll say, "They knew or denied what was happening but, for the sake of a few bucks, they weren't prepared to lift a finger to ensure we have a future."
Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.
If you think that other countries will follow Australias lead in introducing a carbon tax, then you are well mistaken and are living in a dream land especially one so draconian as our government is thinking about. These other countires will be laughing their heads off thanking us for moving our industries to their shores in order to bolster their economies, especially the emerging economies begging for indsutries and work for their peoples. The funny this is, we introduce a carbon tax - which supposedly reduces our emissions - meanwhile, to escape the silly carbon tax in order to survive, companies here move over to China and India where their emission standards are worse than ours and they actually produce more pollution than if they had stayed here if we didn't have a carbon tax. So, in fact we are making it worse not better!!
Even better then that is the fact that we produce approx 70% of our own fuel yet we pay
This delightful little gem is an outstanding example of the detailed, thoughtful, and completely misinformed sort of "fact" the anti-planet lobby relies on. The correct figure, of course, is not much more than half of the figure cited, and is falling rapidly as our reserves dry up and our population explodes.
ApolloLXII
01-06-2011, 3:29pm
[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]
Unseasonal weather, yes, yes, yes. Stats don't lie and you can't say that the amount of bad weather being experienced all over the globe and with such frequency is par for the course from yesteryear. I don't listen to the media, I use my eyes to see the visible damage being done by weather patterns around the globe. Yes, we have increased weather coverage via the media but since when have there been such frequent weather events involving loss of life? I don't recall seeing stuff like this being reported at the turn of the 19th century in the archives.
As for companies moving off-shore, they've been doing that for years and will now use the threat of a carbon tax as an excuse.
ricktas
01-06-2011, 3:41pm
[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]
Unseasonal weather, yes, yes, yes. Stats don't lie and you can't say that the amount of bad weather being experienced all over the globe and with such frequency is par for the course from yesteryear. I don't listen to the media, I use my eyes to see the visible damage being done by weather patterns around the globe. Yes, we have increased weather coverage via the media but since when have there been such frequent weather events involving loss of life? I don't recall seeing stuff like this being reported at the turn of the 19th century in the archives.
As for companies moving off-shore, they've been doing that for years and will now use the threat of a carbon tax as an excuse.
Umm. Take the Queensland floods, they had them about a Century ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood) (which is why they are often called the 100 year floods). The difference is that today, it is in our faces, where back then it would take weeks for news to travel to other parts of the world.
If you are going to say you do not listen to the media, at least do some research and look into the archives, rather than just saying you cannot recall seeing it in them!
Lance B
01-06-2011, 3:55pm
[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.[QUOTE=Lance B;853948]
Unseasonal weather, yes, yes, yes. Stats don't lie and you can't say that the amount of bad weather being experienced all over the globe and with such frequency is par for the course from yesteryear. I don't listen to the media, I use my eyes to see the visible damage being done by weather patterns around the globe. Yes, we have increased weather coverage via the media but since when have there been such frequent weather events involving loss of life? I don't recall seeing stuff like this being reported at the turn of the 19th century in the archives.
As for companies moving off-shore, they've been doing that for years and will now use the threat of a carbon tax as an excuse.
As Rick says, these weather events have been happening for years and just as bad. They may look worse now due to the fact there are many, many more people, more buildings and therefore more damage, but they are no worse as an actual weather event. The media is good at making it look worse than it actually is as we don't have TV footage of the previous floods like we do nowadays.
Yes, companies have been moving offshore, bit this is just another straw to make them move if they were on the verge of doing so but also the fact that they do due to a carbon tax is not going to solve the carbon dioxide emissions as the countries they go to have much worse emissions than we do. In fact, as I said, what ever tax they put on here in order a forlorn attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not only be made up for overseas in these hell hole economies but will backfire and make carbon emissions worse!!!
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 4:04pm
Seasonal and unseasonal weather!!! You hear these begged questions every night after the news. Anything to make people go "OOH!" and "AAHH!" And they proceed to pretend to be meteorologists and climatologists. Perhaps even quote some irrelevant "fact" as "incontrovertible evidence", if not downright "proof". And what's worse, WE let them pretend. And we let ourselves become alarmed, except that we call it "BEING CONCERNED" and feel assuaged of conscience and perhaps even jump onto the bandwagon. YES! Let's all have a Carbon Tax. It seems like a good idea, even if we don't really know why. Then the bandwagon has to grow to accomodate more and more jumpers-on. It becomes a juggernaut, and we get our Carbon Tax. And then what...? Another "DISASTER" is forewarned, and off we go again.
(Now really, I didn't want to make another post in this thread...)
What about the Federation drought... worse than the one we just had by several years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Drought
Which was followed by floods in 1902
ApolloLXII
01-06-2011, 4:15pm
[QUOTE=Apollo62;853969][QUOTE=Lance B;853948]Unseasonal weather? No, no no!! Every piece of weather we have witnessed lately has all happened beofre and worse. I think you are listening to alarmists and the fact that we now have TV coverage making it look worse.
Umm. Take the Queensland floods, they had them about a Century ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood) (which is why they are often called the 100 year floods). The difference is that today, it is in our faces, where back then it would take weeks for news to travel to other parts of the world.
If you are going to say you do not listen to the media, at least do some research and look into the archives, rather than just saying you cannot recall seeing it in them!
Show me where, Rick, that there have been a succession of EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE either during the same year or a few months apart in the years during the turn of the 19th Century. You are only thinking locally and not globally which is the whole point of climate change. It will affect everybody and not just one or two countries. Yes, Queensland has had floods before but there were no heavy snowfalls in the U.K. and deadly tornadoes in the U.S. in the same year when that happened.
Quote "A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that" (same sentiment from various above)
If this was the case, then increasing the excise (tax) on cigarettes wouldn't make any difference either, except that each time the excise is raised there is a matched 10% (+/-) drop off in smoking.
Except that a majority of smokers have a viable alternative. People who need to cook, keep warm and travel to work really don't have much choice.
Worse still, the main polluters are overseas and struggling to feed their people much less anything else. That's why they burn rainforest to create agricultural land, polluting the atmosphere, killing the native animals and substituting bovine methane makers, etc. For them it's the lesser of two evils.
We ALL need to realise that this planet is supporting ALL of us and it's a GLOBAL problem. A carbon tax here is only a political bargaining chip for use on the foreign stage and the problem is that the people we would be bargaining with aren't interested in our tokenism; they are interested in food and survival. Work on THAT and some of the other problems will take care of themselves.
Sustainability is not about doing with less of anything, it is about doing more with what you have in the best and most efficient possible way. Show me ANY tax that has achieved that! Most of the money raised that way gets swallowed in bureaucracy rather than being productive of change. Insulation anyone?
Lance B
01-06-2011, 4:26pm
Just one example, 1930's USA and Australia droughts.
For the same reason you can't say that it isn't worse than other times.
... Due to cancers and other related illnesses caused from the release of radiation stored in the coal and toxic chemicals.
I don't know where you got this one, Lance. I work for a coal testing laboratory company (Australian-owned but global) and I've never heard of any abnormal radiation levels caused by burning coal. There are plenty of radioactive trace elements in coal; that's true. Many of those can be removed by properly processing the coal before burning it, or by trapping particulates before they are emitted, but that costs money and that puts up the price of electricity so ...
I don't disagree that nuclear appears the only viable, long-term alternative to fossil fuels ... unless we can solve the issues with cold fusion, anti-matter, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. It turns out you can even burn water ... if you put enough microwave energy through it ... but microwave energy comes from electricity, too! It's a dilemma alright. The bottom line is that coal is the cheapest, and most accessible fuel for generating electricity. It won't last forever but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater while we're looking for new ways to get clean, ok?
ricktas
01-06-2011, 4:58pm
Show me where, Rick, that there have been a succession of EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE either during the same year or a few months apart in the years during the turn of the 19th Century. You are only thinking locally and not globally which is the whole point of climate change. It will affect everybody and not just one or two countries. Yes, Queensland has had floods before but there were no heavy snowfalls in the U.K. and deadly tornadoes in the U.S. in the same year when that happened.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/?n=ms_flood_history
and in particular : 1912 March-May
$70M damage along the MS River [Hoyt], New Orleans 2nd highest crest of record of 21.02 feet on May 11th; Donaldsonville 4th highest crest of record at 33.91 feet on May 10th; Baton Rouge 8th highest crest of record at 43.30 feet on May 11th. [AHPS]
Show me where, Rick, that there have been a succession of EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE either during the same year or a few months apart in the years during the turn of the 19th Century. You are only thinking locally and not globally which is the whole point of climate change. It will affect everybody and not just one or two countries. Yes, Queensland has had floods before but there were no heavy snowfalls in the U.K. and deadly tornadoes in the U.S. in the same year when that happened.
Ever heard of the Ice Age? What about the great flood ... apparently people looking to prove Noah existed have found geological evidence of a massive global inundation, albeit one not able to be pinned down to the religious time scales (tch tch). Talk about pop science.
The fact is that the Earth actually WOBBLES on its axis, and that wobbling can be held to account for and predict all sorts of climatic aberrations back to the Big Bang! Furthermore, there are many more correlations between solar activity and earthly climate changes than anything to do with the human production of CO2. Finally we have the so-called "evidence" of "weather events" that actually have nothing to do with the climate. Tsunami's, for example, are geologically driven ... thanks to movements in the Earth's crust ... and yet people treat them as another harbinger of the impending catastrophe from global warming/climate change!
I think it is fabulous that people are concerned for our planet and its inhabitants; human and non-human. I don't see anyone in this discussion who isn't concerned. We just disagree on the best way to exercise that concern for the good of all. Let's not waste that concern on furphies generated by vested interests, be they commercial, political or religious. Let us instead spend our efforts in being a positive influence for solving real global problems like hunger, extinction of species, war, etc. instead of spinning our wheels in a panic over some media hype being leveraged by politicians and other vested interests to "protect (our) phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen" (Mel Brookes - Blazing Saddles)
Lance B
01-06-2011, 5:28pm
I don't know where you got this one, Lance. I work for a coal testing laboratory company (Australian-owned but global) and I've never heard of any abnormal radiation levels caused by burning coal. There are plenty of radioactive trace elements in coal; that's true. Many of those can be removed by properly processing the coal before burning it, or by trapping particulates before they are emitted, but that costs money and that puts up the price of electricity so ...
There are many articles written on the subject and it is from the fly ash emitted by the coal fired power stations, I first heard it in a radio interview by an eminent scientist on the subject many years ago and then did some research. Here are some articles:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+realistic+nuclear+option+safer+than+fossil+fuels/4474439/story.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
I don't disagree that nuclear appears the only viable, long-term alternative to fossil fuels ... unless we can solve the issues with cold fusion, anti-matter, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. It turns out you can even burn water ... if you put enough microwave energy through it ... but microwave energy comes from electricity, too! It's a dilemma alright. The bottom line is that coal is the cheapest, and most accessible fuel for generating electricity. It won't last forever but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater while we're looking for new ways to get clean, ok?
I do agree, but the third world is developing at an ever increasing rate and the demand for fossil fuel is fast diminishing supplies and causing pollution, not to be confused with carbon dioxide which not a pollutant, I am talking about the other problems with burning coal and other fossil fuels. I don't think we have time to wait for these other energy sources to appear before problems with fossil fuel supply spring up, especially oil. I think the major issue confronting the world is not carbon dioxide (as I do not think it is an issue at all), but overpopulation which will require all this new energy. I don't know if you read my post above about the amount of enegry required for us to turn to all electric cars just here in Australia, but we need to double our power output if we all end up using electric cars!! What I said:
"Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these optioons, they require electricity to function. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world.
Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/...nsumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China and India just to name the big two!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!
Now, all this pie in the sky talk of solar, wind etc is just that, pie in the sky. How on earth does anyone think we can add double to our worldwide output of electricity without a mix of nuclear somwhere in there?"
CT.
another thought is .... until china /India are made to pursue a carbon reduction...
China has set its carbon reduction targets, and they are very, very ambitious. They'd be laughable in fact, if the Chinese government wasn't as powerful as it is, being both capable and willing to enforce it. Because that government is a communist one (albeit more socialist these days), no carbon tax/trading scheme is needed. They tell a company to change, and it damn well gets changed.
Our government doesn't have that kind of power though. If we legislated to force our energy companies to replace their plants with clean power stations, within 3 years (or even 20) it would hit the courts and likely never leave them.
An emissions trading scheme (or a carbon tax) are ways that a government can legislate in order to manipulate market forces in ways that will indirectly encourage, and later even force, companies to make those same changes we cannot directly force.
We need to be leading this movement, because small though we are, we're influential. We certainly shouldn't be waiting until all the other bad kids in the schoolyard are playing nice first.
It sucks that times will get tougher, but we have to do our part because this is the biggest and toughest crisis humanity has ever faced. Consider it WW3 and be thankful there are no air raids.
Scotty72
01-06-2011, 6:14pm
I have started to come around on this issue (Climate Change).
Do I (or any of us) really know if it is real... not really.
Do scientists on both sides have vested interests... of course.
Is pumping exhaust gasses into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates a good idea.... NO
Will Australia's policies change the world... not likely (but, then again, a river begins with one drop... what if every drop of water refuses to flow until the river starts first)
BUT!!!!
I think the bigger issue is that of peak oil. It is bloody obvious we are running out of oil and need to change our behaviours... Australians are generally too bloody minded to change unless we are forced to by cost. Some may say that a CT will push up prices... probably correctly... but, the cost of not changing our habits (via a CT)if we do nothing will massively outweigh the cost of the CT...
We really do need to change from our 1950's view of the world... Get used to the idea of $2-3 per litre of petrol.
Scotty
There are many articles written on the subject and it is from the fly ash emitted by the coal fired power stations
Yep, fly ash contains radioactive trace elements, but that's a different thing to releasing radioactivity by burning coal ... not better or worse, just different. The vast majority of fly ash is trapped at the power plant using scrubbers and other filtering devices before it actually reaches the atmosphere.
I don't think we have time to wait for these other energy sources to appear before problems with fossil fuel supply spring up, especially oil. I think the major issue confronting the world is not carbon dioxide (as I do not think it is an issue at all), but overpopulation which will require all this new energy.
Agreed. How will a CT/ETS solve that one? Remember that birth rates are higher in poorer nations, so if we tax ourselves poor our birthrate will likely climb as well! :p
I don't know if you read my post above about the amount of enegry required for us to turn to all electric cars just here in Australia, but we need to double our power output if we all end up using electric cars!!
I did. Here is a link to the most current statistics and predictions on fuel usage to 2030. Yes it comes from an oil company but they have a vested interest in how long they can continue to sell oil, don't they?
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9035979&contentId=7066648.
Predictions are downloadable for free in PDF format and stats in an Excel spreadsheet and are used by energy authorities world wide. In particular their Statistical Review of World Energy 2010 (http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622) is about as comprehensive a document on the subject as can be obtained for free, and also comes with Excel workbooks that can be used to chart comparative figures for all energy sources including nuclear, solar and others.
peterb666
01-06-2011, 6:32pm
If the european ets is so successful why have the Germans announced the decommissioning of all nuclear plants by 2020 ?
Because growing 3 heads is worse than black lung.
ameerat42
01-06-2011, 6:41pm
Scotty. Well pointed out. The facts are there. What we make of them is anyone's guess, dog's breakfast, all and none of the foregoing. The original topic asked about Carbon Tax and, implicitly, its efficacy in making a difference. Well, kingdom come had its chance a week or so ago. It didn't, and so I think we will be able to argue the toss until the next time. To me, a Carbon Tax is about as good as Tin Tacks or Brass Tacks, (or the latter Razoos). I suppose we can be considered lucky if it (KK) does not miss next time.
And to the above-cited question of
EXTREME weather events AROUND THE GLOBE what empirical evidence is there for that? How does anyone arrive at such a conclusion? To admit that it is no more than the mere suggestion of media doomsayers, a questionable breed in themselves, would be a giant leap forward for person-kind. It would probably do more good than a Carbon Tax.
Well, well, this thread has certainly stirred the pot, and rightly so.
Personally I think that anything we in Australia can do to reduce Global warming is but a drop in the ocean, plus as has been alluded to above, global warming and ice ages seem to come and go.
Carbon taxes and the like are 'band-aid' fixes, and do not address the real issue which should be to totally eliminate pollution.
We should be going all out to ramp up the technology involving Solar power, wind power, tidal power and gravitational power (yes, it's an energy force and therefore a potential source of power) which are all there for the taking, are clean and sustainable.
We could also piss off the oil companies by tooling our vehicles to run 100% ethanol.
We, as a people of the planet, really need to move forward from the 'chop it down, dig it up and burn it mentality'.
As an old fart I won't be around to see what happens, but I have kids, and grand-kids, and I have concerns for what they are going to have to contend with.
Just my two bobs worth.
I am yet to read or hear from anyone, how the money from a CT will help the enviroment. All I have heard from the government is that some of the money will be given out to the less fortunate to offset any increases. Well excuse me, but how does that help anything ? All it does is win some votes. Why are we constantly treated like idiots ? OK, we are not all scientists, but we can tell when we are being fed a load of crap. (sorry).
stop worrying you lot... the fluctuation are all natural...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
bring on the iceage.
Voted NO!!! for reasons mostly mentioned above , but if the Gov is so concerned about carbon and its effects to the atmospherre why are we exporting so much coal to help add to the so called problem??..Close Coal Mines, powerstaions and lets all get back to burning candles:D, Now the question is ?? do they put carbon into the atmosphere:)???...
Gov needs money and looking at ways off collecting . Simple as that!!!...
Should have just from the beginning said "We want a piece of the Pie from all the Coal etc that gets exported at such good present pricing"..
ameerat42
02-06-2011, 9:17am
Should have just from the beginning said "We want a piece of the Pie from all the Coal etc that gets exported at such good present pricing"..
Agreed, and they tried. It was called the "Mining Tax". The rest is history.
Am.
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 9:28am
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/?n=ms_flood_history
and in particular : 1912 March-May
$70M damage along the MS River [Hoyt], New Orleans 2nd highest crest of record of 21.02 feet on May 11th; Donaldsonville 4th highest crest of record at 33.91 feet on May 10th; Baton Rouge 8th highest crest of record at 43.30 feet on May 11th. [AHPS]
All of which took place in the U.S. I'm talking about weather events happening in other parts of the globe either at the same time or within a short space of time. Yes, there have always been weather fluctuations in past years, centuries etc. but not at such frequency of occurrence as has been happening in recent times.
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 9:54am
Ever heard of the Ice Age? What about the great flood ... apparently people looking to prove Noah existed have found geological evidence of a massive global inundation, albeit one not able to be pinned down to the religious time scales (tch tch). Talk about pop science.
The fact is that the Earth actually WOBBLES on its axis, and that wobbling can be held to account for and predict all sorts of climatic aberrations back to the Big Bang! Furthermore, there are many more correlations between solar activity and earthly climate changes than anything to do with the human production of CO2. Finally we have the so-called "evidence" of "weather events" that actually have nothing to do with the climate. Tsunami's, for example, are geologically driven ... thanks to movements in the Earth's crust ... and yet people treat them as another harbinger of the impending catastrophe from global warming/climate change!
I think it is fabulous that people are concerned for our planet and its inhabitants; human and non-human. I don't see anyone in this discussion who isn't concerned. We just disagree on the best way to exercise that concern for the good of all. Let's not waste that concern on furphies generated by vested interests, be they commercial, political or religious. Let us instead spend our efforts in being a positive influence for solving real global problems like hunger, extinction of species, war, etc. instead of spinning our wheels in a panic over some media hype being leveraged by politicians and other vested interests to "protect (our) phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen" (Mel Brookes - Blazing Saddles)
Yes, I have heard of the Ice Age which is not what we'll be in for if nothing is done about about the problem of global pollution of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is being warmed and it is in the atmosphere that our weather is created, hence the increased frequency of either unseasonal or severe weather events. It will be of no use worrying about hunger, species extinction or war because all of that will become increasingly more likely if the weather disrupts the growing of crops leading to food shortages as the years roll by.
Yep, good ol' planet earth does indeed wobble on it's axis (and wobbled a bit more apparently as a result of the Japanese earthquakes) but that wobble does not account for increasing weather phenomena. If you were to look at the planet from a few hundred thousand kilometres in space, you'll notice just how thin the atmospheric layer is in relation to the size of the planet. I saw somebody in an earlier post mention something about us all asphxiating from too much carbon dioxide or whatever but I'm sorry to say that such a thing eventuating is ridiculous. But it is because of the atmosphere being relatively thin that the problem of carbon pollution will exacerbate the climactic conditions of the planet, all around the globe. We can't just continue to pump all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and expect everything to remain hunky dory. Everything has it's limits and so does this planet.
Bennymiata
02-06-2011, 10:00am
While we MIGHT be running out of oil, we still have far larger energy sources to use like frozen methane.
Experts say there is enough frozen methane in the Bay of Mexico alone to power the US for the next 3,000 years, and that there's plenty of it at the bottom of virtually ever ocean.
That's far more energy than all the oil we know about, and will ever know about!
Personaly, I can't understand why we are continuing to use oil at all, when we have a very good alternative to use, that will not run out in our history.
It would be easy to convert oil refinieries to refine methane and would require virtually no changes to our cars or power stations to use it either.
It is certainly much safer, and less polluting to extract the frozen methane from the bottom of the oceans than it is to drill for oil at the bottom of the ocean, and far less worries about any spillage polluting too.
Some US power stations actually run on methane gas now, and this gas is being generated from garbage dumps!
Why don't we do that?
Instead of the gasses given off from rotting garbage going into the atmosphere, we should collect it and use it as an energy source.
I do firmly believe that we need to be smarter about our energy use and our energy wastage, and we need to explore new forms of free energy too like geothermal, hot rock technology which could be easily applied here., which don't cause pollution, as like many of you here, I want to breathe clean air and have clean water, but taxing us because our forefathers and us caused a minute fraction of extra CO2 into the air over the last few hundred years, just makes no sense to me and it certainly won't help pollution either.
You want to see extreme weather?
Go back many thousands of years and look at the weather patterns.
We've had everything from ice ages to air that is so thick with CO2 that mankind could not have existed - at a time when oxygen was a poison, to times when the volcanic activity killed most life on the earth.
There have been times when the earth was parched, and times when it flooded - mankind is but a flea on an elephant.
We might cause a very small itch, but we won't bring it down.
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 10:04am
Nuclear is the safest of all forms of energy production.
So I guess, seeing how nuclear is so "safe", that you'll be offering up your backyard to store some of the radioactive waste should Australia be stupid enough to opt in for nuclear power? If you really want to light up this forum, you can ask the question "Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility next door, in your suburb or even in or near your town?" and see just how safe everybody thinks nuclear energy is. I think you will find that one of the biggest costs incurred by the production of nuclear energy is waste disposal which is why some governments in Europe are looking at getting rid of their reactors.
ricktas
02-06-2011, 10:07am
So I guess, seeing how nuclear is so "safe", that you'll be offering up your backyard to store some of the radioactive waste should Australia be stupid enough to opt in for nuclear power? If you really want to light up this forum, you can ask the question "Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility next door, in your suburb or even in or near your town?" and see just how safe everybody thinks nuclear energy is. I think you will find that one of the biggest costs incurred by the production of nuclear energy is waste disposal which is why some governments in Europe are looking at getting rid of their reactors.
You seem to want to attack every other member for their views here. Everyone has a different opinion and even when other present you with factual links you jump on their views. I suggest you tone it down, or I will temporarily ban you!
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 10:12am
While we MIGHT be running out of oil, we still have far larger energy sources to use like frozen methane.
Experts say there is enough frozen methane in the Bay of Mexico alone to power the US for the next 3,000 years, and that there's plenty of it at the bottom of virtually ever ocean.
That's far more energy than all the oil we know about, and will ever know about!
Personaly, I can't understand why we are continuing to use oil at all, when we have a very good alternative to use, that will not run out in our history.
It would be easy to convert oil refinieries to refine methane and would require virtually no changes to our cars or power stations to use it either.
It is certainly much safer, and less polluting to extract the frozen methane from the bottom of the oceans than it is to drill for oil at the bottom of the ocean, and far less worries about any spillage polluting too.
Some US power stations actually run on methane gas now, and this gas is being generated from garbage dumps!
Why don't we do that?
Instead of the gasses given off from rotting garbage going into the atmosphere, we should collect it and use it as an energy source.
I do firmly believe that we need to be smarter about our energy use and our energy wastage, and we need to explore new forms of free energy too like geothermal, hot rock technology which could be easily applied here., which don't cause pollution, as like many of you here, I want to breathe clean air and have clean water, but taxing us because our forefathers and us caused a minute fraction of extra CO2 into the air over the last few hundred years, just makes no sense to me and it certainly won't help pollution either.
You want to see extreme weather?
Go back many thousands of years and look at the weather patterns.
We've had everything from ice ages to air that is so thick with CO2 that mankind could not have existed - at a time when oxygen was a poison, to times when the volcanic activity killed most life on the earth.
There have been times when the earth was parched, and times when it flooded - mankind is but a flea on an elephant.
We might cause a very small itch, but we won't bring it down.
Very good post, especially the last sentence. No, mankind will not bring down the planet. It will be the earth bringing mankind down, possibly even out of existence. Dinosaurs once ruled the earth and now they are nothing but fossils so, unless we want to end up like them maybe, we really need to take care and pay attention to the planet on which we all depend. Not enough of us care and too many of us are prepared to just work for the weekend and let the future generations sort it out.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 10:17am
All of which took place in the U.S. I'm talking about weather events happening in other parts of the globe either at the same time or within a short space of time. Yes, there have always been weather fluctuations in past years, centuries etc. but not at such frequency of occurrence as has been happening in recent times.
It is no different now than it has ever been, just that we see more because of the amount of TV/media coverage, personal mobile phone coverage, everybody's got a point and shoot coverage etc. In countries/places like China, India, much of Africa, South America, we would not have even heard of the devestation that storms etc would have made 20+ years ago as most of these places had no or little coverage as they either didn't have TV/media or the regimes wouldn't allow reports to be made. To make a statment that wetahr occurances like we have been having are worse than previous is being quite nefarious and this is the type of hysteria that the media plays on in order to get you to watch TV coverage or buy newspapers etc. Don't fall for it.
The hottest day in Sydney is still January 14th 1939, yet if you listen to the media, it could have it could have been anyone of the days in the last 20 years! I remember the floods back in 1974 which were just as bad if not worse than the recent one. In fact, floods occur about every 20 years in QLD and some are worse than others. However, Queensland had a wetter spring in 1900, so what does that tell you? Nothing, as all it means that we have wet years and dry years and some are worse and some are not so bad.
There is also a major link between sunspot activity and weather events on earth and it also affects the temperatures, El Nino/La Nina etc. Do some research on it and you will see that it is not mans involvement, but natural fluctuating climate that has been going on like this for thousands of years.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 10:35am
So I guess, seeing how nuclear is so "safe", that you'll be offering up your backyard to store some of the radioactive waste should Australia be stupid enough to opt in for nuclear power? If you really want to light up this forum, you can ask the question "Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility next door, in your suburb or even in or near your town?" and see just how safe everybody thinks nuclear energy is. I think you will find that one of the biggest costs incurred by the production of nuclear energy is waste disposal which is why some governments in Europe are looking at getting rid of their reactors.
I am sorry to have to say this, but this is quite a silly statement to make. The fact of the matter is, why would they build a nuclear facility in my backyard? They aren't about to build a coal/gas fired power station there either, so why a nuclear one? They will build it where it needs to go, and that won't be my backyard or yours. It will be somewhere away from populated areas near a grid and where they can easily supply fuel, access the grid and remove waste. Yes, it will be away from built up areas, but that is the same for any power plant.
The thing is, Australia is the safest place in the world to have nuclear power as we have:
1) stable government
2) no wars
3) we have the stuff here already and therefore we do not have to ship it far
4) no earthquakes
5) we can store it safely underground in the middle of the desert and yes it is SAFE to do this.
I think you need to have a reality check as far as future requirements of power needs for not only Australia, but the world. And remember, what we do in Australia has zero impact on what other governments will end up doing regardiong their power needs. China will use whatever power they want to, as will India and any other country, in order to provide cheap power and in many cases, this will be nuclear. People are already screming about paying an extra $500 a year on their electricity bills and using only these pie in th sky ideas of wind and solar would push the electricity price into stratospheric areas. People really need to get a reality check. If you want any semblance of the current way you live now to be like that in the future, and I mean anything like the way you live now, then you will have to embrace nuclear at least in the short term. Nothing will ever be cheap again, because make no bones about it, the reason we have what we have is completely because of cheap power, nothing more nothing less. If we don't have cheap power, China and India and other countries certainly will and we will be left behind.
Did you read my dissertation on power requirements if we go the way of electric cars? I will represent it:
"Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these optioons, they require electricity to function. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world.
Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/...nsumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China and India just to name the big two!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!
Now, all this pie in the sky talk of solar, wind etc is just that, pie in the sky. How on earth does anyone think we can add double to our worldwide output of electricity without a mix of nuclear somwhere in there?"
Lance B
02-06-2011, 10:37am
Very good post, especially the last sentence. No, mankind will not bring down the planet. It will be the earth bringing mankind down, possibly even out of existence. Dinosaurs once ruled the earth and now they are nothing but fossils so, unless we want to end up like them maybe, we really need to take care and pay attention to the planet on which we all depend. Not enough of us care and too many of us are prepared to just work for the weekend and let the future generations sort it out.
So, the dinosaurs created CO2 and killed themselves off too? :lol:
The carbon tax isn't really about creating a tax to consumers, the intent really us to transfer costs from bad energy users to good energy users via taxing higher say coal users and generators and giving incentives to say solar, it's trading mote than taxing.
Now, should current governments care about climate change, science would say yes in an overwhelming manner. There are of course a vocal
Minority that various skeptics and talkshow jocks grasp to, probably the same minority that say there's no benefit in shooting RAW
I think in general we should take positive (or if you like negative) steps to be more efficient and be more environmentally sustainable as a trend. Can't see why anyone would argue with that
peterb666
02-06-2011, 11:34am
The funny thing about this thread and most discussions on "carbon tax" is that those against it because of the cost don't seem to realise that regardless of a "tax" (which will apply directly to polluters) or not, it will cost pretty much the same to clean up the mess we have created for ourselves.
We should leave the environment in pretty much the same state as we entered it. That hasn't happened for a long time. We are stuffing the world we live in.
Like peeing in your bath water, there comes a time when the water gets too dirty and you have to pull the plug. Regardless when it is done, you still need a new tub of water. Do you wait until the water is dark yellow and get a few infections along the way, or do you change your bad practices now? I vote for getting a bath tub of clean water and keeping it longer, rather than enduring more time in the dirty stuff.
peterb666
02-06-2011, 11:37am
I think in general we should take positive (or if you like negative) steps to be more efficient and be more environmentally sustainable as a trend. Can't see why anyone would argue with that
The problem is that there are some motivated by short-term vested interests, usually associated with greed. There is another group that find it easier to believe those with vested interests. Change is always hard to implement.
indeed, for this reason i prefer carbon offsets as a mandatory practice.
So, if you (anywhere in the supply chain) create negative carbon footprint or ecological harm then you as a business need to buy or directly create carbon offsets - eg plant trees, create better waterways, greening, etc etc. Most big companies are doing this, at least locally, already
Lance B
02-06-2011, 12:09pm
The carbon tax isn't really about creating a tax to consumers, the intent really us to transfer costs from bad energy users to good energy users via taxing higher say coal users and generators and giving incentives to say solar, it's trading mote than taxing.
Now, should current governments care about climate change, science would say yes in an overwhelming manner. There are of course a vocal
Minority that various skeptics and talkshow jocks grasp to, probably the same minority that say there's no benefit in shooting RAW
I think in general we should take positive (or if you like negative) steps to be more efficient and be more environmentally sustainable as a trend. Can't see why anyone would argue with that
No, it is not a vocal minority at all, in the manner that you seem to be implying, more the opposite, a silent majority and this is exactly why the unchecked belief that global warming has been caused by man. Take Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which has been proven in a court that much of it consisted of lies and half truths, but it has been introduced into school curriculums as if it were the Gospel truth! How many people would go and watch it if it wasn't a sensationalisation of facts? Very few, so distort the truth and you will scare people into thinking it all true. Do some research on the so-called "consensus" that all science agrees that there is global warming caused by man and you will see that it is not a minority but more that it is an equal spread of those who believe and those who don't.
From what I see of most people is that they listen to all the shock of the media with their sensationalism (in order to sell a story as it won't sell if it is something that is not a worry to us), but none actually do any real research into the alternative view about so-called man made global warming (now conveniently called climate change) and once they do, they see that there is an equally divided scientific community on the subject and that there is just as much evidence that global warming (climate change!) is a natural phenomenon, if is actually even happening at all. I wonder how many here, or anywhere else for that matter, have actually read any books or listened to any other contrary views by eminent scientists or read any credible internet info, rather than just relyig on media hype? I guarantee that hardly any at all. The thing is, everything now is blamed on global warming even in jest and has therefore now become a de rigueur belief rather than an proven one and this is the point it has not been proven by anyone that it is actually occuring, yet the masses seem to blindly accept it. Unbelievable!
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf
I'll stick by the fact that the vast majority of scientific opinion (as opoosed to public or media opinion) is with the fact that there is climate change occurring. Not all agree the cause.
Is the UN, WHO, CSIRO etc etc wrong ? Don't these paek bodies represent science and the majority of global thinking ?
http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/library.html
Ive been to countless business forums etc and although I'm by nature a skeptic, science seems (almost) united on this front.
Art Vandelay
02-06-2011, 12:34pm
Results from climate scientists and the multitude of vested interest groups whose funding depends on there being man made global warming climate change is akin to gathering a group of priests and asking there views on whether there is a God.
Plenty of independants have spoken out.
to be frank, there would be a lot more money on the circuit for a skeptic
Im not a scientist, dont understand the science, dont intend to....so...in lieau of a personal understanding I will go with the vast majority on these things.
You can believe what you want. :)
mudman
02-06-2011, 12:48pm
i don't think carbon is the issue.
if you wantv to reduce/control carbon plant something. as it grows it photosynthisises carbon and produces oxygen.
it is other gasses that are the issue. methane, carbon monoxide, and the toxic stuff comming out of factory chimneys that are the real problem.
stopping the felling of trees in places like the amazon and Indonesia would probably help a bit too.
in my opinion the 'carbon tax' is not what it should be called.
My worry is I dont trust governments to do the right thing, especially ones that do an about face on the very same topic. :confused013
i don't think carbon is the issue.
.true. link to data that states carbon density fluctuation has always been present.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
i worry more about things like heavy metals in our water, etc
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 1:06pm
www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf
palaeoentomolog.ru/Lib/Chumakov4.pdf
downloads.climatescience.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/Global.pdf
www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/03.html
www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
For those who might like to see what the views of some scientists are.
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 1:11pm
So, the dinosaurs created CO2 and killed themselves off too? :lol:
I never said anything of the sort. There's nothing yet definitely proved as to what killed off the dinosaurs. We will end up extinct like the dinosaurs though if nothing is done about the problem of pollution (carbon or otherwise).
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 1:14pm
My worry is I dont trust governments to do the right thing, especially ones that do an about face on the very same topic. :confused013
Therein lies another problem. We cannot trust the government to do ANYTHING right and about faces seem to be inherent in politics. Campaign on a promise and then break it once you've got into office and that kind of thing has ALWAYS worried me.
Bennymiata
02-06-2011, 1:16pm
My worry is I dont trust governments to do the right thing, especially ones that do an about face on the very same topic. :confused013
Dead right.
If pollution and carbon WAS such a big concern to our Federal Government, why did they reduce the funding to the CSIRO by such a huge amount in Rudd's first budget, and each budget they brought down thereafter?
Surely, it is the scientists in the CSIRO who would be best suited to solving these problems.
Now, if we could get these people with wood-burning stoves to put them out, and get the government to enforce clean water effluent on the coal mines, we'd all be better off.
We ALL want clean air and clean water, but if we have to live in caves to do it, then forget about it.
It's a bit like a few years ago when the big talk was about handing back land to the aboriginals.
My wife and I were at a dinner party a few years ago, when this was the hot topic for dicussion.
Seated next to us was another couple, who were all for the handing back of all lands, so I asked them when they were going to give their house over the aboriginals.
They looked at me like I had just shot their mother!
They said they weren't going to give their house over the aboriginals, they worked hard to afford it and they certainly weren't going to give it to anybody!
I said to them that they were being very two-faced about this, as it is them who are espousing this theory, and that they should set an example for others to follow.
I said to them how could farmers, miners etc just give away the land they own, when people like them wouldn't do it.
Same with the carbon tax.
Sounds good now, but when it's coming out of YOUR pocket (and it will, regardless if you even get some of it back in compensation), your opinion may change!
Is the UN, WHO, CSIRO etc etc wrong ? Don't these paek bodies represent science and the majority of global thinking ?
Maybe they do, Darren, but that begs the question "are they biased in their opinions?" Let's see, the UN says give us some money and we'll explore the political implications of asking our poorer members to give up their cheap fuel. Or the WHO who says give us some money and we'll explore the health impacts on those who are compelled to use cheaper fossil fuels. Then, of course, there is the CSIRO who says give us some money and we'll research all of the ways we can produce energy from renewable sources. IMHO there is inherent bias in almost any viewpoint presented in such forums. All of these organisations depend on governments for their funding. The reality is that altruism may exist at the grass roots in these august bodies but I seriously doubt it still exists at the top level where their organisational viewpoints are expounded.
I do agree, however, that climate change (perhaps even global warming ... or cooling) is occurring, as it has since the beginning of geological time. The direction is likely unaffected by man to any significant degree, and only man's ego believes it otherwise. Maybe the next great extinction event will claim mankind as well, who knows? The problem we can impact on is what resources we use, and how quickly they are depleted if they are non-renewable. We most certainly SHOULD be addressing that yesterday IMHO. There are more efficient ways of funding that effort than allowing politicians to slug people, not just big business, with another tax. They have a long history of squandering financial resources and failing to produce fundamental benefits in the process. Like I said, "free" insulation anyone?
Bottom line: A carbon tax and/or an emissions trading scheme is unlikely to solve global problems to do with climate change. They may save government problems in funding political agendas but not much else and we'll all be the poorer in the end. A friend of mine once pointed out a simple truth; money follows ideas, not the other way around. When the government can come up with concrete strategy for using our taxes to develop solutions to real problems, then I'll happily ante up. I have a granddaughter and I want her to inherit a better world than the one I will leave one day. I just don't trust governments to do it with taxation when they haven't committed to where it will be spent, how and why. I guess I'm just getting really cynical in my dotage. :D
Im not a scientist, dont understand the science, dont intend to....so...in lieau of a personal understanding I will go with the vast majority on these things.
)
More or less my position. I'm always surprised at how confidently many people express strong opinions on complex scientific issues, when on examination it turns out that they're as unqualified as I am, and are merely reflecting received opinion.
I once knew a lady who more or less considered the opinion of John Laws to be the last word on any possible topic. Not a stupid lady, and not in any way unusual either.
Depressing.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/195995~Ice-Age-Posters.jpg
Lance B
02-06-2011, 1:49pm
to be frank, there would be a lot more money on the circuit for a skeptic
Im not a scientist, dont understand the science, dont intend to....so...in lieau of a personal understanding I will go with the vast majority on these things.
You can believe what you want. :)
Not when there is a tax to be implemented by a government and those same said scientists are funded by government grants to unis etc.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 2:05pm
[QUOTE=jim;854533]More or less my position. I'm always surprised at how confidently many people express strong opinions on complex scientific issues, when on examination it turns out that they're as unqualified as I am, and are merely reflecting received opinion.[QUOTE]
Some may not undertsand the science, but I understand most of it and I also have done much research. Also, there is an even split of scientists who believe in man made global warming and those that don't, yet they are all scientists and even they can't come to a consensus, so I don't think you should condemn anyone for expressing a well read and researched opinion .
20 odd years ago, we were told that eggs were bad for you as they have cholesterol and therefore give us heart disease, however, we now know that eggs are actually good for you and can help reduce cholesterol and assist in balancing triglycerides! Also, these same climate warming scientists in the 70'2 were predicting an ice age! The same scientists that said mobile phones were ok and wouldn't give you cancer and now we here from WHO, that they can give you cancers. These same scientists first told us it was global warming and they had computer models that we would have rising temperature of a .5 degree every decade, now they call it climate change as their computer models got it all wrong and we don't have universal warming at all. These same scientists many years ago who were shouting that the Antarctic was losing ice and we were shown melting ice falling into the sea for effect. This has been shown to be a sham as they only showed one section of Antarctica losing ice on the east whereas on the west it was gaining ice to the tune of 100,000square KMs every 10 years!! And do you know what is causing the extra ice to be formed? The bloody hole in the ozone layer which was supposed to be such a villainous catastrophic disaster for mankind! They now realise that the ozone hole has always been there and always will be and it has always fluctuated in size.
So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm. I put as much faith in them as I do the governments that pay their wages.
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 2:06pm
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/195995~Ice-Age-Posters.jpg
I loved that movie. Should have concentrated the whole thing on this little guy and his efforts with the acorn.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 2:10pm
I never said anything of the sort. There's nothing yet definitely proved as to what killed off the dinosaurs. We will end up extinct like the dinosaurs though if nothing is done about the problem of pollution (carbon or otherwise).
But you drew the parallel, ie, "unless we want to end like up like them". So, you drew them into the discussion in some way as to make us think that their demise is linked to ours if we don't stop carbon dioxide emissions.
junqbox
02-06-2011, 2:19pm
[QUOTE=Lance B;854555][QUOTE=jim;854533]
So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm. [QUOTE]
And if the ones you're so vociferously supporting that are wrong, what then?
I'm sorry Lance but your post doesn't really support the contention that you understand most of the science. For example the name "climate change" wasn't coined to cover any change in the basic model. It is used to emphasise the fact that general warming can have complex effects in our massively complicated and chaotic (in the scientific sense) climate system, and that can include local cooling among other effects.
Plus are you sure these are all the same scientists? Because I doubt many meteorologists would have expressed a professional opinion about the safety of mobile phones.
ApolloLXII
02-06-2011, 2:36pm
But you drew the parallel, ie, "unless we want to end like up like them". So, you drew them into the discussion in some way as to make us think that their demise is linked to ours if we don't stop carbon dioxide emissions.
I don't see how you can say that I drew them in by inference or anything else. There demise is certainly NOT linked to ours because, as I said previously, scientist and paleontologists are not sure why they disappeared. It is common knowledge that the end of the dinosaurs was not caused by carbon dioxide because, logically, had that been the case, then all other animal life that was co-existing with them at the time (ie. the prototype forms of marsupials and other creatures) would have gone along with them seeing how they all required oxygen to live.
Our demise will not be linked to carbon emissions directly. It will be linked to our environment becoming inhospitable for us to live in, leading to a dwindling of numbers of the human species across the globe and quite possibly into extinction. As I said in a previous post, the notion that we're all going to asphyxiate from carbon dioxide is ridiculous so I don't see how you can say that I said or even inferred that we're going to die in the same manner they did. Perhaps I should have said "We'll end up as dead as a dodo if nothing is done about the amount of pollution." and no, I'm not drawing any parallel about everybody being eaten by rats, cats and dogs either.
This (very long) page encompasses most of my concerns about CO2 hype etc. and why a tax now is a very bad idea.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
I do think we need to minimise pollution and ultimately eliminate the use of non-renewable energy sources, put the poli-hype going on now serves no good purpose.
Also, I have NO faith in Juliar and her co-horts to do anything near the right thing with the collected revenue anyway.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 4:59pm
I'm sorry Lance but your post doesn't really support the contention that you understand most of the science. For example the name "climate change" wasn't coined to cover any change in the basic model. It is used to emphasise the fact that general warming can have complex effects in our massively complicated and chaotic (in the scientific sense) climate system, and that can include local cooling among other effects.
Well, but I do understand and have read widely on the subject and the fact that I believe that the term climate change was coined to cover any change in the basic model has nothing to do with my "understanding the science" and I object to your inference that somehow this belief makes my opinio less credible. A very strange remark to make. The fact still remains that the term climate change was was conveniently used at a later date when it was found that there was not a blanket global warming as they had predicted using their computer models. The fac still remains, the term climate change has only been used recently.
Plus are you sure these are all the same scientists? Because I doubt many meteorologists would have expressed a professional opinion about the safety of mobile phones.
The term "these same scientists" was used in the context that we seem to hold these scientists up as the carriers of all knowledge yet they get it wrong all the time and I am sure you know that, but you are being deliberatley nefarious in your selective understanding of what I write to gain cheap points.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 5:05pm
[QUOTE=Lance B;854555][QUOTE=jim;854533]
So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm. [QUOTE]
And if the ones you're so vociferously supporting that are wrong, what then?
I am supporting these scientists because having read widely and looked at the data and therefore I have come to the conclusion that climate change is not man made, but a natural phenomenon, so I haven't relied soley on the scientists opinions who also do not believe in man made climate change. The scientists who you are so "vociferously supporting" who believe in climate change are adding 1 and 1 and arriving at 3 top support their conclusions.
Lance B
02-06-2011, 5:07pm
I don't see how you can say that I drew them in by inference or anything else. There demise is certainly NOT linked to ours because, as I said previously, scientist and paleontologists are not sure why they disappeared. It is common knowledge that the end of the dinosaurs was not caused by carbon dioxide because, logically, had that been the case, then all other animal life that was co-existing with them at the time (ie. the prototype forms of marsupials and other creatures) would have gone along with them seeing how they all required oxygen to live.
Our demise will not be linked to carbon emissions directly. It will be linked to our environment becoming inhospitable for us to live in, leading to a dwindling of numbers of the human species across the globe and quite possibly into extinction. As I said in a previous post, the notion that we're all going to asphyxiate from carbon dioxide is ridiculous so I don't see how you can say that I said or even inferred that we're going to die in the same manner they did. Perhaps I should have said "We'll end up as dead as a dodo if nothing is done about the amount of pollution." and no, I'm not drawing any parallel about everybody being eaten by rats, cats and dogs either.
Why did you bring dinosaurs into the discussion if they didn't die of self inflicted carbon dioxide caused global warming or any other self inflicted demise? It is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
I agree, dinosaurs, dodos, fondue sets, all victims of changing times not changing climate
Lance B
02-06-2011, 5:33pm
I agree, dinosaurs, dodos, fondue sets, all victims of changing times not changing climate
Haha! well put. :lol:
junqbox
02-06-2011, 5:47pm
[QUOTE=junqbox;854565][QUOTE=Lance B;854555][QUOTE=jim;854533]
So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm.
I am supporting these scientists because having read widely and looked at the data and therefore I have come to the conclusion that climate change is not man made, but a natural phenomenon, so I haven't relied soley on the scientists opinions who also do not believe in man made climate change. The scientists who you are so "vociferously supporting" who believe in climate change are adding 1 and 1 and arriving at 3 top support their conclusions.
Then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote above and what those scientists claim, ie- the current activities of humankind is CONTRIBUTING to the PACE of climate change. They do not state that climate change is only happening because of the activities of humankind only.
By mis-representing the common claim of those scientists who make the case for change because of our (collective mankind) influence perhaps you are the one going for cheap points instead.
as stated above, i don't think carbon is the issue.
i also think that a major part of what is happening is a natural climate phase.
i also think that the pollutants we put into the atmosphere are probably adding to the 'problem'.
so, any action that can decrease/remove these man made pollutants can only be a positive influence on our climate and quality of life.
terry.langham
02-06-2011, 11:21pm
What astounds me about this issue is that you have one side that can't make up their mind on whether climate change is real or if humans contribute to it, and on the other side anybody who questions their CT Policy is labeled a denialer. Yet there would be very few politicians or people that would argue moving to renewable and greener energy sources isn't necessary or at least a very good idea. Most seem to be caught up in arguing semantics rather then productively debating the best course of action, which I don't think the policies of either side come close to.
Juliar seem hellbent on wealth redistribution and a step towards the casteless fantasy world of the Greens, and won't tell us exactly how that will change the climate. MissedahRabbot is to busy trying to dig himself out the hole he has got himself in, and out of, then in again, then out, then in...........
... those scientists claim, ie- the current activities of humankind is CONTRIBUTING to the PACE of climate change. They do not state that climate change is only happening because of the activities of humankind only.
Agreed, and that's the sort of double-speak that creates panic because it can so easily be misunderstood by those not fluent in the language (of double-speak). I am very, VERY big compared to many others - 170+kg in fact - so it might be argued that I am CONTRIBUTING to the pressure on the earth's crust. Somehow I don't think it is a significant enough contribution to make any perceivable difference. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be doing my best to lose weight, but for the RIGHT reasons and without expecting anyone else to fund the effort. :o
Well, but I do understand and have read widely on the subject and the fact that I believe that the term climate change was coined to cover any change in the basic model has nothing to do with my "understanding the science" and I object to your inference that somehow this belief makes my opinio less credible. A very strange remark to make. The fact still remains that the term climate change was was conveniently used at a later date when it was found that there was not a blanket global warming as they had predicted using their computer models. The fac still remains, the term climate change has only been used recently.
What do you mean by blanket global warming? If you mean general warming across the globe, this is still predicted. If you mean warming everywhere, well I'm not aware of any peer reviewed papers that have predicted this. Even the earliest attempts to model the global climate seem far more sophisticated than you suggest, with uncertainty about such things as oceanic absorption, variables affecting the reflectivity of clouds, and a bunch of other stuff leading to fairly tentative predictions initially. Even when climate scientists started to issue fairly confident warnings in the early '80s, I see no suggestion of uniform or consistent warming. See for example Manabe and Wetherald's 1980 paper On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere: "[The model's response to raised CO2 was] Far from uniform geographically."
So, while I admit to not being particularly well read in the subject, I see nothing to suggest that any idea of consistent or uniform warming was ever predicted by serious scholars. Can you tell me what is the source of your claim that blanket warming was predicted by computer modelling?
An interesting debate on the tele last night on this very topic. One interesting point made by the guest scientist ( American, who works for WPCC ), was that it is the job of the scientists to convey the " Risk Factor ". Depending on how it is looked at, the risk factor can be anything between 10-90 % chance that a change is definately coming. Peoples views on risk vary in every different situation and topic. So his idea, and I could kinda see his logic, is that scientists from both sides must come to the same % of risk before people will take anything seriously. I hope some of you caught the debate. It was very enlightening.
ApolloLXII
03-06-2011, 9:12am
Why did you bring dinosaurs into the discussion if they didn't die of self inflicted carbon dioxide caused global warming or any other self inflicted demise? It is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
Dinosaurs once ruled the world (like we do now), now they don't exist (for whatever reason). Will we be walking in their footsteps? That is why I mentioned them.
ApolloLXII
03-06-2011, 9:14am
In life, I find that most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
terry.langham
03-06-2011, 10:09am
In life, I find that most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
There is also those that speak with the intent to preach and not to discuss.
ApolloLXII
03-06-2011, 10:14am
There is also those that speak with the intent to preach and not to discuss.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more.
Art Vandelay
03-06-2011, 10:49am
So, after all that, have any of the CT supporters worked how much money earned from this tax is actually going to be used for something purposeful ?
junqbox
03-06-2011, 11:14am
The proposed process is to use the revenue to subsidise those who will least be able to afford the inevitable price increases of energy production (with or without a carbon tax) and to subsidise the polluters so they can have time to restructure their businesses to produce less, thereby over time paying less tax themselves. The proposal then suggests moving to an ETS which would then flit into a global ETS.
The economic theory is that the money is not directly returned in terms of a reduction of actual cost of energy used (lower bill price) but to let the energy bill price remain and increase (as above) which encourages people to use less and to use the money returned to invest in their own lower energy use solutions, or more beer, or whatever they choose. This economic theory is not dissimilar to the way excise works on cigarettes (I know, we don't all smoke, think of theory rather then the semantics of the application). Increase on the price cigarettes has a direct correlation to the number of people who stop smoking as the price increases, ie- the more energy costs, the more people will find ways in their lives to use less. This could be as simple as installing larger windows in your house to allow more natural light, thereby using less energy to illuminate your house, as one example.
This is not pie-in-the-sky economic theory, it is a proven outcome, as per the cigarette excise example above.
This is not pie-in-the-sky economic theory, it is a proven outcome, as per the cigarette excise example above.
Maybe so, on the economic level, but even that is predicated on a falsehood; that burning carbon is responsible for climate change/global warning/greenhouse effect, etc. If you followed the reasoning in the link provided by Kym, several posts above, it is well nigh impossible to still believe in the "science" that underpins and supposedly justifies the economic strategy anyway. What cannot and will not be returned, on balance, is the attendant government and bureaucratic waste that will inevitably eat into the amount that gets invested at either end of the economic scale regardless of the scheme's effectiveness in addressing the problem, if one truly exists. I believe in saving humanity (most of them any way), all other living things and the planet we all inhabit together. I just don't believe a CT/ETS or whatever flavour of Australian government can materially effect any of those. Sorry. :confused013
we have the ability here in australian to have a plethora of cheap green car alternative instead of 3 over priced ones... why is it that other countries can have all these electric, biodeisel, and hybrid cars and we dont... surely if it was important the govt would put money into it.
there is an agenda for every scenario and we have to look at who has the most to gain. research into carbon emissions, and taxing there... who gains from saying we need to cut the emissions? who gains if we put money into greener cars? who gains?
Scotty72
03-06-2011, 2:03pm
I suppose the answer is: the environment gain (but, I get your point). With every tax etc, industry claim it is the end of the world.
Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, we do need to recognize :
A) the world is running out of oil (or it is, at least, getting far more expensive & dangerous to get to it - eg. Gulf of Mexico oil disaster)
B) Pumping more and more noxious gases into the air is a bad idea.
C) We can just switch to ethanol: from my understanding, this comes at the expense of food production. Eg. If we turn crops into fuel: sure, we get to drive but, poor people in poor countries starve to death. (are we willing to accept that)
mikew09
03-06-2011, 2:05pm
Well, I voted but I do support polution reduction. And this is one of those subjects that normally "Don;t get me started" :-) My beef is this - there is no clarity around the actually cost of the carbon tax to the ones to be taxed and apparently that is all those that live in luxury because they earn over 80K a yr , RIGHT. The way I see it, the company will wave a gesture of good will whilst not really reducing the carbon foot print in the short term and just pass the cost to them onto the consumer "US", or at least the wealthy of us on 80k a yr or more. Someone is really out of touch is they think 80K earners are living the good life these days.
So - the gov kicks the average aussie in the gust again, power and other assocaited comodities sky rocket, companies really do nothing about it and just pass the cost of th tax onto us, the gov fill the piggy bank with a hughe surplus that they claim to be the result of good enconomic management and then spend the doe-ray-me on totally non related carbon pollution expenses and I can pretty well bet that wont be hopital's. And now we have another tax to deal with until in the next 2yrs when they bring out the the same tax again under a different name like creasol reduction tax and the snow ball keeps on rolling.
Now I would support a carbon tax if, the gov used the money along something like this - to put solar panels on every 2nd house in the city and greater city / rural areas - I can only assume that this would substancially reduce the amount of power needed to be generated and may even call for shutting down part of power stations using fossel fuels. If there was funds remaining I would suggest they be put into scientific research to improve solar power generation and bring this technology into up to date - due to lack of funding the technology has really not advanced much over the yrs - in the 70's up in the Pilbara, solar panels where being used to generate power for phone communication boxes along the iron ore lines and to be honest - they did not look that much different to today.
geoffsta
03-06-2011, 2:05pm
I can't understand why they are taxing companies. All it is, is a revenue raiser and a bigger tax burden on the whole country. Common sense would be to assist these so called high polluting companies by researching ways to reduce their carbon footprint through filtering systems. After all smoke is just gases and particles that are unburnt in the initial fire. Lets face it. They can turn our dung into pure drinking water, why can't they turn smoke into something safe.
Just another thing to fill their fat pockets, while the rest of us get poorer and poorer.:(
ameerat42
03-06-2011, 2:07pm
I suppose ...
C) We can just switch to ethanol: from my understanding, this comes at the expense of food production. Eg. If we turn crops into fuel: sure, we get to drive but, poor people in poor countries starve to death. (are we willing to accept that)...
Unfortunately, too, with ethanol being a hydrocarbon (OK, an alcohol), its burnt products are water and still some CO2.:(
Scotty72
03-06-2011, 2:19pm
This tends to go the way of motherhood statements:
'I support clean air.' 'I support trees.' 'I support world peace.'
'But, I won't lift a finger or pay a cent to achieve any of it.'
It is rather like those who complain about all the hoons who speed past their house but whinge deluxe when they get caught by the cops for speeding.
In other words.
The government/business/anyone except me should do something about it - but, it had better not inconvenience me in the slightest!
Scotty
rellik666
03-06-2011, 2:56pm
I am against the carbon dioxide tax, for a few reasons other than the fact I don't believe in man made climate change.
Why is there no choice in this? Can I choose where my electricty comes from? Well to a degree I can but not really, but why isn't greener electrocity supported to make it cheaper and more easily accessable to all. Where is the support for green technology? (I don't mean electric cars, becuase what is the point until we sort out generation) If what happened to solar systems is to be believed, there was so little funding and support for this technology they went bust and moved offshore. Why aren't we having the nuclear debate? If we all voted no to it, then fine but we haven't even discussed it! The tax maybe on companies but there is no way on this earth they are going to absorb it so we are all going to pay and I agree this is just redistribution of wealth in the name of climate change.
Why is there no actually facts for this tax. It is killing companies of all sizes with this unknown....how can you make plans when you don't know what your costs are going to be. If this is what it is like now what will it be like when it comes in?
Why are we not looking into improved production methods and reducing waste? Why not get the supermarkets to reduce packaging? Why not improve public transport (or materials transport) so that we are not reliant on cars/trucks.
Roo
This tends to go the way of motherhood statements:
'I support clean air.' 'I support trees.' 'I support world peace.'
'But, I won't lift a finger or pay a cent to achieve any of it.'
Maybe ... maybe not. I can't speak for anyone else but in my case it's a definite NOT.
I am happy to pay for real programs, well thought out and and with a higher than average probability of success in achieving the stated objectives. I don't think CT/ETS falls into that category. Ask me to reduce my personal carbon footprint and I'd still say why? What's wrong with carbon? Hell, I'm a carbon-based life form after all!
OTOH, ask me to reduce my consumption of fuel, energy resources, water, animal-based cosmetics (well maybe not me but my wife anyway) or anything else that makes sense and I'm all for it. My family is a ZPG family, too. I fully support aid programs to third world countries that need help with their own problems and happily reach into my pocket for the Salvos, Rural Fire Service and guide dogs.
I just don't want to be taxed, directly or indirectly, to solve the wrong problems by governments with a track record of squandering the money on anything but solving the real problem.
Scotty72
03-06-2011, 3:05pm
I am against the carbon dioxide tax, for a few reasons other than the fact I don't believe in man made climate change.
Why is there no choice in this? Can I choose where my electricty comes from? Well to a degree I can but not really, but why isn't greener electrocity supported to make it cheaper and more easily accessable to all. Where is the support for green technology? (I don't mean electric cars, becuase what is the point until we sort out generation) If what happened to solar systems is to be believed, there was so little funding and support for this technology they went bust and moved offshore. Why aren't we having the nuclear debate? If we all voted no to it, then fine but we haven't even discussed it! The tax maybe on companies but there is no way on this earth they are going to absorb it so we are all going to pay and I agree this is just redistribution of wealth in the name of climate change.
Why is there no actually facts for this tax. It is killing companies of all sizes with this unknown....how can you make plans when you don't know what your costs are going to be. If this is what it is like now what will it be like when it comes in?
Why are we not looking into improved production methods and reducing waste? Why not get the supermarkets to reduce packaging? Why not improve public transport (or materials transport) so that we are not reliant on cars/trucks.
Roo
If govt were to support solar industry and spend billions on public transport, it would require new and/or higher taxes.
Oh! This thread is about the reaction to that idea.
As I said... too many think
"There is a problem and SOMEONE ELSE should do something about it."
junqbox
03-06-2011, 3:22pm
As I said... too many think
"There is a problem and SOMEONE ELSE should do something about it."
...and long as someone else will pay for it.
Well said Scotty.
terry.langham
03-06-2011, 3:26pm
This tends to go the way of motherhood statements:
'I support clean air.' 'I support trees.' 'I support world peace.'
'But, I won't lift a finger or pay a cent to achieve any of it.'
It is rather like those who complain about all the hoons who speed past their house but whinge deluxe when they get caught by the cops for speeding.
In other words.
The government/business/anyone except me should do something about it - but, it had better not inconvenience me in the slightest!
Scotty
While I can't speak for everybody I can draw from my own experience and the comments I hear from those I do work for.
3yrs ago my wage was 60k+ depending how many hours I wanted to work, my wife and I were paying $150-170/qtr in electricity. When we fell pregnant with our second child we moved in with my mum and put our stuff in storage. Late last year we moved back into our own place, and are now paying $350-400/qtr for power and my wage is now less then 45k.
So whats changed? The first house had solar hot water and this one has gas. In the first house we had to incomes and were quite wasteful with power, running a dryer several times a week and it was an older house without power saving devices. While in storage our old fridge died and we had to buy a new one, which was the most efficient in the size that fits in the fridge hole at the new house. The house we are in now is brand spankers and is fully fitted out with power saving devices, as well as being insulated. My wage has gone down because I am self employed and in a luxury industry that has taken a very big hit during the GFC, SEQ floods etc. A lot of the people we do work for are in similar circumstances, ie self employed small business operators and tradesman, and they mostly report the same observations.
Its not that I don't want to pay to help the environment, its that I want value for money and policies that have some hope of working. As a household we have reduced the amount of energy we are using as much as possible and still struggle to pay the power bill. [edit] A carbon tax will own decrease what little families currently have to spend and force more small businesses, retailers and tradesman out of work and into the dole cue, consequently eating up some of the revenue that is supposed to be saving the planet.
Investment in better, greener ways of doing things is the logical first step but that should have been happening years ago. Sadly now we are faced with the costs of reckless spending by the Labor government over the last few years and cannot afford to invest in better greener technologies (although apparent;y we can afford to spend $45billion on faster pron downloads).
Scotty72
03-06-2011, 4:19pm
I don't disagree that costs will rise and many will do it tough.
All I'm saying is the costs of doing nothing will catch up with us in a few years time and be far, far higher.
Unless we just hope we delay the problem for long enough to make it our grand-kids' problems.
Scotty
geoffsta
03-06-2011, 4:51pm
Scotty. No one is saying "do nothing" The government already have enough departments that do that. ACCC and EPA are a good example. What we need is companies not to invest in "Carbon Tax" but invest in cleaning up there act. Putting the money that would be given to the government in Carbon Tax should go into research and development for cleaner technologies. In the long run we still will be paying for it, but at least we know it wont be going into politicians pockets.
I thought of this thread while I was standing outside a few minutes ago in a T-shirt ( 15c by the BOM site ) having a quiet glass of red and a smoke ( heavily taxed ) watching the sun go down and enjoying the peace and quiet when the next door neighbours started their air conditioner up and ruined a peaceful evening. :rolleyes:
junqbox
03-06-2011, 5:26pm
Scotty. No one is saying "do nothing" The government already have enough departments that do that. ACCC and EPA are a good example. What we need is companies not to invest in "Carbon Tax" but invest in cleaning up there act. Putting the money that would be given to the government in Carbon Tax should go into research and development for cleaner technologies. In the long run we still will be paying for it, but at least we know it wont be going into politicians pockets.
Valid argument, but history has shown companies (and individuals) are extremely unwilling to change their status quo other than to increase their margins. Without some kind of financial mechanism in place which is punative in it's design, the majority of companies (and individuals) will not change their behaviour.
wheellathe
03-06-2011, 5:27pm
Kym, are you trying to say that food miles is unnesasary
Scotty72
03-06-2011, 5:42pm
Scotty. No one is saying "do nothing" The government already have enough departments that do that. ACCC and EPA are a good example. What we need is companies not to invest in "Carbon Tax" but invest in cleaning up there act. Putting the money that would be given to the government in Carbon Tax should go into research and development for cleaner technologies. In the long run we still will be paying for it, but at least we know it wont be going into politicians pockets.
This is a very nice theory but, it would never work.
You are suggesting that companies would voluntarily give over profit to invest in a better world - where there is no short, calculable benefit to them. When share-holders will happily accept that a slice of their dividend would be with-held 'for the common good.'
Wow! you are an optimist :)
Generally, if there is no compulsion: people will not give over large slices of money to invest in a distant benefit - where they can not see a direct benefit for themselves.
EG. We all know that if we insulate our roof, walls, double glaze, install solar cells, solar heating, take the bus, ride our bike etc. we will help build a better world. How many of us bother with the time or money it will cost.
Generally, most people only do what they need to once they are forced to (or see a direct benefit for themselves).
Remember, generally, people did not:
a) wear seat-belts / wear bike helmets
b) install smoke alarms / pool fences
c) change to energy efficient light bulbs
etc. etc
until they were forced to do so by laws
even today, most people:
a) wear seat belts/helmets
b) maintain the smoke alarms / fences
c) keep to the speed limit
d) pay taxes
only because of the threat of a fine if they don't. Even then, plenty of people ignore these laws anyhow.
Just imagine if the tax office said taxes were voluntary - let's all invest in our community voluntarily according to how much we feel we can afford to pay.
Let's imagine the cops said speed limits were enforced only by an honour system. How many people would actually stick to the limit?
But, it is nice to imagine a Utopia were big business simply 'did the right thing' by the community.
Scotty
geoffsta
03-06-2011, 6:26pm
until they were forced to do so by laws
even today, most people:
a) wear seat belts/helmets
b) maintain the smoke alarms / fences
c) keep to the speed limit
d) pay taxes
That is exactly right. But you used the word "Laws". We were not taxed for not wearing our seatbelt, we were not taxed for not adding a smake alarm. We were educated. And in the case of seat belts and speeding. We are fined for not adhearing to the laws. The fines were paid out of our pockets, we could not pass on that fine to anyone else like the companies will pass on the tax to us consumers.
What we need is the EPA to create laws that educate companies to reduce green house gases, and the ACCC to ensure that the companies don't make their customers pay their fines for not acting on them.
A tax is just bulls**t. they need laws to make things happen, as you just said. Just like petrol is cheaper on a Tuesday (Cough Cough) The ACCC need to grow balls, and not have the government saying don't fine them because when they increase prices, they get more back in tax. :(
ameerat42
03-06-2011, 6:42pm
But Scotty, you are saying that compulsion is a major factor in people altering their behaviours. (At least that's what I think you're saying. If not, pls correct .)
I would say, how many people knew about the benefits of doing many of the things you have listed? It may be a slow process to change ideas when you've only ever known something else.
At the present time this Carbon Tax is a new idea. I would postulate, global warming is a relatively new idea to most people. (Heck, in uni courses up until the 1990s it was "the imminent Ice-Age" that was the paradigm.) If anyone argues that global warming "has been around for long enough now" I would say, what exactly has been around? Talk? Slogans? Drives? And who is "putting it around"? When do we stop and take some stock of what is out there? How do we evaluate this stock?
From what I hope you are not saying, we have to evaluate this stock through the "stick" of threatened compulsion. If that's the case then we're mentally doomed.
I would say that, for example, most people don't "speed/use mobile phones while driving/etc., or just do the right thing" because they understand the reasons, not because of "fines if they don't". (At this point please resist any inclination to relegate me to the Utopian realm.) In your 4th last line above I feel you could drop the word "only", and qualify your "plenty" to reflect even a very few are too many when it comes to transgressors.
And now your last line seems to imply that since "big business" won't come to the party for the good of the planet, then it's up to only the rest of us to be compliant. So we accept that what is put out for us as our duty, we must do. It doesn't matter that the ideas behind any policy may be haphazardly thought through, reactionary to the whim of voters/power lobbies, and the like, difficult to implement and administer, and of unknown (unknowable) efficacy.
Now where is the republic of Utopia?
Well, may my latest 2c be added to the coffers for the good of the world.
Am(en).
Edited PS: Just saw Geoffsta's post. Acknowledged.
Generally, most people only do what they need to once they are forced to (or see a direct benefit for themselves).
Ok, I understand and accept your point but I still think a new tax on our best export revenue earner is the wrong way to achieve the objective. What about doing what the government did some time ago to encourage exploration companies to find more oil and gas in Australia? They allowed the benefits of that investment in exploration to be offset against company taxes. What's wrong with that approach with encouraging research and development of alternative energy sources?
I think the only problem with the latter approach is that it essentially takes the politicians and bureaucrat's snouts out of the trough!
Most if not all of the oil, gas and coal mining companies would love a chance to offset some of their taxation by making a genuine effort to help themselves to a brighter future, dragging us right along with them. It's not like such a move is aimed at putting them out of business or making them less competitive internationally. I'd certainly prefer that approach than a new tax and trading scheme that all well-informed opinion suggests will achieve nothing at great cost to the rest of us including the erosion of our economy in relation to those of our competitors (South Africa and Indonesia in the case of coal exports to our traditional markets).
If we adopt a CT/ETS scheme that hands the competitive edge in world markets to those with poorer quality coal, for example, then we would have actually made the problem worse on a global scale! Food for thought, I'd say. :confused013
Scotty72
03-06-2011, 10:14pm
That is exactly right. But you used the word "Laws". We were not taxed for not wearing our seatbelt, we were not taxed for not adding a smake alarm. We were educated. And in the case of seat belts and speeding. We are fined for not adhearing to the laws. The fines were paid out of our pockets, we could not pass on that fine to anyone else like the companies will pass on the tax to us consumers.
What we need is the EPA to create laws that educate companies to reduce green house gases, and the ACCC to ensure that the companies don't make their customers pay their fines for not acting on them.
A tax is just bulls**t. they need laws to make things happen, as you just said. Just like petrol is cheaper on a Tuesday (Cough Cough) The ACCC need to grow balls, and not have the government saying don't fine them because when they increase prices, they get more back in tax. :(
The point is, people will only change entrenched behaviours if it is in their interests financially or they are threatened with financial or punitive consequences.
Simply passing laws doesn't make the costs go away.
We could pass laws that all cars, in order to be street legal, must achieve < 6 litres / 100 km from next year: it will mean you are hugely out of pocket - in a far worse way than a tax will make you.
Scotty
geoffsta
04-06-2011, 6:25am
Scotty.. In relation to cars, we are heading this way already. Three brands of cars are already claiming that they can get 1000km per tank. My old 1998 hilux 4x4 use to get around 500km to the tank. My new one gets over 700km.
Years ago illegal street racing was mainly done with thumping big V8's. The majority now are 4 cylinders. The Toyota Hybrid is fuel saving in the city, but uses more fuel than a standard 4 cylinder country driving.
Cummins, Detroit and Catapiller are developing ways to lower emissions for their diesel engines.
All this is happening because of a competitive market, and car companies are complying with what consumers want.
The government should be incouraging companies to spend more on research and development with cleaner technologies. People who complain about noisey wind turbines, or the amount of space that solar generation takes up are holding back this country for cleaner power. Australia has one of the biggest deserts in the world. I don't see any solar panels out there.
We don't need another tax, we do need more research and development.
junqbox
04-06-2011, 7:48am
All this is happening because of a competitive market, and car companies are complying with what consumers want.
Yes and consumers, all of us here, want to see change from all companies, the way to start that ball rolling for many of them is to implement a financial penalty system as a form of motivation.
The majority of the change in the auto industry is happening because of heavy financial focused legislation in Europe and other regions where the markets are larger. Petrol is becoming more expensive because it is becoming less available. Car companies, as with any company, want to see themselves around in the future. The future will be without oil, so they must develop new concepts. No car company designs vehicles with only the Australian market in mind, except for our local ones (unfortunately) and even they're bringing their engine technology in from elsewhere. The majority of those changes are designed to use less fuel, cleaner is a by-product. And I would put forward that the main reason street racers have switched to 4 cyl is their affordability and commonality.
Scotty72
04-06-2011, 8:17am
Scotty.. In relation to cars, we are heading this way already. Three brands of cars are already claiming that they can get 1000km per tank. My old 1998 hilux 4x4 use to get around 500km to the tank. My new one gets over 700km.
Years ago illegal street racing was mainly done with thumping big V8's. The majority now are 4 cylinders. The Toyota Hybrid is fuel saving in the city, but uses more fuel than a standard 4 cylinder country driving.
Cummins, Detroit and Catapiller are developing ways to lower emissions for their diesel engines.
All this is happening because of a competitive market, and car companies are complying with what consumers want.
The government should be incouraging companies to spend more on research and development with cleaner technologies. People who complain about noisey wind turbines, or the amount of space that solar generation takes up are holding back this country for cleaner power. Australia has one of the biggest deserts in the world. I don't see any solar panels out there.
We don't need another tax, we do need more research and development.
We are nowhere near most cars at 6 liters / 100km. You pass that law, Australians will riot as it costs them tens of thousands to replace virtually every car in the country.
No, a tax, may hurt, but it will slowly make consumers realize they will benefit from the change over.
Where exactly is the great big magical pot of money all this billions of dollars will come from?
Australian companies are world famous for not looking to the future. There is a long line of Australian innovations that went overseas because the could not get Aussie backing.
But, since we are talking cars:
Why are our local car manufactures still pumping out big, inefficient cars like the Commodore and Falcon. Their sales are dropping badly but, the car companies kick and scream against changing anything. Most innovation in safety or efficiency are forced upon them by govt.
And, most of the car companies demand huge govt subsidies to continue producing products no one no longer wants. Where do subsidies come from - our taxes.
So, please, the idea of companies happily skipping through the secret garden falling over themselves to invest billions in voluntary goodness funds is totally fanciful. Why? They, like us, will only pay what they absolutely must. How many people that you know say to the power company, 'Please, take an extra 20% from my power bill to fund solar panel research.'
Oh, look, more fairies in the garden.
Scott
geoffsta
04-06-2011, 9:21am
A tax is fine, as long as 100% of it goes back into the reason for it. Fuel tax was origanally created to improve roads. :lol: Tax on cigarettes is suppose to go to the health system. :lol: Tax on poker machines is to help problem gamblers. :lol: A tax on carbon emission? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
With the cost of the tax is passed onto the consumer, how is the consumer suppose to save enough to buy cleaner more efficiant products.
The great Australian dream is dead. And the government just want to dig the grave deeper.
Scotty72
04-06-2011, 9:59am
A tax is fine, as long as 100% of it goes back into the reason for it. Fuel tax was origanally created to improve roads. :lol: Tax on cigarettes is suppose to go to the health system. :lol: Tax on poker machines is to help problem gamblers. :lol: A tax on carbon emission? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
With the cost of the tax is passed onto the consumer, how is the consumer suppose to save enough to buy cleaner more efficiant products.
The great Australian dream is dead. And the government just want to dig the grave deeper.
What flawed reasoning.
I assume you make (or have made) use of such government funded or subsidised services such as:
a) schools
b) hospitals
c) medicare
d) police and emergency services
e) government and public services
list list is pretty endless.
However, we do not pay specific
a) school taxes
b) hospital taxes
c) medicare taxes (the levy covers a tiny fraction of this cost)
d) police and emergency services taxes
e) government and public services
Yet, we expect these services to be there. How? Because of this thing you seem to hate called consolidated revenue.
Are you advocating an endless list of micro-taxes that are specifically attached to each and every service. My favourite would be the 'guy who mows the grass at the local cricket field tax'.
You will find that if we knew exactly where every tax dollar went, many of the services YOU enjoy would be under threat because there would be far more people like me who would say, 'I don't wanna pay that tax.' - So the service you need would disappear.
First on my hit list would be the arts: So we had better tear down the Opera House and Art Gallery.
As a man, the next might be research in ovarian cancer - who needs my tax money wasted on a service I'll never need.
I don't drink, so why should I pay "the cops to control the drunks at the local pub tax."
So, which are the services you want named and shamed?
Scotty
ameerat42
04-06-2011, 10:11am
Y U R both rong:
1) Geoffsta, for not being specific about the intention of certain taxes AND for expecting that a Carbon Tax would not partly go into consolidated revenue.
2) Scotty, for assuming that Geoffsta's initial generalisation meant that he was proposing a lot of micro-taxes.
3) Am, a bed spiller.
Scotty72
04-06-2011, 10:15am
Y U R both rong:
1) Geoffsta, for not being specific about the intention of certain taxes AND for expecting that a Carbon Tax would not partly go into consolidated revenue.
2) Scotty, for assuming that Geoffsta's initial generalisation meant that he was proposing a lot of micro-taxes.
3) Am, a bed spiller.
Well, he did gripe about cigarrette taxes not going 100% into health or petrol taxes on roads...
terry.langham
04-06-2011, 10:30am
But what exactly is it we need a tax to fund? Would anybody of sound mind walk into a store blindfolded and hand over a fistful of cash without knowing what they would get out of it?
Surely it makes sense to develop the strategy to reduce emissions, then calculate the cost of said strategy and then look to fund it. If the populous can see value in the end product it would then be a small step to funding it with new taxes and levies.
arthurking83
04-06-2011, 10:34am
......Yes, there have always been weather fluctuations in past years, centuries etc. but not at such frequency of occurrence as has been happening in recent times.
This kind of extremist alarmist pronouncement is what does more harm than good to every debate, and especially one that concerns such a volatile subject such as weather.
I'm not referring to volatility in terms of human passion, but the volatility of the weather itself!
I think the onus is on these half wit scientists to prove the opposite, not the other way around!
Show me where the weather now, is more extreme than it was say a century ago.
show me the stats that indicate a hundred years of beautify sunny cloudless days of 24°C up until the first idiotic proclamation that the globe is warming up.
Climate change is a political football. Always has been and always will be from here on.
Scientists (who should know better!) use it to drive themselves and their causes into the limelight, to secure MORE funding. Pure and simple.
What may have started out as a short term pattern in the weather system 30 years ago, is now ripe for the picking from scientists with little to zero aptitude in the area of originality!
How about some of these "me too" scientists actually do something more constructive such as research the genre of alternative fuels energies?
Too damned hard work, as it involves a huge level of original thought, so jumping on the Carbon bandwagon produces a lot more 'kuchung' (from the till) with very little effort)
If you want extreme weather patterns from the past hundred years ago a quick look at the list of hottest ever recorded temperatures around the globe, up until only very recently will reveal a very stable pattern.
Hottest temperatures recorded aropund the globe all peak at about the same period of time, which is early 1900's.
It was only last year or so that many of the hottest temperatures ever recorded were finally exceeded.
That is, it's taken approximately 80 years to get hotter than it was 80 years or so ago.
FWIW, the two hottest temperatures ever recorded were 57.6° in Libya (1922) and 56.7°C in the USA(1913).
Hardly what you would call a 'recent phenomenon'!!
Based on this simple evidence from two disparate parts of the globe, I'd say that this global warming garbage is not really what it's proclaimed to be.
For what it's worth, there was a period of about 20 years during the 50's through to the 70's where the scientific consensus was that we were headed back into an ice age(or mini ice age) based on the preceding years weather patterns, and extrapolated into a future scenario.
It was probably the same (mad?) scientists looking for easy money for research back then, as they are now(or the more plausible explanation of a new generation of get rich quick scientists).
The simple message is that you shouldn't believe everything you read when it comes to forecasting the weather from scientists.
This carbon tax. Same brainless knee jerk result from a group of people with the same level of original thinking as the weather scientists have.
Easy money! Create a new tax. Choose a hot topic of the day, and claim it to be for the benefit of future generations. :rolleyes:
My belief is that in another 20-30 years time, our children will be staring into the face of another mini ice age, just as we did 30 years ago! ;)
Scotty72
04-06-2011, 10:43am
But what exactly is it we need a tax to fund? Would anybody of sound mind walk into a store blindfolded and hand over a fistful of cash without knowing what they would get out of it?
Surely it makes sense to develop the strategy to reduce emissions, then calculate the cost of said strategy and then look to fund it. If the populous can see value in the end product it would then be a small step to funding it with new taxes and levies.
Yes, and the strategy is to make fossil fuels less attractive by taxing them more...
Pretty simple... people wont reduce othe use of their cars (or stop buying gas guzzlers) unless they are priced out of that behaviour.
Someone earlier said we should just find more fuels... On the news I hear some company wants to drill for coal seem gas in St. Peters (inner Sydney) and eventually explore every Sydney suburb. Great, we will poison the local populations but, hey, the important thing is we'll have our fuel.
I think it is time we accepted that we have to change our behaviours.
I'm sure that you know the answer to that Terry as well as we do. The government thinks that they have us bluffed into believeing that they are doing the right thing by the planet, and anyone who doubts them is not on the side of Good. They think that we will see them doing the right thing by taxing the the so called wrong doers. When all they are doing is creating to an ever increasing spiral of inflation to the working class man. they can throw all the figures they like at me but the bottom line is that WE will pay. Who has let these companies "dirty" up things for so long ? Oh . That was alright cause the government was living off of their backs. Hypocrites, the lot of them. Why tax the company that is digging up the coal ? Do you convict a gun dealer because he sold a gun to a person who shot someone ? It all smells too much like a big Cash Grab to me. What next? A Giant Comet is coming, we need an Anti Comet Tax .
geoffsta
04-06-2011, 11:03am
Y U R both rong:
1) Geoffsta, for not being specific about the intention of certain taxes AND for expecting that a Carbon Tax would not partly go into consolidated revenue.
2) Scotty, for assuming that Geoffsta's initial generalisation meant that he was proposing a lot of micro-taxes.
3) Am, a bed spiller.
Thanks ameerat. Glad you know what I meant.
The fact is they failed with the mining tax, now they think they could try a carbon tax to replace it. In the end we all loose. If the carbon tax fails they might try something that pulls on the heart strings a bit harder.
This is the last I have to say on the matter. Maybe when they tax farting (I'd be a big looser there) or a Love making tax I might have more to say. :D
terry.langham
04-06-2011, 11:19am
Yes, and the strategy is to make fossil fuels less attractive by taxing them more...
Pretty simple... people wont reduce othe use of their cars (or stop buying gas guzzlers) unless they are priced out of that behaviour.
Someone earlier said we should just find more fuels... On the news I hear some company wants to drill for coal seem gas in St. Peters (inner Sydney) and eventually explore every Sydney suburb. Great, we will poison the local populations but, hey, the important thing is we'll have our fuel.
I think it is time we accepted that we have to change our behaviours.
The price of fossil fuels has been going up, electricity bills are through the roof, petrol is ever increasing and people are trying to change their behavour. But until their is a viable alternative to the current energy choices there is only so much consumption that can be reduced. With no plans put forward to invest or force investment in better energy sources (nuclear, solar or whatever) there is no reason for the tax except to punish everyone for previous and current governments shortcomings.
Surely it makes sense to develop the strategy to reduce emissions, then calculate the cost of said strategy and then look to fund it. If the populous can see value in the end product it would then be a small step to funding it with new taxes and levies.
Exactly what I pointed out some pages back; "money follows ideas, not the other way around." No ideas, no money in my book! Good old "Consolidated Revenue" is no better than a political slush fund to be divided up on the whim of vested interests, large and small. Do you think we'd even be rushing headlong in this direction if the Greens weren't so politically essential to the survival of a Labor government? I can make that statement because I usually vote Labor but I know how to be honest with myself about the choices at the ballot box. :two:
what terry and wazz said...
how about rather than slugging us with more taxes they come up with alternatives..... sheesh! its not rocket science!
Lance B
04-06-2011, 4:19pm
What do you mean by blanket global warming? If you mean general warming across the globe, this is still predicted. If you mean warming everywhere, well I'm not aware of any peer reviewed papers that have predicted this. Even the earliest attempts to model the global climate seem far more sophisticated than you suggest, with uncertainty about such things as oceanic absorption, variables affecting the reflectivity of clouds, and a bunch of other stuff leading to fairly tentative predictions initially. Even when climate scientists started to issue fairly confident warnings in the early '80s, I see no suggestion of uniform or consistent warming. See for example Manabe and Wetherald's 1980 paper On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere: "[The model's response to raised CO2 was] Far from uniform geographically."
So, while I admit to not being particularly well read in the subject, I see nothing to suggest that any idea of consistent or uniform warming was ever predicted by serious scholars. Can you tell me what is the source of your claim that blanket warming was predicted by computer modelling?
I cannot reference my sources now because those comments and references were made by supposedly reputable scientists in their field probably in the time frame of between 10-20 years ago, but not once in anything I ever read, heard or saw on the subject was global warming ever referred to as climate change but their collective bleatings were of an armageddon type blanket warming, ie that temperatures would rise across the globe with catastrophic consequences if something was not done immediately. Unfortunately, after time we find that temperatures have not risen universally, but that we still have record making cold winters in parts of the world, still have summers in parts of the world that are unusually cool, as well as winters and summers over the world that are the same or hotter. What does this show? Nothing, other than climate is a dynamic and ever changing thing. So, with this in mind, we are now told that it is no longer global warming, but climate change which conveniently supposes to explain away that there is not universal warming.
Anyway, I am not going to attempt to try to convince you of anything further as it seems as though your mind is made up and so I will leave you to your opinion. However, you do say that you have not read widely on the subject, so, I do implore you to read up on the other side of the argument rather than simply rely on what the media reports, firstly, as the media reports the alarmist theories due to the fact that it sells, and secondly, do not rely on what the media tells us is a "consensus" for that very same reason and as it supposedly gives their reporting credence. There are many good books on the subject and one such book is by Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, "Climate: The Counter Consensus" and Professor Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" are but just two. Other books are: "Climate, the Great Delusion" by Christian Gerondeau and "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by A.W. Montford. In fact, Bob Carter's book was almost not titled "Climate: The Counter Consensus" as he points out in his book that there is no consensus at all amongst scientists as there is a huge number of well respected scientists and academics who do not agree with man made CO2 being the cause of anything.
Lance B
04-06-2011, 5:05pm
Scotty.. In relation to cars, we are heading this way already. Three brands of cars are already claiming that they can get 1000km per tank. My old 1998 hilux 4x4 use to get around 500km to the tank. My new one gets over 700km.
Years ago illegal street racing was mainly done with thumping big V8's. The majority now are 4 cylinders. The Toyota Hybrid is fuel saving in the city, but uses more fuel than a standard 4 cylinder country driving.
Cummins, Detroit and Catapiller are developing ways to lower emissions for their diesel engines.
All this is happening because of a competitive market, and car companies are complying with what consumers want.
The government should be incouraging companies to spend more on research and development with cleaner technologies. People who complain about noisey wind turbines, or the amount of space that solar generation takes up are holding back this country for cleaner power. Australia has one of the biggest deserts in the world. I don't see any solar panels out there.
We don't need another tax, we do need more research and development.
I am just trying to put reality back into the discussion but this ideal about green energy is all very well and it all sounds very nice, but the reality is, we are what we are, ie an affluent 1st nation, because of cheap power, nothing else. All green alternatives are hugely expensive and we are already whining about paying $500 a year more for electricity and this is without building these new solar and wind generation ideas. Firstly, solar doesn't work when the sun don't shine, ie at night so there is no base load for when we need it most, and wind power generation is a blight on the landscape and again if there isn't any wind again there is no base load. In Germany, apparently they have approx 21,000 wind generators supplying 7% of their power, so to supply 100% they would need 15 times as many, ie 315,000 of the damn things!! Where in God's name are they going to put them? Now consider China, it has a population of approx 1,330,000,000 people, and Germany has approx 81,000,000 or about 16.5 times less than China. If we think of using 315,000 wind turbines to power all of Germany's energy requirments, then consider what Cina will require so that they have an equal standard of living, then they will require 16.5 times as many turbines as China or about 5.2 million of them!!! I wonder where they will go, let alone the cost to build and upkeep!! We haven't even begun to talk about India or the rest of the world, like Russia, Indonesia, Mexico etc.
I am not wholly in favour of nuclear, but I really see no alternative considering the present, and more importantly, the future energy requirements that world will need, especially if we want any semblance of the standard of living we now enjoy. Make no bones about it, our standard of living is directly related to the supply of cheap power and other than the present forms of power, ie coal, gas, hydro (limited), supplemented by miniscule amounts of wind and solar, nuclear is the only viable real answer as I see it. At the end of the day, countries like China, India will put whatever power plant in that they deem fits their desire and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. China already has 14 nuclear power plants and 25 in constructon with more about to start soon. France is already approx 80% nuclear and also supplies other countries with base load power when required, like Germany.
As I have already stated in other posts, the future energy requirements of not only Australia, but in particular the rest of the world, will be astronomical and even worse if we consider the use of electric vehicles as the alternative to fossil fuel driven cars. Forget bio-fuels as an alternative as they just use up valiable farming land required for feeding the world. As I stated in other posts, if Austrlaia were to replace all petrol/diesel vehicles with electric cars, based on present useage:
"Lets look at converting cars to electricity, either by storage battery and running an electric motor, or by converting water into hydrogen and either running the cars via a fuel cell to power an electric motor, or by using an internal combustion motor and burning the converted hydrogen. All viable alternatives to fossil fuel cars. However, whatever these options, they require electricity either by charging the batteries or the conversion of (sea) water to hydrogen. Where does it come from? From power stations. What fuel will drive these power stations? Nuclear is the only real alternative, and please do not suggest that solar or wind or any other pie in the sky idea will do it. It just can't supply enough power due to present and more importantly future demands of the world and I will explain:
Let's look at Australia for an example . We currently use 222,000,000,000kwh (222 billion kwh) of electricity per year (http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/...nsumption.html). Now, if we decide to use electric cars and even a minimal 50kw motor, most will need much more, think trucks and buses etc, and there are 16 million cars (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/), that equates to 800,000,000kw being used (50kw motor x 16million cars/trucks etc). Now if we all drive the average 15,000kms (average driven by most car owners) at an average 60kmh, then that equates to 250 hours of use. So, 250 x 800,000,000kwh = wait for it........ 200,000,000,000kwh (200 billion) per year, the same as our current consumption of electricity now and we don't even use electric cars yet!! So, we have to double our electricity output just to meet the demands of electric cars!!!!! This would go for the USA, Europe, Japan and all other 1st world countries and we have haven't even factored in the developing nations like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico just to name a few!!!!!. And they haven't even begun to use household electricity like we do yet, let alone have more to be able to power up a car!!!"
I am just trying to get a reality check back into the discussion.
geoffsta
04-06-2011, 5:16pm
Just quickly... The tax is not jusy on power stations. It includes mining and manufacturing plants as well, anything with a chimney.
As I said before. They failed on the mining tax, now they have found something to replace it. If carbon tax fails, they will find something else.
Scotty72
04-06-2011, 5:29pm
I think everyone in this discussion selects the facts they want to suit their pre-determined opinion. You only have to listen to the parrot (aka Alan Jones) squawk on 2GB every morning at breakfast to know that facts can easily be about faced to suit what ever bile you wish to pour out.
There are 2 basic camps.
1) Those who believe we need to change the structure of society to reduce our impact on the world before we destroy it.
2) Those who believe we have no need to change our behaviours, that we should maintain our standard of living and find more resources to exploit once the oil starts to run out.
Even if you think that 2 is ok... surely you must recognise that the cost of all of this lifestyle dependent on burning up resources is going to get more and more expensive until only the super rich can afford to drive to the shops. Or perhaps you just hope to delay it until it becomes your grand-kids' problem.
And, once again, we see the great Aussie attitude... "The government should fix the problems I help create with a magical pot of money that everyone but me should contribute to."
It's exactly like a mate of mine... he took up smoking as a uni student (old enough to know better) and now demands the govt pay for patches to help him quit.
With this national lack of acceptance of responsibility for our actions and total lack of iniative... no wonder the world sees us as nothing more than a quarry. :D
Scotty
sonofcoco
04-06-2011, 5:33pm
I'm kind of interested to find out exactly what it will involve before deciding yes or no on the issue. I can understand the Libs pushing for an election now before the details are fleshed out though. It's easier to wage a fear campaign when nobody knows exactly what will be happening.
@Scotty ... A third a sane option ... 3. Those who disagree with a CT as the right way to deal with the problem. The CT is very much a knee jerk reaction and not a well thought out way of dealing with the issue.
Lance B
04-06-2011, 7:50pm
I think everyone in this discussion selects the facts they want to suit their pre-determined opinion. You only have to listen to the parrot (aka Alan Jones) squawk on 2GB every morning at breakfast to know that facts can easily be about faced to suit what ever bile you wish to pour out.
There are 2 basic camps.
1) Those who believe we need to change the structure of society to reduce our impact on the world before we destroy it.
Good luck with that one. I think you are living in an idealised world if you think that will happen.
2) Those who believe we have no need to change our behaviours, that we should maintain our standard of living and find more resources to exploit once the oil starts to run out.
Even if you think that 2 is ok... surely you must recognise that the cost of all of this lifestyle dependent on burning up resources is going to get more and more expensive until only the super rich can afford to drive to the shops. Or perhaps you just hope to delay it until it becomes your grand-kids' problem.
And, once again, we see the great Aussie attitude... "The government should fix the problems I help create with a magical pot of money that everyone but me should contribute to."
Which is exactly why the ETS will not work.
It's exactly like a mate of mine... he took up smoking as a uni student (old enough to know better) and now demands the govt pay for patches to help him quit.
With this national lack of acceptance of responsibility for our actions and total lack of iniative... no wonder the world sees us as nothing more than a quarry. :D
Scotty[/QUOTE]
Yes, all very well, but let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that the Chinese are going to listen to anyone that tells them to stop their expansion and raising their standard of living and ease up on the use of natural resources? How about Indonesia? Or any other 3rd world country? Do you think we have the right to deny them after we have been doing it for the last 100 odd years? Do you think any of them will meekly toff their hat to the west and say aye, aye govnor, whatever you say? Hardly.
The reason we have relative stability in the world at the moment is because all these economies are starting to have the availability of (relatively cheap) energy and therefore the freedom it gets them, otherwise they'd all be fighting wars to get it. I always find it amusing with some of these people that show us that they are able to live without using any power and recycle everything they do etc, but it is the very fact that the rest of society is powered up and living very nicely thank you very much that allows them this existence in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't last 5 minutes. This is the harsh realities of life and it is till dog eat dog no matter how much anyone wants to sugar coat it with cute fluffy rabbits living in harmony with lions and birds all getting along nicely with cats etc. Disney idealised anthropomorphism has skewed many people's sense of reality. I may sound pessimistic, but I am not really, just a realist and I don't have an idealised view of everyone or everything. I think we can all get along admirably, as long as we all have reasonably similar high standards of living and this means that we have to let all nations the opportunity to get to a simliar standard.
IMO, the major issues confronting the world will be overpopulation and general pollution (not CO2 which is not a pollutant), but all pollution.
geoffsta
04-06-2011, 8:30pm
There are 2 basic camps.
1) Those who believe we need to change the structure of society to reduce our impact on the world before we destroy it.
2) Those who believe we have no need to change our behaviours, that we should maintain our standard of living and find more resources to exploit once the oil starts to run out.
I think you need to change #2 to read "Those who believe we have need to change our behaviours, but don't want some red head who said she would not create a tax in the first place telling us what we already know then creating a tax for the knowledge we have". Thats like telling us to suck eggs, then charging us $10 for each egg we suck. :confused013
We all save energy when we can. We all put our recycling in the recycle bin. Most of us use cloth shopping bags when we can. I hope so anyway.
It is NOT a binary argument; which tends to be very polarising (D'oh!)
A binary argument suppresses good debate.
Given any action by Australia is meaningless a knee jerk CT is just a wrong approach.
We should take a longer term and +ve approach that actually makes a real difference, eg. the transport reform (Rail) I posted much earlier.
These sort of actions actually save $$ and strengthen our economy AND reduce use of fossil fuels. No tax needed.
Scotty72
04-06-2011, 9:14pm
But, all of the responses don't offer anyway to deal with the elephant in the room. We are running out of oil and polluting the air.
Now, as I said, I honestly don't know if climate change is natural, man-made or is even really happening. Listening to right or left wing loonies wont help us. But, I am convinced we are going into a very tough period where oil becomes very rare and our air looks like the pea-soup they pretend is Beijing air.
But, once oil gets rarer than rare, watch the wars start.
So, if we don't get less dependent on the stuff - we will all be stuffed. History tells us, we wont change our habits unless we are forced to by price. In the mean time.
Calling Gillard 'Juliar' or 'the red head' doesn't solve anything. (BTW. I would vote for her in a pink fit)
Bleating that the govt should reach into the magic box to fix it wont achieve a thing.
Saying a CT is the death of humanity but not offering an alternative is just careless.
Saying, 'the Chinese wont play, so why should we' is dumb. When our economy grinds to a halt because we are so dependent on huge amounts of cheap oil that just aren't there any more, what good will that argument serve? Perhaps you'd like to fight the Chinese for the oil? Good luck.
And all the reforms such as solar cell research, rail lines, alternate fuels etc will all cost billions...
Where do we get the $$$ for that if not from a CT. (oh! I forgot about the magic bag of money)
But, all of the responses don't offer anyway to deal with the elephant in the room. We are running out of oil and polluting the air.{my emphasis}
Ummm... Scotty ... I had this to say 2 pages back:
What about doing what the government did some time ago to encourage exploration companies to find more oil and gas in Australia? They allowed the benefits of that investment in exploration to be offset against company taxes. What's wrong with that approach with encouraging research and development of alternative energy sources?
Talk about "ignoring the elephant in the room"! :lol: I know I'm a big bloke but *sheesh*!!! :efelant: :lol:
I'll say it another way so it's a bit clearer that what I have suggested is a reasonable alternative "way to deal with the elephant in the room".
1. On our behalf the government should offer company tax incentives to producers of fossil fuels for research and development of alternative energy sources. Who pays? My dear Scotty, WE do of course! At least we will be partnering with vested interests for the benefit of all instead of just frittering money away on a falsehood!
If companies don't have to pay as much tax then prices will fall as they usually do in a competitive market BUT we should encourage the government to replace that lost revenue by making a marginal increase in the consumption tax (GST). Consume more > Pay more. That also encourages thrift in the use of resources. IOW, the GST should be used the way Keating originally proposed and not the half-baked botch job we have at the moment thanks to Howard and his predecessor.
2. Furthermore, exempt necessities like fresh food, rent, clothing and water from GST, so those who can't pay won't have to.
3. Eliminate personal income tax and replace it with GST. It's likely worth more in collecting and policing income tax than it returns in revenue anyway, although the truth of that is probably buried somewhere in bureaucracy. Let people choose where and how to spend their income rather than being directly levied to support policies many of them disagreed with.
4. NOW put in place a price on carbon if you must, to encourage a groundswell of support for change, BUT put it only on all locally sold and imported goods and EXEMPT our exports.
If people overseas want to sell to Australians products that have been produced at the cost of fossil fuels, they have to do something else to offset that elsewhere; plant trees, invest in alternative energy research, etc. If they want to compete with our products on world markets then they'll have to look at a similar model or lose out to our cheaper, quality alternatives and world prices may fall, too.
As you can easily see I haven't really thought this one out too much. It's just the germ of an idea but I think it's a much more positive approach to the problem than a new whacking great tax administered by bureaucrats at the whim of political vested interests. Oh, and I should point out that for the first 20-odd years of my employment I was also a bureaucrat, and I understand what drives that mechanism only too well. :o
What do you think? Is that not an idea that is positive and potentially productive of change?
I cannot reference my sources now because those comments and references were made by supposedly reputable scientists in their field probably in the time frame of between 10-20 years ago...
Thanks for getting back to us on this Lance, though I hope you won't mind if I don't find that explanation all that convincing. You might note that the 1980 paper I cited referenced "Climate Change". As it happens I pay very little attention to "the media" on this or any subject, as I find most of the media have an alarming tendency to garble even the simplest reports, and get even the simplest facts wrong. Personally I suspect that much of the confusion and scepticism over climate change can be traced to the way it's usually reported in the media.
The books you recommend look more like advocacy than science at first glance, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be worth reading, and I'll have a look at them some time. I'm pretty sure my mind isn't closed on this or any issue.
Lance B
05-06-2011, 1:49pm
Thanks for getting back to us on this Lance, though I hope you won't mind if I don't find that explanation all that convincing.
So, you're saying that I am lying? Hmmm.
You might note that the 1980 paper I cited referenced "Climate Change". As it happens I pay very little attention to "the media" on this or any subject, as I find most of the media have an alarming tendency to garble even the simplest reports, and get even the simplest facts wrong. Personally I suspect that much of the confusion and scepticism over climate change can be traced to the way it's usually reported in the media.
The books you recommend look more like advocacy than science at first glance,
Well, you won't know that until you read them, so I really don;t know howyou can make that judgement.
but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be worth reading, and I'll have a look at them some time. I'm pretty sure my mind isn't closed on this or any issue.
Well, you come across very pro man made climate change. I'd hate to see you when your mind is made up.
So, you're saying that I am lying? Hmmm.
No Lance I'm saying I'm not convinced. No doubt you're reporting your experience honestly enough. It is possible to disagree without imputing sinister intent or dishonesty to the other party.
Sheesh.
Lance B
05-06-2011, 2:01pm
But, all of the responses don't offer anyway to deal with the elephant in the room. We are running out of oil and polluting the air.
Now, as I said, I honestly don't know if climate change is natural, man-made or is even really happening. Listening to right or left wing loonies wont help us. But, I am convinced we are going into a very tough period where oil becomes very rare and our air looks like the pea-soup they pretend is Beijing air.
But, once oil gets rarer than rare, watch the wars start.
Exactly my point. While everything is going along swimmingly, then we have relative stability and this is exactly the nub of the matter, realtively cheap power and therefore a good standard of living nd therefore stablity.
So, if we don't get less dependent on the stuff - we will all be stuffed. History tells us, we wont change our habits unless we are forced to by price. In the mean time.
Calling Gillard 'Juliar' or 'the red head' doesn't solve anything. (BTW. I would vote for her in a pink fit)
Name calling is a no no, as it doesn't sove anything but she did lie to us. I do think we need an election on the issue.
Bleating that the govt should reach into the magic box to fix it wont achieve a thing.
Exactly right!
Saying a CT is the death of humanity but not offering an alternative is just careless.
I don't think anyone is going that far.
Saying, 'the Chinese wont play, so why should we' is dumb. When our economy grinds to a halt because we are so dependent on huge amounts of cheap oil that just aren't there any more, what good will that argument serve? Perhaps you'd like to fight the Chinese for the oil? Good luck.
That was part of my point, we can't fight a war with China and they will do whetever they want. This includes a large nuclear option (already well under way), which I do believe we will have to do ourselves at some time.
And all the reforms such as solar cell research, rail lines, alternate fuels etc will all cost billions...
Where do we get the $$$ for that if not from a CT. (oh! I forgot about the magic bag of money)
Throwing money at solar and alternative fuels won't help us come up with the answer as it will just create another sink fund for losing our money as with all these other government hair brained schemes. However, I do agree that major infrustructure reform needs undertaking and yes that requires investment and perhaps a tax, but do not only tax business as this is where we get our jobs and they are already being forced offshore, it needs to be a joint effort.
Lance B
05-06-2011, 2:06pm
No Lance I'm saying I'm not convinced. No doubt you're reporting your experience honestly enough. It is possible to disagree without imputing sinister intent or dishonesty to the other party.
Sheesh.
I apologise if I mistakenly read something into what you wrote, but to me it read as though you didn't think I was being honest in my reason for believing that it was global warming and never climate change as you wrote:
"though I hope you won't mind if I don't find that explanation all that convincing", which to me reads that you think what I wrote a lie. Anyway, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. :)
There is no point in having a Tax that circulates money back to the end user. A carbon tax is like the flawed carbon trading schemes throughout the world, all are simply actions to appear as though something is being done at the same time as doing nothing.
The big polluters are simply going to pass on any taxes levied to end users.
You can bet that sometime in the near future a taxation minimisation scheme (similar to disasterous MIS schemes) to allow carbon offset will be introduced, the big polluters will offset the taxes collected during the cycle to buy in to forestry plantations etc, placing even more stress on our already stressed rural resources and turning the Tax dollars we have paid in to profits for the polluters.
Some things that could be done but arent.
Increased subsidies on renewables, these are being wound down not up.
End clear fell logging of our native forests, return to the sustainable practices of yesteryear where some trees were harvested and the forests left largely intact. Harvest only what we need for building and furniture, paper can be made from other materials such as sugar cane waste (http://www.canefields.com.au/) and hemp, which are much easier and less reliant on chemical use to crop, with a much faster growth cycle.
Turn off unnecessary street lighting, make streetlights LED and closer o the ground as well as directional. There is absolutely no need to have freeways lit with Sodium and Mercury vapour lights when there isnt any foot traffic.
Reduce tax on fuel efficient transport, increase tax on new Gas guzzlers.
Improved public transport, here in Tassie the public transport system is abysmal in comparison with 50 years ago.
I must say I find this thread a bit confusing, not just because I'm easily confused, but also because we seem to be debating four separate questions simultaneously without really differentiating them.
They are:
(1) Is the world warming up, and is it severe enough to produce disastrous consequences in the near to mid-term future?
(2) Have human activities contributed significantly?
(3) Can we do anything about it?
(4) If you answer yes to 1-3; is the Carbon Tax a potentially helpful strategy?
Personally I don't know the answer to any of these questions, though the first three are enough to worry me, and I have some hope for the fourth.
I must say I find this thread a bit confusing, not just because I'm easily confused, but also because we seem to be debating four separate questions simultaneously without really differentiating them.
They are:
(1) Is the world warming up, and is it severe enough to produce disastrous consequences in the near to mid-term future?
(2) Have human activities contributed significantly?
(3) Can we do anything about it?
(4) If you answer yes to 1-3; is the Carbon Tax a potentially helpful strategy?
Personally I don't know the answer to any of these questions, though the first three are enough to worry me, and I have some hope for the fourth.
This post and link provided by Kym (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?85232-Carbon-Tax-Poll&p=854575#post854575) should help you with logical answers for Q1-3, if you don't mind a longish argument with lots of citations. IMHO the answers in that thread mean that the likely answer to Q4 is No. I hope that helps, and yes you are correct in your summation of the central questions involved. :th3:
Thanks Waz, I read that article with interest when Kym posted it.
Here is an alternative source of information for those interested.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
rellik666
06-06-2011, 2:25pm
As I said... too many think
"There is a problem and SOMEONE ELSE should do something about it."
So because I want a choice that means I am a NIMBY....right.....
I actually now pay for green power and I aslo recycle and want supermarkets to cut down on packaging. I use green bags and when I forget one I reuse the plastic one for something else. I have energy efficient bulbs, even though they are actually bad for the environment becuase I no longer have a choice and don't know what is best for my home. I don't believe in man made climate change, however I do believe that our wasteful ways are hurting the planet. I support animal conservation and don't buy Palm Oil when I know it is in a product.
So don't tell me that I am not allowed a choice.
Power Generation is going to be one this countries biggest problems over the coming years due to lack of foresight and an inability to have a sensible discussion about it.....and we want to faff around redistributing wealth all in the name of a carbon dioxide tax.....when do I get taxed on the air I breath?
Every company wants to make profits....carbon tax = put up prices.......who pays we do....so don't give me this government guff that I won't pay.....because I will and because I am deemed too rich by some arbitary number it is me that will pay...
See I pay more for my power already, I buy recycled loo paper and I help save the Tigers.....why because I have a choice....not because the government tells me to....
So yes there is more than 2 or 3 types of people. Education, information and a carrot are what is needed.....
Outoflipsync
06-06-2011, 3:15pm
I voted no.... The CT has nothing to do with the environment, it is just an alternative to the failed mining tax.... No good will come of it, it is just going to add a further strain to already financially strapped families. Power, fuel food, etc etc will all go up (more) as companies raise prices to cover their contribution to the tax/revenue grab. The cost of living is spiraling out of control already, the last thing we need is yet another tax...
Ian Brewster
06-06-2011, 3:39pm
I am staggered that photographers of all people, who readily accept all the science that lies behind our understanding of light, of optics, of film and digital sensors, can suddenly effectively put their heads in the sand, because lawyers, journalists (not reporters), union hacks, financiers and an extensive miscellany of people who have no understanding of science, choose to say the science is "crap" and therefore the subject can just be a political football.
There some 89 countries, including China, doing effective things to reduce their carbon footprint; Australia is NOT a small loan voice. Our costs do NOT have to go up - the whole idea is for us to reduce our use of resources, and a price rise always has that effect.
And finally, if Ausphotography is going to become a debating ground for political matters, I'm off!
Ian Brewster
Scotty72
06-06-2011, 3:50pm
So because I want a choice that means I am a NIMBY....right.....
I actually now pay for green power and I aslo recycle and want supermarkets to cut down on packaging. I use green bags and when I forget one I reuse the plastic one for something else. I have energy efficient bulbs, even though they are actually bad for the environment becuase I no longer have a choice and don't know what is best for my home. I don't believe in man made climate change, however I do believe that our wasteful ways are hurting the planet. I support animal conservation and don't buy Palm Oil when I know it is in a product.
So don't tell me that I am not allowed a choice.
Power Generation is going to be one this countries biggest problems over the coming years due to lack of foresight and an inability to have a sensible discussion about it.....and we want to faff around redistributing wealth all in the name of a carbon dioxide tax.....when do I get taxed on the air I breath?
Every company wants to make profits....carbon tax = put up prices.......who pays we do....so don't give me this government guff that I won't pay.....because I will and because I am deemed too rich by some arbitary number it is me that will pay...
See I pay more for my power already, I buy recycled loo paper and I help save the Tigers.....why because I have a choice....not because the government tells me to....
So yes there is more than 2 or 3 types of people. Education, information and a carrot are what is needed.....
Well, there certainly ought to be a reflection of the fact that you buy green power. I suspect there would be as these green options would not be subject to the tax and would be relatively more cheap than they are now.
I must say I find this thread a bit confusing, not just because I'm easily confused, but also because we seem to be debating four separate questions simultaneously without really differentiating them.
The point I was trying to make was there is yet another dimension.
I don't really take the doomsday view of climate change - but there is the coming (inescapable) problem that oil is going to become much more expensive in the coming years. As our economy is based on cheap oil, if we don't readjust out economy to become far less dependent it, we are stuffed.
Scotty
Scotty72
06-06-2011, 3:55pm
And finally, if Ausphotography is going to become a debating ground for political matters, I'm off!
Ian Brewster
I think this is a little extreme :cool:
This is in the off topic forum... you don't have to enter.
Scotty
And finally, if Ausphotography is going to become a debating ground for political matters, I'm off!
Ian, AP has an off topic forum that is there to discuss (debate) many things and if viewing these topics offends your sensibilities than you can simply ignore them and concentrate on the photographic side of the site.
No one wants to see you ( or any other member ) leave due to a subject they don't like so please stay and enjoy the rest of the site and let those that wish to spend their time saving the world do so at the expense of missing out on photographic opportunities and viewing the submissions in the real forums. :)
... and let those that wish to spend their time saving the world do so at the expense of missing out on photographic opportunities and viewing the submissions in the real forums. :)
Aawwww ... can't we do BOTH? :p
I am sorry if I have been the catalyst to stir some members emotions on this subject. It was not my intent. I have found most, not all, of the comments to be very enlightening, and I think it shows that people in this country do care about the actions that its government takes. But. I do think that sometimes we feel that we are just spectators , waiting to see what effect a governmental decision might make. Well I am glad at the way that many members hear have spoken out and showen their true feelings on the matter. One young American put it simply. There are two options. We do nothing now, and if there is an upcoming crisis we simply perish. Or. We spend money now and if there is NO crisis then we have only wasted some money and probably helped out a bit anyway. Pretty simple. The main reason I wanted to bring up this debate was to hear what people thought of a government employing a tax without a clear and precise mandate on what the taxes would be used for. This debate will go on for a long time. I just hope that the government stops treating us like spectators at a footy game. The result really does have an effect on our futures.
Lance B
06-06-2011, 5:56pm
I am staggered that photographers of all people, who readily accept all the science that lies behind our understanding of light, of optics, of film and digital sensors, can suddenly effectively put their heads in the sand, because lawyers, journalists (not reporters), union hacks, financiers and an extensive miscellany of people who have no understanding of science, choose to say the science is "crap" and therefore the subject can just be a political football.
Who's put their head in the sand? I am sure that many here have researched the matter and read widely, via books, TV, newspaper articles and internet etc (like I have), scientific research that debunks the climate change mantra. You could just as well be accused of being no better than those same people who you so despise as being uninformed by being that way yourself as you have obviously blindly followed what other's have said and put forward. Just because some here have an opposite view to yours you label them as being blind and putting their heads in the sand is exactly the same as what you accuse them of, ie being blind. This outburst stinks the same way as The Prime Minister, Bob Brown et al who accuse anyone of not agreeing with them as being "extremists" and "heretics", which is quite funny as this is exactly what I said the "climate change" science had become like, ie the new religion, and just like religion, anyone who doesn't agree with them is labelled a heretic or an extremist. Don't agree with me and I give you a label. And like your comment, I am just as staggered by your outburst considering some (like me) have researched the info very widely, both sides of the argument, and made an informed decision and not been blindly listening to "lawyers, journalists (not reporters), union hacks, financiers and an extensive miscellany of people who have no understanding of science, choose to say the science is "crap" and therefore the subject can just be a political football" as you so ignorantly put it.
There some 89 countries, including China, doing effective things to reduce their carbon footprint; Australia is NOT a small loan voice. Our costs do NOT have to go up - the whole idea is for us to reduce our use of resources, and a price rise always has that effect.
China is doing diddly squat and other than making nuclear reactors instead of coal fired power stations to cut CO2 their effort is but tokenism and will really only put them into line with what we already do now as far as cutting pollution and trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If you think that China is actually doing anything really constructive, then it is you who is blindly listening to our Prime Minister and the green lobby.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html
And finally, if Ausphotography is going to become a debating ground for political matters, I'm off!
Ian Brewster
Really? Why does this offend you so? Isn't that the same as putting your head in the sand by not reading up on the debate? Aren't you making the very same ill informed decision by not reading as much as you can and therefore making an ill informed decision? Quite unbelievable, really, but then may be we are better off without you.
geoffsta
06-06-2011, 8:25pm
And finally, if Ausphotography is going to become a debating ground for political matters, I'm off!
Ian Brewster
:confused013 I really didn't think you were like that. I really thought by reading your posts that you are normally a cool, calm and collected type person. :confused013
But I do find it strange that this CT comes hot of the heels of the failed mining tax. Who can really blame them. Floods, Fires, Earthquakes and cyclones are really taking it's toll on Australia's economy.
I'd support a "rebuild Australia" tax, as I believe you would also.
Anyone who supports this tax is one classed as "having more money than sense" and not living day by day as most Aussie battlers are.
:
Anyone who supports this tax is one classed as "having more money than sense" and not living day by day as most Aussie battlers are.
Well I support this tax, and this little Aussie has been battling, since the day I join AP, to save for a 60D. Nearly there. Wish I had more money than sense. Maybe I do. :)
Scotty72
06-06-2011, 9:29pm
Watching QandA on the ABC. They played a 2009 interview with Tony Abbott where he was advocating for the Carbon Tax as the most effective measure against climate change.
Funny how leopards constantly change their spots (all of them).
Watching QandA on the ABC. They played a 2009 interview with Tony Abbott where he was advocating for the Carbon Tax as the most effective measure against climate change.
Funny how leopards constantly change their spots (all of them).
Makes you wonder how many Bills are passed in Parliment that are regreted down the road. But no one would ever admit that they were wrong.
ApolloLXII
07-06-2011, 8:27am
Well I support this tax, and this little Aussie has been battling, since the day I join AP, to save for a 60D. Nearly there. Wish I had more money than sense. Maybe I do. :)
Same applies to me (except for the saving for a 60D bit.) I don't have a lot of money and I don't have any children either but I'm willing to support a carbon tax all the same. It is an unfortunate thing to say but we are living in a world where the philosophy of "hooray for me but screw everybody else" seems to be becoming more and more prevalent. If more people had more consideration for others, the world would truly be a better place rather than having divisiveness over such crucial issues that affect the environment in which we all live and have to share and, ultimately, leave to others who will inherit it from us in decades to come.
The carbon tax debate deserves more than to be treated as a political football or merely an argument over money. There is one constant factor in everybody's life. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices and I guess the real question is not "Do we need a Carbon Tax?" but more along the lines of "Are you prepared to make sacrifices in order to ensure that life continues on this planet in the same manner to which we have all become accustomed so that future generations can have exactly that - a future?" The bottom line is that at some stage, either now or in the future, some degree of sacrifice will have to be made in order to rectify all the damage being done over the years to the environment and not just from carbon pollution.
I believe that I have wasted far too much of my time on this topic, especially considering that there seem to be a lot of closed minds on the subject already so I'll sign off on this topic with this good old (but true) chestnut. The mind is like a parachute - it works a lot better when it is open.
geoffsta
07-06-2011, 2:40pm
WOW... Just got a Three and a half percent pay rise. Pity that I just got notification that my rates are going up by 5%. My power bill has gone up by 15% from this time last year. Milk and bread has also gone up. The local paper has gone up from 90c to a dollar (Thats a bit over 10%). Diesel and petrol has gone up as well. And because of the floods, cyclones and fires making fruit, veg and meat prices higher, inflation has gone up. The reserve bank in their wisdom thinks that we are spending more, so they think they'll raise interest rates.
So my $28 pay rise has just cost me about $33.
I also want to upgrade my camera, but every time I look at the bank balance I shudder. And I pay all the bills, so I know. I have a mortage, two adult kids at home, two cars which we need for work, we pay for full insurance for the cars house and contents.
And you lot want to take more out of my pocket. :confused013
And as for saying that we only care for ourselves, and don't care about the environment. Everyone that has posted against this tax has not said that they don't care about the state of the planet. Quite the opposite really. They just believe there is a better way.
As for saying I only care for myself, you are more than likely right. But 33 years in the CFA (Victorian Fire Service) 12 years in the SES, qualified in suicide prevention and critical incedent stress, 7 years on the school council another 4 years as president of our local chamber of commerce, plus involved in many more community groups. If this makes me a selfish person, well I must be.
Art Vandelay
07-06-2011, 3:54pm
Good rant Geoff :)
Lance B
07-06-2011, 4:05pm
Same applies to me (except for the saving for a 60D bit.) I don't have a lot of money and I don't have any children either but I'm willing to support a carbon tax all the same. It is an unfortunate thing to say but we are living in a world where the philosophy of "hooray for me but screw everybody else" seems to be becoming more and more prevalent. If more people had more consideration for others, the world would truly be a better place rather than having divisiveness over such crucial issues that affect the environment in which we all live and have to share and, ultimately, leave to others who will inherit it from us in decades to come.
The carbon tax debate deserves more than to be treated as a political football or merely an argument over money. There is one constant factor in everybody's life. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices and I guess the real question is not "Do we need a Carbon Tax?" but more along the lines of "Are you prepared to make sacrifices in order to ensure that life continues on this planet in the same manner to which we have all become accustomed so that future generations can have exactly that - a future?" The bottom line is that at some stage, either now or in the future, some degree of sacrifice will have to be made in order to rectify all the damage being done over the years to the environment and not just from carbon pollution.
I believe that I have wasted far too much of my time on this topic, especially considering that there seem to be a lot of closed minds on the subject already so I'll sign off on this topic with this good old (but true) chestnut. The mind is like a parachute - it works a lot better when it is open.
Judging from your posts, your mind seems closed and already made up, the very same thing you are accusing the "non believers" of. As I have said previously, the CO2 debate has turned into the new religion and those that do not believe are labelled heretics and non-believers and therefore don't care about their world. That's just plain rubbish designed to shut up opposition views and to garner support by brow beating detractors and taking the moral high ground. And just like religion, there is no proof and never will be, so it is the perfect platform to justify their cause, "you won't go to heaven if ou don't believe in God so, repent, repent", slightly altered to, "you will destroy the earth if you don't believe in CO2 so, repent, repent". Just because you believe in a carbon tax or that there is man made global warming due to our output of CO2 doesn't mean that you are right. There is no proof, just speculation and there is just as much science saying that there isn't man caused global warming, but just because you choose not to believe an alternate view doesn't give you the right to any thoughts of a moral superiority by espousing that you want to "save the world".
As for the belief that somehow we are now living in a world of "hooray for me but screw everybody else", I think you need to do a bit more research on history and stop living in your idealised, antiseptic world, rather than come up with these little platitudes designed to try to backhandedly insult those that don't think the way you'd like them to. We have been fighting wars for all of our existence simply because man has always had this very "hooray for me but screw everybody else" mentality, and if anything, it is better now that it has ever been. Why? Simply because the western world has plenty of cheap power and therefore our standard of living is good and we therefore don't need to fight wars anymore. You will notice that the places that are fighting wars are generally the 3rd world countires that are aspiring to have cheap power and all the mod cons but do not yet have it. Start putting brakes on their right to have this cheap power and you'll really see some wars being fought.
Did you realise that man contributes to only 3% of the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere yearly, 97% being of natural causes. Of that 3%, Australia contributes 1.5% or .045% of the total of all man made CO2 in the world. If we were to reduce that by 10%, that would still only be a .0045% reduction, in other words, less than peeing into the ocean. Also, Australia's CO2 output includes our exported raw materials when used for overseas consumption and not our own consumption. So when we export coal for overseas consumption, the CO2 produced by it's burning is attributed to us!!! How incredulous!!
http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/climate-change/news/2364/we-emit-less-co2-than-combet-gives-us-credit-for
If we introduce a carbon tax, industry will go offshore to China and/or India where their inefficient and polluting factories will produce more caron dioxide than if it stayed here and therefore any reduction in CO2 will be more than offset by it being worse in China and/or India, so we will actually be going backwards with CO2 production!! Did you know that 15% of our power supply in Australia goes into making aluminium and if this industry decided to go to China that would be a huge backward step in CO2 emissions.
Ian Brewster
07-06-2011, 4:47pm
Thank goodness this thread is dying, however just to clear up some issues in a "cool, calm and collected "way (thanks geoffsta!).
Ausphotography (AP) is by far the best site of its type I have been involved with, so to depart from it would not be easy and a last resort.
As encouraged by the the Administrators, I regularly go to New Posts to find new interests and opportunities to which I can contribute. I have taken part in several polls in the past, which I had believed were always instigated by the Administrators - this appears to be a misunderstanding.
Undertaking this process the other day revealed the Poll for carbon tax: I thought this to be an unusual topic, however if the Administrators wanted to open such a subject, I would take part (in future I will look closely at the Forum involved). Making a vote then opened up the graphical results plot. I was flabbergasted at the current result, with nearly two-thirds of respondents being against the tax, a result quite incompatible with other polls in the general population on the carbon issue. Hence my appeal to accept that science is not a "belief or mantra" but an rigorous assessment of data to identify its implications.
I have no interest in whether we should have a carbon tax, in preference to some other means of making production of carbon-based gases more expensive. Our profligate use of resources which generate greenhouse gases has to be curtailed. To my knowledge (and I also "research the matter and read widely, via books, TV, newspaper articles and internet etc" in spite of other presumptuous notions) there is no peer-reviewed science which concludes that there in no risk of human-induced greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. (the internet as a source is rather full of "wheel-barrows" however).
I certainly do not take the views of our politicians, of any persuasion, as being of much value in the carbon debate, for the reasons that I stated earlier viz. that they nearly all fall into the classes of training and knowledge base which have little appreciation of the scientific method and its rigour. (if only we could have a Federal government of wider experience of life!).
Not to take some responsibilty for the future of my granchildren on this issue, even in the unlikely event that it were to prove just good insurance, is anathema to me.
Out-of-focus = too great a circle of confusion. How apt is this on this subject!
Ian
PS Can I direct some of the contributors to this thread, to Rule 4 of the Out-of-focus forum? The Moderators might also care to make a review?
Lance B
07-06-2011, 6:47pm
Actually, most credible polls have shown that there is an overwhelming number of the population against a carbon tax. Generally in the vicinity of 65% to 35%, similar to what is shown here on this little poll.
Scotty72
07-06-2011, 7:00pm
I guess the credibility of a poll depends directly on the desirability of it's findings :D
Ian Brewster
07-06-2011, 7:02pm
Scotty,
You're on the money!
Over and out,
Ian
Scotty72
07-06-2011, 7:04pm
WOW... Just got a Three and a half percent pay rise. Pity that I just got notification that my rates are going up by 5%. My power bill has gone up by 15% from this time last year. Milk and bread has also gone up. The local paper has gone up from 90c to a dollar (Thats a bit over 10%). Diesel and petrol has gone up as well. And because of the floods, cyclones and fires making fruit, veg and meat prices higher, inflation has gone up. The reserve bank in their wisdom thinks that we are spending more, so they think they'll raise interest rates.
So my $28 pay rise has just cost me about $33.
I also want to upgrade my camera, but every time I look at the bank balance I shudder. And I pay all the bills, so I know. I have a mortage, two adult kids at home, two cars which we need for work, we pay for full insurance for the cars house and contents.
And you lot want to take more out of my pocket. :confused013
And as for saying that we only care for ourselves, and don't care about the environment. Everyone that has posted against this tax has not said that they don't care about the state of the planet. Quite the opposite really. They just believe there is a better way.
As for saying I only care for myself, you are more than likely right. But 33 years in the CFA (Victorian Fire Service) 12 years in the SES, qualified in suicide prevention and critical incedent stress, 7 years on the school council another 4 years as president of our local chamber of commerce, plus involved in many more community groups. If this makes me a selfish person, well I must be.
So, in other words. Fix the planet but, as long as I don't have to make a sacrifice.
So, in other words. Fix the planet but, as long as I don't have to make a sacrifice.
If the CT was going to do something useful, nobody would complain; but its a very hollow poli-"look at me, i'm doing something" knee jerk useless impost.
Scotty72
07-06-2011, 9:13pm
If the CT was going to do something useful, nobody would complain; but its a very hollow poli-"look at me, i'm doing something" knee jerk useless impost.
But it will.
If products that are more inefficiently produced are taxed so that they are more expensive than more efficiently produced products - then we switch.
Electricity the classic eg. If highly polluting brown coal electricity is priced so highly that solar panels become a good investment (and worthwhile for R&D) then the tax is very effective. Yes, solar doesn't work at night but, there are such things as batteries. Even if it can't free you from grid power - you will need far, far less of it.
Yes, I understand you don't want to pay more: You are very comfortable and few people want to go from X disposable income to X-Y disposable income.
That is the point. Most want others - not us - to pay for it.
But, if we do nothing - we will all end up paying far more (or we will just say to the grand-kids - sucked in, your problem).
Scotty
Lance B
07-06-2011, 10:20pm
I guess the credibility of a poll depends directly on the desirability of it's findings :D
Actually, no. I am talking about correct polling companies like Roy Morgan and Gallaxy Poll etc who do statsitically accurate polls. Their findings do reflect the community's desires and have been proven to be correct.
Well we do our little bit starting today. Our Solar energy panels are being installed today. We already have solar hot water. Will let you know down the track what our saving is.
geoffsta
08-06-2011, 4:17am
Electricity the classic eg. If highly polluting brown coal electricity is priced so highly that solar panels become a good investment (and worthwhile for R&D) then the tax is very effective. Yes, solar doesn't work at night but, there are such things as batteries. Even if it can't free you from grid power - you will need far, far less of it.
Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical. :confused013
Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical. :confused013
... and the materials that make batteries work usually have to be smelted from raw ore ... using coal or electricity or a combination of both. :confused013
ApolloLXII
08-06-2011, 8:01am
Actually, no. I am talking about correct polling companies like Roy Morgan and Gallaxy Poll etc who do statsitically accurate polls. Their findings do reflect the community's desires and have been proven to be correct.
:lol: The most hysterical thing I've read in ages. A poll can be made to reflect whatever you want it to. This thread, for instance, only reflects the views of people who own cameras and/or are interested in photography and is, therefore, hardly indicative of a wider community opinion.
Lance B
08-06-2011, 8:37am
:lol: The most hysterical thing I've read in ages. A poll can be made to reflect whatever you want it to.
OK. I'll play. Show me what you think is credible poll showing where people have voted for a carbon tax. Every poll I have seen, which has been many and including basically every on-line poll, has been against a carbon tax to the tune of at least 60%+. Your belief that these polls are somewhat skewed simply because you believe someone has an "agenda", and doesn't conform to your thought process, is quite amusing as these polling companies need to have accuracy or they would not get repeat business.
This thread, for instance, only reflects the views of people who own cameras and/or are interested in photography and is, therefore, hardly indicative of a wider community opinion.
And one would have thought that most have a green leaning due to their photography and wanting to keep the earth as pristine as possible. Yet here on this forum we have, wait for it, a 60%+ against a carbon tax, like the rest of the community. Quite interesting.
ApolloLXII
08-06-2011, 8:49am
Judging from your posts, your mind seems closed and already made up, the very same thing you are accusing the "non believers" of. As I have said previously, the CO2 debate has turned into the new religion and those that do not believe are labelled heretics and non-believers and therefore don't care about their world. That's just plain rubbish designed to shut up opposition views and to garner support by brow beating detractors and taking the moral high ground. And just like religion, there is no proof and never will be, so it is the perfect platform to justify their cause, "you won't go to heaven if ou don't believe in God so, repent, repent", slightly altered to, "you will destroy the earth if you don't believe in CO2 so, repent, repent". Just because you believe in a carbon tax or that there is man made global warming due to our output of CO2 doesn't mean that you are right. There is no proof, just speculation and there is just as much science saying that there isn't man caused global warming, but just because you choose not to believe an alternate view doesn't give you the right to any thoughts of a moral superiority by espousing that you want to "save the world".
As for the belief that somehow we are now living in a world of "hooray for me but screw everybody else", I think you need to do a bit more research on history and stop living in your idealised, antiseptic world, rather than come up with these little platitudes designed to try to backhandedly insult those that don't think the way you'd like them to. We have been fighting wars for all of our existence simply because man has always had this very "hooray for me but screw everybody else" mentality, and if anything, it is better now that it has ever been. Why? Simply because the western world has plenty of cheap power and therefore our standard of living is good and we therefore don't need to fight wars anymore. You will notice that the places that are fighting wars are generally the 3rd world countires that are aspiring to have cheap power and all the mod cons but do not yet have it. Start putting brakes on their right to have this cheap power and you'll really see some wars being fought.
Did you realise that man contributes to only 3% of the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere yearly, 97% being of natural causes. Of that 3%, Australia contributes 1.5% or .045% of the total of all man made CO2 in the world. If we were to reduce that by 10%, that would still only be a .0045% reduction, in other words, less than peeing into the ocean. Also, Australia's CO2 output includes our exported raw materials when used for overseas consumption and not our own consumption. So when we export coal for overseas consumption, the CO2 produced by it's burning is attributed to us!!! How incredulous!!
http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/climate-change/news/2364/we-emit-less-co2-than-combet-gives-us-credit-for
If we introduce a carbon tax, industry will go offshore to China and/or India where their inefficient and polluting factories will produce more caron dioxide than if it stayed here and therefore any reduction in CO2 will be more than offset by it being worse in China and/or India, so we will actually be going backwards with CO2 production!! Did you know that 15% of our power supply in Australia goes into making aluminium and if this industry decided to go to China that would be a huge backward step in CO2 emissions.
Taking an interest in the welfare of the planet is hardly a "new religion" as you put it. While the focus of the debate is about a carbon tax on carbon pollution, you are forgetting the other elements at play that threaten the future existence of life on the planet, the pollution of the oceans and the overall de-forestation that is going on around the globe. Nowhere in my posts have I ever said that "I am right and everybody else is wrong" so I will kindly ask you to either go back and read what I have already posted or stop making assertions that were never there in the first place. The idea of this thread is for everybody to express an opinion which is all that I've been doing. I don't live in an idealised world because there is no such thing.
As for wars in 3rd world countries, you will find that they have some common causes: differences in religion; the removal from power of either an individual or group of individuals and the list goes on. Cheap power :lol:. Hmmm, I guess the real cause behind the events in Libya is that everybody wants computers, air-conditioning and the right to watch rubbish programs on TV.
I think you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%. Animals in the wild and those that live on farms don't drive cars as well as fart and have you ever seen pictures of the daily smog in L.A? Did not the authorities in Beijing have to clean up their factory emissions prior to the Olympics because of health concerns? And what about all of the carbon released via logging industries around the world when they burn off after clear - felling and hazard reduction? Just think of how many cars, trucks, motorbikes etc there are on the roads at any one time all over the world as well as the fact that there are more and more new cars hitting the road each day (plus a lot of house holds in Australia have more than 1 car) and when you add up all of those emissions including the ones from factories, power stations etc, you will find it is MORE than 3%, a figure which is purely the result of anti-green propaganda.
Now, having broken my word that I was never going to return to this subject, mainly because your comments deserved a reply (moral high ground indeed!), I'm off to do something more constructive than participate in an overly politicised debate (part of the opposition to a carbon tax being based on the dislike of "Juliar" and the desire to be rid of her and have "Tony Rabbit" take over.) such as take photographs and look at other stuff.
ApolloLXII
08-06-2011, 8:52am
OK. I'll play. Show me what you think is credible poll showing where people have voted for a carbon tax. Every poll I have seen, which has been many and including basically every on-line poll, has been against a carbon tax to the tune of at least 60%+. Your belief that these polls are somewhat skewed simply because you believe someone has an "agenda", and doesn't conform to your thought process, is quite amusing as these polling companies need to have accuracy or they would not get repeat business.
See, you never read my post properly. I never said anything about a poll about Carbon Tax. The results of ALL polls, no matter what the subject, can be twisted to support whatever argument, for or against.
And one would have thought that most have a green leaning due to their photography and wanting to keep the earth as pristine as possible. Yet here on this forum we have, wait for it, a 60%+ against a carbon tax, like the rest of the community. Quite interesting.
But it will.
That's the lie. It won't do anything useful. The outcome will be a weaker Australia.
The things that would make a difference are not being done, as said before transport reform.
And if the Govt were anywhere near serious they would simply stop coal exports (23% of all our export revenue).
NB: That is around 270million tonnes of carbon (black coal) per year.
The CT is a pure band-aid and actually does more harm than good.
Lance B
08-06-2011, 9:28am
Taking an interest in the welfare of the planet is hardly a "new religion" as you put it. While the focus of the debate is about a carbon tax on carbon pollution, you are forgetting the other elements at play that threaten the future existence of life on the planet, the pollution of the oceans and the overall de-forestation that is going on around the globe. Nowhere in my posts have I ever said that "I am right and everybody else is wrong" so I will kindly ask you to either go back and read what I have already posted or stop making assertions that were never there in the first place. The idea of this thread is for everybody to express an opinion which is all that I've been doing. I don't live in an idealised world because there is no such thing.
As for wars in 3rd world countries, you will find that they have some common causes: differences in religion; the removal from power of either an individual or group of individuals and the list goes on. Cheap power :lol:. Hmmm, I guess the real cause behind the events in Libya is that everybody wants computers, air-conditioning and the right to watch rubbish programs on TV.[/quote]
Religion is an avenue for the preachers of hate to get into the minds of disenfranchised youth and the general populous and breed contempt fo those that do no have what they want. It is merely a tool for control. Why do you think Libya is in turmoil? Simply because they have been oppressed and want the goodies that the west has and that begins with cheap power in order to get what they want. Cheap power returns cheap transport, cheap manufacture, cheap cooling, cheap heating etc. You can't disconnect one without the other. And why try to bolster your flawed argument by making a silly statement like "rubbish TV programs"? They are all rubbish? You have the moral right to make that judgement? Hmm.
I think you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%.
What do you mean, "I think" you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%? You are making a statement without facts or reading up on the matter? That is the most frightening aspect of your argument!
See page 5 here:
http://omsriram.com/No%20Evidence%20to%20Support%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Causing%20Global%20Warming.pdf
See page 4 here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Animals in the wild and those that live on farms don't drive cars as well as fart and have you ever seen pictures of the daily smog in L.A? Did not the authorities in Beijing have to clean up their factory emissions prior to the Olympics because of health concerns?
Yes, but I fail to see what this has to do with it. It is a minor issue and one I agree with. We should all emit less pollution in every form. Never have disputed that.
And what about all of the carbon released via logging industries around the world when they burn off after clear - felling and hazard reduction? Just think of how many cars, trucks, motorbikes etc there are on the roads at any one time all over the world as well as the fact that there are more and more new cars hitting the road each day (plus a lot of house holds in Australia have more than 1 car) and when you add up all of those emissions including the ones from factories, power stations etc, you will find it is MORE than 3%, a figure which is purely the result of anti-green propaganda.
Again, you make a statement without fact. You are making suppositions and statements which have no basis in fact other than you "think" it is bad. And why does it have to be "anti green propaganda" just because it doesn't suit your argument?
Now, having broken my word that I was never going to return to this subject, mainly because your comments deserved a reply (moral high ground indeed!), I'm off to do something more constructive than participate in an overly politicised debate (part of the opposition to a carbon tax being based on the dislike of "Juliar" and the desire to be rid of her and have "Tony Rabbit" take over.) such as take photographs and look at other stuff.
Why the name calling of the politicians? Another attempt to bolster your flawed argument by trying to denegrate? Overly politicised? Politics has hardly had a mention here.
I will also attempt to leave this debate.
Scotty72
08-06-2011, 3:07pm
Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical. :confused013
Thus the absolute need for a CT to stimulate R&D into battery technology.
Yes, I know! That will cost you - and why should you pay when future generations can pay for your indulgence. How selfish of them to expect you to not continue to live large so that you might leave some resources for them.
They should beg your forgiveness :P
Scotty
Scotty72
08-06-2011, 3:13pm
As for polling. Even the big polling companies know how to position responders to obtain the answers they want.
That is sociology 101.
EG. A poll about gun control.
Depending on the answer you want, you prime the responders with material about: a) maniacs and massacres roaming the streets with guns waiting to attack your daughter or; b) unarmed, innocent victims of brutal home invaders pleading for the right to defend themselves.
So, please.... 'Credible polling companies' LOL
geoffsta
08-06-2011, 3:45pm
I'm with Lance. Scotty, I believe you have misinterpreted what we are saying. So to make it simple in point form I'll explain for the last time.
1. Those of us against the carbon tax believe that something needs to be done to save the world for future generations.
2. Those of us that are against the carbon tax believe that there is a better way to achieve what needs to be done without the tax.
3. Those of us that are against the tax know that the carbon tax is only a replacement for the failed mining tax.
4. Those of us against the tax are not thinking of ourselves, but more for the aging population of rural Australia that simply does not have the means to afford anymore taxes.
5. Those of us that are against the tax proberly has a better grasp on reality than those who are for the tax.
Thats it from me.... Yibbiter Yibbiter "Thats all Folks"
ameerat42
08-06-2011, 6:07pm
Thanks muchly for summarising my very points, Geoff.
That being against a Carbon Tax means you don't care is just PHOOEY!
(And the corollary: That being for the Carbon Tax means you do care is too.)
Am.
Hah! The swear filter didn't work! I said Carbon Tax.
Oh! Now it did!
Go Geoffsta, a clear thought from a clear head. I am disappointed that 25% of the peeps here think it is a good idea. Amazing
I wonder how much carbon is produced from people contributing to this thread and then reading and re reading it? :D
geoffsta
09-06-2011, 10:08am
No Carbon. Just steam from the ears. :lol:
Art Vandelay
09-06-2011, 10:13am
I printed it all out and then burnt it as a stand against the carbon tax.
this have been a mighty fine read. I didnt really want to come back to this thread but its longevity had me curious. its been interesting to see that the majority have a quite grounded opinion and believe that the tax is probably not the best way to go but they know that SOMETHING needs to be done :th3:
...of course there are others that can only see in shades of green... :rolleyes:
I however still stand by my vote, even after 8 pages!
AutumnCurl
26-06-2011, 7:50pm
No to the carbon tax.....for so many reasons.:
* There is no evidence of global warming caused by carbon... the earth naturally gets hotter and gets colder.
* We were promised NO Carbon Tax....The Government lied.
*As from the recent news headlines....the government has stop the cattle exports and intends to close the uranium mines,stamp duty has gone up, fringe benefit tax has changed, spouse benefit has gone. All of these things will cripple the country. Many people will loose jobs, we will loose exports, food prices will rise, bills will go up..and the big mining companies will just go else where.
*We could tax and stop all carbon emissions.. China will never do this. so it really doesnt matter.
*Showing images of STEAM stacks is not pollution.
*Plants use carbon.
*what Lance said.
Rats01
26-06-2011, 11:44pm
For the past 10 years or so the governments have been stealthily taxing us in every conceivable way possible. Cigarettes, fuel, water, electricity, rates, road taxes & tolls, vehicle registrations, you name it and now along comes a new one - Carbon Tax. The coal industry super tax fell through so we needed something else. Lets have a Carbon Tax and then everybody pays.
Australia is certainly well recognised as being innovative. Unfortunately most of the innovation ends up overseas because other countries are prepared to pay for the technology. The funding is non-existent in Australia or at least very limited.
At present Australia (in Queensland) is at the forefront in the development of carbon capture technology with what is currently the worlds largest carbon capture project being undertaken in the electricity generation industry. Both Federal & State governments have provided significant funding towards this project with possibly the greater level of funding support being provided by the Australian Coal Industry, The Japanese Government and other major Japanese industries as well as other industries from around the world. The eyes of the world are upon us and similar projects are being planned throughout other parts of the world. The process will work without doubt but as it is an energy intensive process it will effect the cost of electricity in this country. Electricity produced from coal combustion costs approximately $25/MW/hr. Electricity produced from natural gas costs about 3 times that price, nuclear energy costs about 5-6 times that of coal. Using a carbon capture process the cost will be in the order of $100/MW/hr. All the options available still lead to increased prices. The greatest feat yet to be refined in the carbon capture process is the sequestration - there exist in all very few suitable areas for this to occur and the majority in remote areas. So we end up with a heap more trucks on the road transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration sites or we install pipelines all over the country.
The ironic part of it all is that over the past few years we have seen electricity retail prices increase substantially yet the wholesale price of electricity in the Australian East Coast Electricity Market have been at an all time low for the past two years or more. So much so that some generators are being forced to shut down as the cost of production is far greater than the prices being received. In fact some generation authorities have over the past 1-2 years suffered very substantial losses.
Putting solar panels on the roof is a great option but the subsidies for that are being phased out. Solar generation is a great choice but it is incapable of providing the electricity required to meet our energy hungry needs.
Hybrid & electric motor vehicles are also a smart move (not so much for me - I'd need charging stations along the way) but then there comes the disposal issues associated with the batteries they use. Batteries have a limited life and their not just plain old lead/acid batteries any more.
I live in a rural community some 100 klms from my nearest major shopping area so when I do shop I generally buy for at least a month which means I run 2-3 fridges plus a couple of freezers amoung the other luxuries such as air cons etc and am constantly being told by me electricity retailer that my usage is 30-40% higher than the average consumer. I wonder why that is? It costs me fuel to go shopping, a little more than most, so I make the best of it when the need arises.
I also do a bit of farming where I use fuel for machinery, power for pumping equipment, pay outrageous rates for the water I pump from underground (apparently the government owns that water) as well as all the other costs associated with living on this wonderful planet.
I'm all for clean & green but I still don't believe there is enough evidence to define the global warming issues as totally man made and not cyclic behaviour. Anyone can make the figure look good in their favour if they have the commitment and cause to do so and admittedly a lot of the science groups believe it, but there are just as many that are sceptical about the fact.
As you might guess I am not in favour of a carbon tax but meanwhile I need to figure how I can fit my cattle up with plastic bags - OMG then i have to figure how to dispose of the plastic bags and waste. Maybe I can capture the methane and use it in my gas stove - might need to cook outside though.
I've said enough.
Scotty72
27-06-2011, 8:28am
It is certainly not true that there is no evidence for carbon emissions contributing to climate change. The Lord Muncton / Alan Jones style of name calling and attacking not the science but the scientist is shameful in that it gives solace to those who are interested only in not paying to clean up our mess.
The weather bureau, CSIRO along with a whole bunch of other institutions are constantly finding evidence of increases in extreme weather patterns etc.
Of course, there can never be proof either way but, do we wait until we are eaten by a shark until we accept proof that sharks may be active in the area?
Also, the hysteria over tax / price rises is incredible. To relate opposition to this to increases in rego, cigarettes and beer is disingenuous. Rego and fuel taxes go up to pay for the roads we demand (but don't want tolled), cigarette taxes go up (not nearly enough) to pay a small part of the social disaster they cause-a similar case for beer (it costs a lot of money to scrape car-wreck victims off the road, pay for medical costs, disability pensions etc etc etc).
So, we need to separate the taxes: we all pay tax but expect it to cover everything.
Even if we believe that there is no such thing as climate change; there is still the growing problems of pouring pollution into our skies, resource depletion (peak oil), deforestation, over-fishing etc. We all want to continue on our consumerist binge until we have used up everything. Taxes are the only way to slow us down - so be it.
Australians have a great tradition of 'she'll be right' and leaving our problems for someone else to clean up (the government should do something) - but as soon as the govt does something = oh! The whinging.
We are the first race on Earth to massively outwhinge the Poms :)
It is certainly not true that there is no evidence for carbon emissions contributing to climate change. The Lord Muncton / Alan Jones style of name calling and attacking not the science but the scientist is shameful in that it gives solace to those who are interested only in not paying to clean up our mess.
The weather bureau, CSIRO along with a whole bunch of other institutions are constantly finding evidence of increases in extreme weather patterns etc.
Of course, there can never be proof either way but, do we wait until we are eaten by a shark until we accept proof that sharks may be active in the area?
well documented... we contibute 2-3% to the total carbon output of the planet... mother nature does the rest
Even if we believe that there is no such thing as climate change; there is still the growing problems of pouring pollution into our skies, resource depletion (peak oil), deforestation, over-fishing etc. We all want to continue on our consumerist binge until we have used up everything. Taxes are the only way to slow us down - so be it.
indeed these are much more important matters and should be dealtwith accordingly! using taxes to slow things down? there are plenty of ppl just on the poverty line and they are the ones who will suffer from the increase in the cost of living... so they should just suck it up and earn more money? maybe they should just steal from other better off so they can hold thier heads high in the 2 minute noodle isle in the local supermarket? maybe have a sideline of selling drugs or their boddies?
seriously, this is more cruel than kicking cows.
Scotty72
27-06-2011, 10:41am
well documented... we contibute 2-3% to the total carbon output of the planet... mother nature does the rest
indeed these are much more important matters and should be dealtwith accordingly! using taxes to slow things down? there are plenty of ppl just on the poverty line and they are the ones who will suffer from the increase in the cost of living... so they should just suck it up and earn more money? maybe they should just steal from other better off so they can hold thier heads high in the 2 minute noodle isle in the local supermarket? maybe have a sideline of selling drugs or their boddies?
seriously, this is more cruel than kicking cows.
My sister is always complaining about being on the poverty line. Yet, she smokes: drinks at her local RSL twice a week where she drops money into the pokies; she rents a 2 story, 4 bedroom townhouse with a big backyard (shared only with 15 year-old daughter); both are bitching they can't afford to upgrade their iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4; she has a killer DVD collection which she plays through her 42" LCD TV.
Two mates of mine keep complaining that increasing taxes are making them so poor, they had to drop the FoxTel (so pov)
Poverty just ain't what it used to be.
Before we complain about poverty, let's just be thankful for what we do have that we never had before (and billions in the world only dream of)... Mobiles, colour tv, computers connected to broadband, subsidized medicine, a car.
I suppose an African living in a mud-hut or a child living in the slums of Mumbai ought to feel sorry for 'poor' Australians.
I remember I used to be among the 'poor' Aussies. Living week to week at Uni, constantly being chased for money, complaining that I didn't have this or that. It was pointed out that what was making me poor were the mobile, the Internet, nights out and trying to run an old car. I gave it up. I cancelled my mobile; sold the car (i rode my bicycle or caught the bus and occasional taxi); reduced my drinking / nights out and relied on net cafes (which are cheaper than maintaining a computer and net contract).
Hey Presto, I was no longer poor.
I then went to Korea and spent about 18 months in very basic accommodation, constantly cold (or hot) eating basic food - a lot of rice and 2 min noodles and totally reliant on public transport, net cafes, public phones etc.
Even then, my lifestyle was better than 50% of Koreans at that time (you can find real poverty there if you look for it)
99% of Aussies who cry poor are simply whinging - woe is Me. Including anyone with a modern DSLR plus lens who say they can't afford good food.
Scotty
Poverty just ain't what it used to be.
true that. people dont realise how good they have it... I am of course talking not about those who say they are poor but can still afford life's luxuries but those who really are poor. there are too many of those around... 2 million in 2004
and this year... tho i dont know how reliable the stats are
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/families-struggling-since-global-financial-crisis-says-australian-council-of-social-services/story-e6frfmd9-1226029143365
ricstew
27-06-2011, 2:20pm
go and ask an aged pensioner how poor they are.......
Scotty72
27-06-2011, 4:55pm
Before they died, my parents were!
But, then again, they were depression babies... They made do and didn't expect someone else to chew their food for them :)
Scotty72
27-06-2011, 5:03pm
true that. people dont realise how good they have it... I am of course talking not about those who say they are poor but can still afford life's luxuries but those who really are poor. there are too many of those around... 2 million in 2004
and this year... tho i dont know how reliable the stats are
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/families-struggling-since-global-financial-crisis-says-australian-council-of-social-services/story-e6frfmd9-1226029143365
In 2004, I taught in the Sydney suburb of Bonnyrigg: one of the highest unemployment / low socio-economic areas in the country. Pretty well every kid came from housing commission houses and there was no shortage of mobiles, designer clothes etc.
I think the definition of poverty is way to high - everybody wants to be a victim.
I'm not saying some people aren't poor but, I think poverty is one of those things that govts like to tell everyone they are... You are poor, you are hard done by, you are being done over. It wins votes.
Look at the baby bonus for goodness sake. Couple on over 100k demanding welfare because they are poor....
Scotty
soulman
27-06-2011, 5:53pm
...there are plenty of ppl just on the poverty line and they are the ones who will suffer from the increase in the cost of living...No they aren't. It's the tax paying middle class who will suffer if anyone. The poor will be compensated, just as they were when the GST was introduced. I know I won't change your mind or that of anyone else who listens to Alan Jones, but if you're going to attack it, at least try and hit it in a weak spot. :p
I personally don't get the irrational hatred that many people have toward tax generally. To me, the idea of getting money taken out of your salary by a not for profit organisation that provides services I rely on and helps out the poor on my behalf is a good idea. I have no trouble with tax generally and none with this one.
Seems to me that when the whole Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme package is announced we may have a better idea of the whole story of what it may or may not cost us individually.
Also seems to me that a lot of people think that this is one of the best countries in the world to live in, but nearly every thing's stuffed.
In 2004, I taught in the Sydney suburb of Bonnyrigg: one of the highest unemployment / low socio-economic areas in the country. Pretty well every kid came from housing commission houses and there was no shortage of mobiles, designer clothes etc.
I think the definition of poverty is way to high - everybody wants to be a victim.
I'm not saying some people aren't poor but, I think poverty is one of those things that govts like to tell everyone they are... You are poor, you are hard done by, you are being done over. It wins votes.
Look at the baby bonus for goodness sake. Couple on over 100k demanding welfare because they are poor....
Scottypoverty is a relative thing i guess... it is described i believe as on half the mean wage. sure thats seems like alot of money but i guess when you look at the cost of living its all swings and roundabouts. the poverty line here is well off in parts of africa and so you quite obviously cant compare the poverty line in one country to another.
as for the baby bonus, those on $100k arent saying that they are poor, they are putting thier hand out because the govt is handing out money... and thats the govt own stoopid fault for handing out to the wrong ppl.
we are indeed fortunate to have a sytem that takes care of us when we dont earn enough to take care of ourselves tho. the govt houses us in govt funded housing and pays us pensions (and other moneys) when we dont earn for ourselves and thats how we differ to various poor nations and indeed what makes us "lucky"
but sure, if you want to take away the privleges that makes us a much more secure place to live so we can live like they do in somalia...go ahead.
mind you according to the last census we had 20k ppl living on the streets in 1996. but they arent poor either... I wonder how many ppl are borderline to living on the streets? one more tax and they are there type thing? :confused013
hmm.. i guess they just arent poor enough. maybe we should just give them a glass of concrete and tell them to toughen the heck up :p
Seems to me that when the whole Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme package is announced we may have a better idea of the whole story of what it may or may not cost us individually.
Also seems to me that a lot of people think that this is one of the best countries in the world to live in, but nearly every thing's stuffed.
show me a country that isnt stuffed and i'll show you a country of ppl living in denial (no not in egypt) :p
sonofcoco
28-06-2011, 5:46pm
In 2004, I taught in the Sydney suburb of Bonnyrigg: one of the highest unemployment / low socio-economic areas in the country. Pretty well every kid came from housing commission houses and there was no shortage of mobiles, designer clothes etc.
I think the definition of poverty is way to high - everybody wants to be a victim.
I'm not saying some people aren't poor but, I think poverty is one of those things that govts like to tell everyone they are... You are poor, you are hard done by, you are being done over. It wins votes.
Look at the baby bonus for goodness sake. Couple on over 100k demanding welfare because they are poor....
Scotty
Well, according to the Liberal Party couples on just over 100k are struggling middle-class battlers Scotty! Would love to have that 'struggle' myself...
Q and A was interesting again last night, thought the point about the mining tax and the fact the money from it that could've been used for infra-stucture and putting something back into the country now has to come from somewhere else (i.e - us). At least Clive Palmer was honest enough not to keep the smirk off his face as he referred to those the mining tax would effect as 'battlers'.
Scotty72
28-06-2011, 8:11pm
poverty is a relative thing i guess... it is described i believe as on half the mean wage. sure thats seems like alot of money but i guess when you look at the cost of living its all swings and roundabouts. the poverty line here is well off in parts of africa and so you quite obviously cant compare the poverty line in one country to another.
as for the baby bonus, those on $100k arent saying that they are poor, they are putting thier hand out because the govt is handing out money... and thats the govt own stoopid fault for handing out to the wrong ppl.
we are indeed fortunate to have a sytem that takes care of us when we dont earn enough to take care of ourselves tho. the govt houses us in govt funded housing and pays us pensions (and other moneys) when we dont earn for ourselves and thats how we differ to various poor nations and indeed what makes us "lucky"
but sure, if you want to take away the privleges that makes us a much more secure place to live so we can live like they do in somalia...go ahead.
mind you according to the last census we had 20k ppl living on the streets in 1996. but they arent poor either... I wonder how many ppl are borderline to living on the streets? one more tax and they are there type thing? :confused013
hmm.. i guess they just arent poor enough. maybe we should just give them a glass of concrete and tell them to toughen the heck up :p
What are you on about?
When did I suggest we abandon public housing? Anyway, it is just dumb and stupid to suggest that if we take away public housing and baby bonuses that we will be like Somalia. That is straight out of the Alan Jones - scare the crap out of people - text book.
Scotty72
28-06-2011, 8:14pm
show me a country that isnt stuffed and i'll show you a country of ppl living in denial (no not in egypt) :p
Yet, as a country, we have never been richer; never had so much material wealth; never lived longer, never have so many been able to afford overseas travel, never have so many gone to uni etc.
Yet we are so stuffed!
This is like Monty Python... What did the Romans ever do for us?
Scotty72
28-06-2011, 8:16pm
Well, according to the Liberal Party couples on just over 100k are struggling middle-class battlers Scotty! Would love to have that 'struggle' myself...
Q and A was interesting again last night, thought the point about the mining tax and the fact the money from it that could've been used for infra-stucture and putting something back into the country now has to come from somewhere else (i.e - us). At least Clive Palmer was honest enough not to keep the smirk off his face as he referred to those the mining tax would effect as 'battlers'.
Sorry, I missed QandA last night.
I was at SBS for the taping of the 'Go Back To Where You Came From' forum. :)
Paul G
28-06-2011, 10:49pm
I just voted and discovered that Ving has three friends!
Yet, as a country, we have never been richer; never had so much material wealth; never lived longer, never have so many been able to afford overseas travel, never have so many gone to uni etc.
Yet we are so stuffed!
This is like Monty Python... What did the Romans ever do for us?all countries are stuffed to some degree. we are stuffed alot less then some.... hang on, who said we are stuffed anyhow? it wasnt me. :p
room for improvement, sure! but stuffed we aint. :th3:
What are you on about?
When did I suggest we abandon public housing? Anyway, it is just dumb and stupid to suggest that if we take away public housing and baby bonuses that we will be like Somalia. That is straight out of the Alan Jones - scare the crap out of people - text book.eh? no way... I think you have miss understood me. I am suggesting that is we create more taxes it will drive more into homelessness (= bad thing, right?).
my reference to public housing was just saying how lucky we are... other counties dont have that privilege.
Scotty72
01-07-2011, 4:29pm
eh? no way... I think you have miss understood me. I am suggesting that is we create more taxes it will drive more into homelessness (= bad thing, right?).
my reference to public housing was just saying how lucky we are... other counties dont have that privilege.
Well, we agree on that. If you tax anything, it makes those who pay it, in the short term, worse off. It then comes down to a cost / benefit balancing act.
At one extreme: if we pay no tax, we may have more money in our pocket but most of us will all be clearly worse off when we have NO services (schools, police, sanitation, hospitals etc) unless you are rich enough to build your own medical facility, hire your own body-guards, tutors and landfill etc.
At the other extreme: if we pay 100% tax we have no money in our pocket but (in theory) we will have no need more money because the collective will provide all.
Obviously, both extremes are as dopey as the the other.
But, to oppose a carbon tax simply because some will be worse off is like opposing cigarette taxes because they make smokers financially worse off. Clearly, the smoker will be better off because of the tax - they will have the benefits of hospital and the medicare system (that they will certainly need) that would not be there (or to a lessor degree) if the smoker did not pay the tax.
Assuming a carbon tax makes burning fossil fuels more expensive, there will be less pollution which will benefit us all. There will also be more incentive to develop better alternatives and more energy efficiencies. Then, we will really better off. The main reason cars are far more efficient than in decades past is the price signals (rising cost of petrol) that force consumers to demand efficient cars.
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette - but, at least in this case - the egg owners have been promised compensation.
Scotty
I am suggesting that is we create more taxes it will drive more into homelessness.
Nonsense two different ways.
1: The number of taxes is irrelevant here, it is only the total tax take as a proportion of GDP that matters. Whether that revenue is gathered by a single big tax or lots of little ones means absolutlely nothing.
2: Homelessness generally correlates with total taxation quite closely. In countries with lox total tax revenue relative to GDP, homelessness is high. (Think most of Africa, for example, or the USA.) In countries with higher total tax revenue per unit of GDP (think Sweden, Germany) homelessness tends to be quite low.
It is all irrelevant now, the oracle (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/alan-jones-tells-carbon-tax-rally-pm-will-go-down-the-sewer/story-fn3dxity-1226085795474) has spoken so public opinion ( from in front of the midday talk back shows ) will clearly support the quest for truth, justice and the American Australian way.
Scotty72
01-07-2011, 4:54pm
Gee that Alan Jones is a classy bloke :Doh:
It is all irrelevant now, the oracle......... (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/alan-jones-tells-carbon-tax-rally-pm-will-go-down-the-sewer/story-fn3dxity-1226085795474)
And someone pays someone to write these things. Read I@M's link to the end and you see this amazing journalism,
"Also in the crowd was Angela Liati.
Ms Liati, who was convicted in 2009 of lying to police in an attempt to help former Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld dodge a speeding fine, was wearing a sticker saying "We voted No Carbon Tax"."
I vote no to lying :th3:
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 11:14am
Trawling through google:th3: (holidays), there are lots and lots of articles popping up about China buying huge (country sized) tracts of Africa, South America even NZ and Australia.
Why? They want to strip these countries of natural resources and secure their own food supply (prices in China for food are increasing at up to 30% with resulting unrest). The so called 'Arab Spring' wad largely triggered by ballooning food prices which so far we have been cushioned from (relatively).
There are fertile areas (well guarded by military) of Africa from where the Chinese are exporting huge amounts of food to China while the locals literally starve. When the Chinese start doing it to us (exporting our food and resources for little benefit to us - as the have started (LNG from NW shelf)) we may finally see that our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Now the Chinese are wanting to mine some of our best farming area in the New England area (what will that do to food prices?). I guess the Chinese are whinging to the government in they same way we are - why should we pay more for food and energy? So, the Chinese govt are going and grabbing it - they dont care about the consequences for us. Why should they, we've been exploiting the rest of the world for decades.
Once the age of denial is over, there will be an age of - why didn't the govt do something?
Perhaps a Carbon tax is their way of trying to do something about it.
Perhaps a Carbon tax is their way of trying to do something about it.
At the mooted $23.00 per tonne to be announced on Sunday? And with 70% of households compensated in some way? And with 500 of the top polluters exempted (including oil companies)? I don't think so, Scotty. Nothing more than a tax grab and political sop to the Greens and Independents.
On the subject of Chinese land grabs, though, the legislation already exists to stop that with a swipe of the government's pen. Will that happen? Ummm ... I did say they were politicians, didn't I? And our exports to China are worth how much? $1 billion you say? Yeah, like that'll happen! :confused013
Duplicate post - ok to remove, thanks.
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 12:15pm
But, imagine if the govt said, 'OK, $100 / tonne will make you think.'
Short - term self interest would see riots on the streets. $23 is no doubt just the start. And... which idiot exempted petrol? Obviously this is Gillard trying to appease.
As for a swipe of the pen stopping the insatiable appetite of Chinese consumers... Say we say no to Chinese investment... our economy will go down the toilet by this time tomorrow. Hilary Clinton admitted the US was in a bind with China - saying it was difficult to tell your banker (who you rely on for credit) how to behave (or something like that). I am not sure how tiny Australia is going to stand up to the Chinese when even the US can't.
Besides, if it comes to a China desperate for resources. How many hundreds of times bigger is their military than ours?
I do agree the problem is far bigger than Australia can ever hope to solve on its own but, at least we can stop pretending that our exponentially growing demand for resources can be met (our planet isn't growing exponentially).
Scotty
mudman
07-07-2011, 12:30pm
with the news on ABC today that 500, that's right 500, of the top poluters wont be taxed, wht's the purpose of the tax?.
it's a clatons tax now not worth the effort as far as i can see
$23 is no doubt just the start. And... which idiot exempted petrol? Obviously this is Gillard trying to appease.
When the polly's started touting the tax, they said they'd get the "top 1000 polluters"; now they're only taxing "the top 500 polluters". That's polly-speak for "we've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen" (Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles). The following excerpt is from today's article in the Herald Sun via Google Business News.
While Ms Gillard declined to confirm media speculation of a $23 per tonne starting price, she told Sky News a smaller number than the originally estimated 1000 businesses would pay the full price.
"This figure of 500 strongly reinforces the point that this is a price being paid by a limited number of big businesses - it is not being (directly) paid by Australian families," she said.
Ms Gillard said there would be no new forms or red tape for small business - as there is with the GST.
"They don't need to do anything except keep operating their small business," the prime minister said.
Costs would be passed on to households, which was why the government would provide tax cuts and welfare payment rises to nine out of 10 households, she said.
It is now 90% of households that will be compensated? But by how much? And yes, apparently oil producers and distributors will be exempt but they're looking at taxing via the off-road (read farm and mine) diesel tax or some such thing. It's a soap opera! I can't wait for the next installment! Looks like "lame duck" is on the menu for the majority of us! :confused013
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 1:07pm
This is so true.
In trying to compromise, they have managed to upset all sides of this argument :lol:
Sometimes, democracy 'just don't work no good' :p.
I also heard on the news that the initial start up costs of the tax (setting up the bureaucracy etc) will outstrip the collections for the first 4 years.
If it wasn't our money, this would be hilarious. :(
Well, at least, come next election, Australians may be more united - even if it is simply to kick this govt out!:lol:
What will be more 'interesting' will be to see who benefits from Labor's demise.
Scotty
terry.langham
07-07-2011, 1:39pm
How long 'til we get a Completely Disillusioned election? :lol:
Art Vandelay
07-07-2011, 1:40pm
:lol:
Scotty, about 10 pages back I said this,
A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that, it's just shuffling money for no tangible result.
And you wonder why the majority out their say they dont want it. :lol:
Lance B
07-07-2011, 1:45pm
Gee that Alan Jones is a classy bloke :Doh:
That Alan Jones that you so clearly despise, from this and other posts, actually agrees with your concerns about foreign ownership as you wrote here:
Trawling through google (holidays), there are lots and lots of articles popping up about China buying huge (country sized) tracts of Africa, South America even NZ and Australia.
Why? They want to strip these countries of natural resources and secure their own food supply (prices in China for food are increasing at up to 30% with resulting unrest). The so called 'Arab Spring' wad largely triggered by ballooning food prices which so far we have been cushioned from (relatively).
As I occassionally listen to Alan Jones, today I heard his disgust at the very same foreign ownership that you are concerned about.
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 3:21pm
:lol:
Scotty, about 10 pages back I said this,
A carbon tax won't do didly squat to solve any of that, it's just shuffling money for no tangible result.
And you wonder why the majority out their say they dont want it. :lol:
If it were not a completely bastardised version of the tax, it may well have been effective. But, whenever white ants get to any structure - they render it useless.:)
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 3:24pm
That Alan Jones that you so clearly despise, from this and other posts, actually agrees with your concerns about foreign ownership as you wrote here:
As I occassionally listen to Alan Jones, today I heard his disgust at the very same foreign ownership that you are concerned about.
Well, as somebody who orchestrates the 'Turn back the boats' xenophobia, I'm not surprised he finds any opportunity to have a go at foreigners. :p
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 3:28pm
BTW, I don't despise Alan Jones. It is possible to be in furious disagreement with someone with hating them (an old fashioned concept).
He actually does a lot of good with his advocacy of small business etc.
But, his macro-political beliefs... defy human compassion.
Lance B
07-07-2011, 3:53pm
BTW, I don't despise Alan Jones.
It's just that at many opportunities you have stuck the boot in.
It is possible to be in furious disagreement with someone with hating them (an old fashioned concept).
Well, that would be a good concept here as well. I have had some debates with a few here and never feel the desire to hate them either, but it seems as though I have put a few offside on this forum and there are quite a few who now do not post comments on my photos that regularly used to. I am not concerned, it's just an obsevation about some people.
He actually does a lot of good with his advocacy of small business etc.
But, his macro-political beliefs... defy human compassion.
I do agree with his stance on the carbon tax, and why I sometimes listen to him.
I am appalled with what seems like a campaign of calling him/them shock jocks is just a way for people to try to silence an alternate point of view that doesn't agree with theirs and try to discredit them and that is a frightening way for our society to behave and think. This smacks of the church/religious beliefs where anyone who dared question the diety was labelled a heretic or ostracised or worse. There seems to be a push for shutting down of debate and freedom of speech lately, witness Lord Monckton's tour with regards to his carbon debate where many venues are deciding not to have him speak for fear upsetting someone. Now even if you don't agree with him and you think his ideas are wrong, then surely then his argument would fall down under scrutiny. Or could it be that his ideas do have merit and this is what they are scared of. Even the Prime Minister is calling them shock jocks and anyone who doesn't agree with her (sorry Bob Brown's) carbon tax is labelled a heretic and extremist. As far as I can see, an extremist is someone who goes against will of the vast majority and the majority seem to be against a carbon tax, or at best a 50-50 split which in my book means that the Prime Minister could be labelled an extremist, not the other way round.
Bennymiata
07-07-2011, 3:56pm
What a lot of people don't know about foreign companies operating in Australia is that they usually run the local company at a loss so they don't have to pay taxes.
Take the Japanese meat growers for example.
They own large tracts of Australian land with herds of cattle on them.
The cattle is mostly grain fed and the best of them are treated just like the real Kobe beef animals are.
The animals are slaughtered and the meat sent to their head office in Japan at a price that loses money for the local operation, but because the meat is so cheap, the parent company makes a huge margin on it when they sell it in Japan.
The same will happen to the coal that the Chinese are now going to export to themselves.
They'll sell it to their parent companies in China for peanuts and use our land and our resources without paying much in the way of local taxes, so we not only miss out on us selling them the coal, but will also miss out on the taxes that Australian companies would have paid if they were doing the mining and exporting.
This is what I really object to.
Any expert knows the going rate for various things, and if the government finds that foreign companies are selling stuff back to their head offices for a loss, the Australian government should step in and put an export tax on it, which would be roughly equivalent to the company tax they should have paid on their businesses, + some extra so that other companies don't try the same trick.
You certainly can't blame the farmers who are selling their farm land to the Chinese, as the Chinese are using the worst form of torture to get them to sell, which is money!
After all, these farmers are getting anywhere from double to 5 times the real worth of the land and offers like that don't come along every day of the week.
However, our carbon tax won't affect these sales or the raping and pillaging of our land by foreigners, and to be frank, this carbon tax will have absolutely NO benefit to reducing world-wide pollution levels, so the reason for the tax is to keep the communist Greens (they aren't really a Green party at all, just a new name for a communist party, and if you disagree with that, read their about their future wants and taxation levels and their complete lack of green credentials) happy.
Juliar is desperate to increase tax revenues, as she is spending it on so many useless things a lot faster than she can earn it, and it is the $150Million a day that she is now borrowing that is causing us to have the highest interest rates in the world.
The problem for her is that overall, this new tax is being seen for what it really is, a complete sham and she had better be very careful as there are many Labour backbenchers that would like to cross the floor when the voting for it begins. As soon as that happens, Juliar will be out on her red-headed ear!
geoffsta
07-07-2011, 3:58pm
They have released part of their plan for the tax.
Petrol will exempt from the tax, while diesel is not.
Australia runs on the back of diesel. from transport to mining. Diesel runs far cleaner than petrol. It's easier to produce, and cheaper to produce than petrol. Diesel can easterly be reproduced using other synthetic options than petrol.
All forms of industry relies on diesel. From directly using it, or indirectly by the way of transport.
I suppose Julia is just trying to keep up with modern society.
In the old days, people use to get kicked in the guts until they said they give up.
Modern society now kick you in the guts until you end up in hospital or till you are dead.
Thanks "No Carban Tax" Julia.
Well, that would be a good concept here as well. I have had some debates with a few here and never feel the desire to hate them either, but it seems as though I have put a few offside on this forum and there are quite a few who now do not post comments on my photos that regularly used to. I am not concerned, it's just an obsevation about some people.
Geez, I hope I'm not one of those, Lance? Life's too short to hold grudges over people's personal beliefs on ANY topic! :(
geoffsta
07-07-2011, 6:08pm
Lance.. A difference of opinion on a subject like this should not effect the respect we all have for each others photographic ability.
Both Scotty and I have had posts deleted because they have appeared personal, but it has not stopped either of us from posting positive comments on each others images.
Aint that right Scotty, Mate. :th3:
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 6:39pm
Lance.. A difference of opinion on a subject like this should not effect the respect we all have for each others photographic ability.
Both Scotty and I have had posts deleted because they have appeared personal, but it has not stopped either of us from posting positive comments on each others images.
Aint that right Scotty, Mate. :th3:
Yeah! I think you and I had an 'exchange of views' before telling each other how wonderful our pics were. Quite bizarre really :lol:
I agree with the view that foreign companies are dodging tax but, every time the government try to fix that, we all complain. Look at the mining resources rent tax. The Rudd govt was brought down over that.
A carbon tax (love it or not) would at least make foreign companies pay something.
And the problem with cutting back wasteful spending is: do they cut back the money they waste on you or me.
You'll get a good argument if you decide any of the following is wasteful:
- the baby bonus
- investment in railroads
- subsidized education (public schools)
- the ABC (I'm there right now for the Q&A tonight - tax payer Tim-Tams taste great thanks)
- subsidized medicine
- disability / old age pensions
- the NBN
- public transport
- free to use roads
Etc. Etc
The problem is, each of these has two equally compelling, yet opposite arguments :)
Scotty
Depends on who you are and what you do, Geoff. An honest difference of opinion over the best way to tackle our shared problems should certainly not be cause for any issue. Where nature photography is concerned, however, there is a widely shared ethical belief that the photographer will be sympathetic to and supportive of the subject (nature), and not do things to harm it.
Climate change is a very, very serious threat to nature as we know it - not just a threat to our living standards, but a threat to the ecosystem as a whole. It is not possible to be both an honest, ethical nature photographer with an awareness of the natural world and a climate change denier; the evidence has been overwhelmingly clear for some years now on many different levels, and it gets yet more clear with each passing year. (Perhaps you could make a similar and maybe more telling argument with regard to family photography and the need for children to have a decent future, but I'm not going to enter into that debate. Someone else may care to.) I usually try to ignore threads like this one, and not take note of who said what because that upsets me. Nevertheless, I won't knowingly go to any trouble to help a climate change denier take better pictures of the world he or she is hell-bent on destroying. That would break my heart.
Let's not forget that the opposition have said that climate change is real and human activity has contributed to it. They have proposed a direct action plan as the policy. I have a feeling that if this plan was implemented, it may cost us more than a price on carbon.
geoffsta
07-07-2011, 7:37pm
It's kind of like..
Potato's give you cancer.. Oh sorry, no they don't... Maybe they do... No they don't. (This has being going on for years)
Mobile phones give you brain tumors.... Umm not conclusive... Umm maybe. Latest trials show that they haven't been around long enough to give a definitive conclusion.
Bread crusts puts hair on your chest. If the wind changes, your face will stay like that.
And the biggest of all (Which cost companies billions of dollars, including our government) "The millennium Bug"
And one I see very often now days. You are the beneficiary of a deceased estate. Send me your details, and I'll send you $17,679,500.00 US.
All these are aimed at the sucker.
The old saying here applies.. The boy who cried Wolf
I won't knowingly go to any trouble to help a climate change denier take better pictures of the world he or she is hell-bent on destroying. That would break my heart.
Gee, Tony, that's an enormous leap you've just made there! I don't want to get back into the global warming / climate change debate. That said I do think that jumping to that conclusion, that just because someone doesn't accept climate change on the same terms you do necessarily means they are "hell bent on destroying ... the world", is a bigger leap than Evil Knievel ever made! :eek:
I can accept that you are very passionate about the beauty and fragility of nature and that you perceive climate change is a monumentally serious "threat to the ecosystem as a whole". That doesn't mean that people who don't believe in man-made climate change cannot also believe in preserving nature and the ecosystem. The two are not mutually exclusive. Each may just represent a different perspective on what is or isn't a serious threat.
I don't want to sound holier-than-thou on the subject, because I can be just as judgmental as the next person, but every time I think my judgment about someone or something is accurate , Life inevitably points out to me the folly of my certitude. For that reason I try to respect that someone else may believe differently to me and that it's entirely possible that they are "right" and I am "wrong", whatever that ultimately means.
Whether you are "right" about climate change and I or anyone else is "wrong" isn't really important in the scheme of things. That issue is only something transitory that temporarily divides us. What is a bigger and more important thing, to me at least, is what actually unites us; a love of the natural world and wanting to see it preserved for future generations to enjoy. In the end, it won't matter to me whether anyone in particular was "right" or "wrong" - only that the natural order was enabled to survive and prevail. Does that make any sense?:confused013
All of what you say would be correct, WhoDo, if it were a matter of opinion.
It isn't.
The facts are there for all to see. The weight of scientific evidence and expert knowledge is overwhelming. Most (all?) of the facile denialist myths have now been exposed and it is very easy for any given individual to look them up and verify that personally. It is not sensible to pretend that this problem, which will destroy something approaching half of all species currently alive if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively, is "only something transitory". We either win this one, or we lose everything that matters to us. It doesn't get any more vital than that.
All of what you say would be correct, WhoDo, if it were a matter of opinion.
It isn't.
The facts are there for all to see. The weight of scientific evidence and expert knowledge is overwhelming.
Well, once the weight of "scientific" evidence and expert knowledge was overwhelming that:
the sun and all the stars in the firmament rotated around the earth!
the earth was flat and if you sailed far enough you fell off the edge!
if your speed approached the speed of sound you would disintegrate!
it would be impossible for man to go to the moon because no man could pass through the Van Allen radiation belts and live (the jury is still debating that one)!
My point is that "facts" are never immutable. I believe climate change is real and a monstrous threat to the natural order of all living things, including man. I just don't believe it's man-made. With the benefit of hindsight, assuming we all live long enough, we may just discover that reducing carbon emissions actually makes matters worse!
Most (all?) of the facile denialist myths have now been exposed and it is very easy for any given individual to look them up and verify that personally. It is not sensible to pretend that this problem, which will destroy something approaching half of all species currently alive if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively, is "only something transitory". We either win this one, or we lose everything that matters to us. It doesn't get any more vital than that.
What I said was "transitory", Tony, was our difference of opinion over what was actually causing the problem, not the problem itself. I never suggested climate change was a transitory problem, although it may well be but in passing it may just wipe out all life as we know it!
The fact is that all we have are THEORIES about what is happening, and why, based on our very limited knowledge of the planet and the universe in which it exists. Those theories cannot become facts until we have a historical perspective on them supported by concrete evidence for our conclusions. Climate "science" doesn't have that yet, because we weren't around to record the data the last time something this big actually happened! We have "models", fossil records and educated speculation, nothing more. I'm sorry but I'm not willing to declare either position irrefutably either "right" or "wrong" on the basis of modelling and speculation, educated or otherwise.
Tannin
07-07-2011, 10:54pm
The evidence is overwhelming. Crushingly overwhelming, and it keps on mounting up, ever more of it.
But even if it wasn't, even if it were only a 50/50 each-way bet, only a reckless fool would risk everything on his reading of the data - especially when around 97% of all the experts who have studies this deeply state that anthropogenic factors are the key ones.
Scotty72
07-07-2011, 11:05pm
I really wish people would stop talking about climate change as, no matter what 'proof' either side produce, the other will call it a conspiracy and pull out all sorts of smears against the scientists who produced the proof.
We should start to concentrate on what we all (or most) can agree on:
That we are really starting to live well beyond the capacity of this planet to support us.
We have already passed peak oil and the oil companies are having to drill far more deeply and dangerous to find the stuff.
Whilst we wont run out of coal soon, burning it in ever increasing amounts is not good for the atmosphere.
Digging up farmland to find all this coal is starting to make world-wide food shortages.
Eventually, if we push nature too far - she'll start pushing back.
The huge Chinese and Indian middle classes are now starting to want to live the lifestyles we have enjoyed for decades: Cars, electronic gadgets, high protein (meat) diets etc. If you think petrol prices are high now, just wait until half a billion Chinese and another half a billion Indians start bidding against us for what dwindling supplies are left (same for food).
If we don't start taxing the crap out of oil (and even coal) soon, thereby giving us a strong motivation to seek alternatives as well as the tax $$$ for research in to the technology, we will be screwed in 20 years when the Chinese and Indian middle classes develop - utterly screwed - or, some think it will just become Gen Y's problem.
And when the crunch does come - and we are not prepared - the great Australian whinge will start up - why didn't the government do something?
Scotty
geoffsta
08-07-2011, 6:05am
I did forget one in my earlier post.
The hole in the ozone layer. I haven't heard about that for a while.
Oh well. Just heard on TV, all the details of the tax will be reveiled on Sunday. Just have to wait.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 7:02am
Geez, I hope I'm not one of those, Lance? Life's too short to hold grudges over people's personal beliefs on ANY topic! :(
No, definitely not you, Geoff, as I think you and I are on the same page with regards to the carbon tax. :)
Lance B
08-07-2011, 7:23am
The evidence is overwhelming. Crushingly overwhelming, and it keps on mounting up, ever more of it.
But even if it wasn't, even if it were only a 50/50 each-way bet, only a reckless fool would risk everything on his reading of the data - especially when around 97% of all the experts who have studies this deeply state that anthropogenic factors are the key ones.
Well actually, no it isn't. I don't know where you get this idea that 97% of "experts" are in agreeance. Who are these people that made the proclamation that it was 97% that are in agreeance? The very same "experts" that believe in man induced global warming!!! Hmm. There is a very large growing groundswell of highly respected scientists who are wholly against the idea that it is man made global warming. In fact, the evidence for it being a natrual phenomenon is overwhelming.
The trouble is, we have for so long just accepted that idea that it is man made global warming that most fiond it difficult to alter that way of thinking. It's like when children were taught religion at school, what was the mantra of the Catholic Church: "Give us your child till he's 6(?) and then you can have him back" or some such thing. This is just brain washing and a similar thing has been happening in schools for the last 10-15 years with regards to man induced global warming because of the so called "horrors" of carbon dioxide, which, by the way, is an essential gas otherwise we would all die. It is very difficult to change these deep seated learned thoughts once they are there indelibly imprinted in the brain. For years we just meekly accepted this idea that there was man induced global warming without question and therefore it is very difficult for many to change that way of thinking. However, now there is a very large section of the respected scientific community questioning it and just because the government seems to think it is real, therefore people blindly accept it also. I really wonder how many have actually read up and done extensive research on the alternate view, very, very few I'll wager. Therefore these people just blindly accept what the media (as it sells) and the government (as it's a way to grab tax) feeds them. It astonishes me the ignorance that is out there, although, from seeing the results of all the polls on whether we want a carbon tax, it seems as though a 65% are against it, so maybe there are some that have woken up to this scam.
...Nevertheless, I won't knowingly go to any trouble to help a climate change denier take better pictures of the world he or she is hell-bent on destroying...
I find that it greatly assists my mental equilibrium (and my blood pressure) to follow the principle: "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity".
Or to put it more gently: what is extremely clear to you is not necessarily clear to others. I'm pretty sure that all here are decent people of goodwill and deserve ordinary consideration and respect. Despite the fact that some of the opinions on climate change expressed on this thread tend to drive me up the wall...
Lance B
08-07-2011, 8:01am
I find that it greatly assists my mental equilibrium (and my blood pressure) to follow the principle: "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity".
Or to put it more gently: what is extremely clear to you is not necessarily clear to others. I'm pretty sure that all here are decent people of goodwill and deserve ordinary consideration and respect. Despite the fact that some of the opinions on climate change expressed on this thread tend to drive me up the wall...
That is quite an offensive thing to say, Jim, no matter how you try to sex it up. I wonder just how widely read you are on the alternate side of the debate and if you haven't read extensively, then what you have written really applies to you moreso than I.
That is quite an offensive thing to say, Jim...
Ouch! I half suspected you'd pounce on that. Lance you're clearly a good guy but you do seem a little defensive. I wasn't claiming that anyone here was stupid as such, if that's what you're objecting to. It is a general principle that good will, even when sometimes muddled is more common than active malice.
I don't consider myself an expert or well read on the topic of climate change. However everything I've seen on this thread leads me to the conclusion that I've read more and more widely than most contributors here.
Jim, it doesn't matter what the motivation is: if a person actively campaigns against everything that matters most in this world, actively spreads harmful disinformation about the most urgent and serious problem humanity has ever faced, what else is there to say?
I should note here for the record that this "groundswell" of contrary scientific opinion is miniscule, most of the self-proclaimed "scientists" belonging to it qualified in non-pertinent fields, and very few (if any) of them are "respected". They are a tiny minority. We have seen much the same sort of thing before, with (for example) the flying saucer craze.
Scotty72
08-07-2011, 9:42am
But, they tend to be noisey, weel funded by resources companies (highly vested interests), miinorities :)
Lance B
08-07-2011, 9:55am
But, they tend to be noisey, weel funded by resources companies (highly vested interests), miinorities :)
Oh, come on, you don't really believe that.
Tannin
08-07-2011, 10:08am
Let's cut through the smoke and look at the real story.
Py2XVILHUjQ
Jim, it doesn't matter what the motivation is: if a person actively campaigns against everything that matters most in this world, actively spreads harmful disinformation about the most urgent and serious problem humanity has ever faced, what else is there to say?
I should note here for the record that this "groundswell" of contrary scientific opinion is minuscule, most of the self-proclaimed "scientists" belonging to it qualified in non-pertinent fields, and very few (if any) of them are "respected". They are a tiny minority. We have seen much the same sort of thing before, with (for example) the flying saucer craze.
Completely agree, though I will continue to treat such people as mistaken rather than malign. And I send nobody to Coventry because I disagree with them, I'd wind up all alone here, talking to myself.
Though I do perfectly understand the frustration of hearing the same old arguments and soundbites over and over, regardless of how often they're carefully refuted, of seeing well constructed arguments twisted or ignored, of the realization that people aren't listening because they don't want to.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 11:09am
Completely agree, though I will continue to treat such people as mistaken rather than malign. And I send nobody to Coventry because I disagree with them, I'd wind up all alone here, talking to myself.
Though I do perfectly understand the frustration of hearing the same old arguments and soundbites over and over, regardless of how often they're carefully refuted, of seeing well constructed arguments twisted or ignored, of the realization that people aren't listening because they don't want to.
Exactly, you don't want to listen because you have the global warming mantra indoctrinated into your mind. I was once a believer in global warming, but have read widely and have now formed an alternate view. I am not saying that man does not contribute to the warming of the globe, just that it is minimal at best and there is nothing we can actually do about the natural causes of it.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 11:13am
Let's cut through the smoke and look at the real story.
Py2XVILHUjQ
You'll have to do better than with this straw man argument of the smoking deniers. That is the same as using the argument against Galileo, saying that at the time of Galileo, 99% of people believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, so therefore all scientists now who are in a minority are wrong. It's just a silly, silly parallel.
Then we must agree to disagree, and I shall continue to comment on your often excellent photos.
However as a point of information, I desperately want to disbelieve in man-made global warming, and the probable disaster that looms over us. I find that I am unable to.
Bennymiata
08-07-2011, 11:21am
Jim, it doesn't matter what the motivation is: if a person actively campaigns against everything that matters most in this world, actively spreads harmful disinformation about the most urgent and serious problem humanity has ever faced, what else is there to say?
I should note here for the record that this "groundswell" of contrary scientific opinion is miniscule, most of the self-proclaimed "scientists" belonging to it qualified in non-pertinent fields, and very few (if any) of them are "respected". They are a tiny minority. We have seen much the same sort of thing before, with (for example) the flying saucer craze.
Sorry to say this, but I think that comment is just crap.
Most of the scientists who signed the UN Climate Change manifesto have now withdrawn their support from it after all the new evidence has trickled through.
If you sit back and think about it, man's output of CO2 and all the other noxious gasses is only a small percentage of what the earth itself puts out.
IF the climate is changing rapidly, and the latest figures I've heard from the climate experts says it is NOT changing ANYWHERE near as much as the doomsayers are (about 0.1C in a century), then why don't we do something about the 97% instead of the 3%?
If global climate change WAS real, then wouldn't the scientists around the world be madly working on ways ot stop the emmissions of volcanoes, the frozen methane under the sea?
Governments wouldn't stand for that as that costs money, but taxing carbon output from man (even though this would be of little real benefit) is a much better way to make money.
Even if mankind stops putting out ANY noxious, or non-noxious gasses, and we're all broke and living in caves - although we won't be allowed ot light any fires because they put out CO2, then our world may last an extra 3 years out of every 100.
Is it worth us going back to the stone age?
The REAL facts are that governments around the world are all going broke and they need a new form of taxation, and hence the carbon tax.
Now they havbe a way of taxing the air we breath.
By the way, the world has gone through times when the CO2 levels were hundreds of times greater than the concentrations are today, and we all survived.
In fact, if CO2 levels double, then plants will grow 40% better, and so we could feed the world even better than we do now.
Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank, and his carbon trading company is doing very well, thank you, and he is laughing as his huge scam is actually being believed by people who believe it is their religious right to try and force manking backwards.
These people also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus too.
There are just so many hypocrites shouting climate change from every window now, and these same hypocrites are using MORE CO2 that we do!
Al Gore only travels in a private jet and limo, even the Greens in parliament are the biggest users of the Comm Car limo fleet, when they are telling us to cut back, they use more, and more and more.
These doomsayers are some of the worst offenders, and thye must be laughing at us for actually believing them.
I desperately want to disbelieve in man-made global warming, and the probable disaster that looms over us. I find that I am unable to.
Then along with every truly reasonable person I respect your point of view, no matter how much I may disagree with that. IMHO it remains as valid as any other until proven otherwise. :th3:
I hope we all live past the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 to find out the truth about man-made global warming and its impact or lack thereof on climate change. :p
As an aside, I wonder if people realise just how much money is behind the shills of Big Pollution Inc. The number of media reports that originate as press releases from large corporations, the amount of "sound science" that is funded by endowments from Big Pollution (and yes, Tony, Big Tobacco too) Climate change deniers aren't (as a rule) "well read" on the subject. They are the victims of a massive and well orchestrated campaign to muddy the waters on a well researched and desperately important area of scientific research, carried out and funded by those who profit now from probable disaster later.
Well lets all hope they've got it right. Because they seem to be winning.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 11:34am
Sorry to say this, but I think that comment is just crap.
Most of the scientists who signed the UN Climate Change manifesto have now withdrawn their support from it after all the new evidence has trickled through.
If you sit back and think about it, man's output of CO2 and all the other noxious gasses is only a small percentage of what the earth itself puts out.
IF the climate is changing rapidly, and the latest figures I've heard from the climate experts says it is NOT changing ANYWHERE near as much as the doomsayers are (about 0.1C in a century), then why don't we do something about the 97% instead of the 3%?
If global climate change WAS real, then wouldn't the scientists around the world be madly working on ways ot stop the emmissions of volcanoes, the frozen methane under the sea?
Governments wouldn't stand for that as that costs money, but taxing carbon output from man (even though this would be of little real benefit) is a much better way to make money.
Even if mankind stops putting out ANY noxious, or non-noxious gasses, and we're all broke and living in caves - although we won't be allowed ot light any fires because they put out CO2, then our world may last an extra 3 years out of every 100.
Is it worth us going back to the stone age?
The REAL facts are that governments around the world are all going broke and they need a new form of taxation, and hence the carbon tax.
Now they havbe a way of taxing the air we breath.
By the way, the world has gone through times when the CO2 levels were hundreds of times greater than the concentrations are today, and we all survived.
In fact, if CO2 levels double, then plants will grow 40% better, and so we could feed the world even better than we do now.
Yes, and in one of the ice ages, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was double or 10 times (I can't remember where I read that or the exact number) what it is today and yet we had an ice age!
Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank, and his carbon trading company is doing very well, thank you, and he is laughing as his huge scam is actually being believed by people who believe it is their religious right to try and force manking backwards.
Yep and if his fairy tale said that the temperature was only going up by half a degree and we wouldn't be affected much, then his movie wouldn't have sold any tickets. He had to put the lies in so as he could get people to watch it and therefore he could make a killing on it. Now we find out that a court in the UK had found 9 factual errors and has told the school system to remove it from being shown as part of the curriculum!
These people also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus too.
There are just so many hypocrites shouting climate change from every window now, and these same hypocrites are using MORE CO2 that we do!
Al Gore only travels in a private jet and limo, even the Greens in parliament are the biggest users of the Comm Car limo fleet, when they are telling us to cut back, they use more, and more and more.
These doomsayers are some of the worst offenders, and thye must be laughing at us for actually believing them.
Yep, the hypocracy is unbelieveable. It's not about reducing carbon, it's about wealth redistribution.
The facts are there for all to see. The weight of scientific evidence and expert knowledge is overwhelming. Most (all?) of the facile denialist myths have now been exposed and it is very easy for any given individual to look them up and verify that personally. It is not sensible to pretend that this problem, which will destroy something approaching half of all species currently alive if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively, is "only something transitory". We either win this one, or we lose everything that matters to us. It doesn't get any more vital than that.
I am not going to argue the case for or against global-warming, but if you understand human nature people will come out on the side that is giving money away,the Scientist`s who are being paid, have to come out on the global warming side
There are Scientist`s from out side there fields who are touted as experts on globalwarming
Don`t ask me to quote names I can`t even spell there names so have no hope in h... of there spelling qualifications.(one comes to mind Al Gore)
Pixy, you are absolutely right to say that people, well, some people, will say whatever they have to say to get money. This is where much of the denialist nonsense is coming from - there are vast amounts of money on the table from big polluters like (for example) the coal industry - any dishonest scammer who has some scientific qualifications (even irrelevant ones will do at a pinch) can work for a denialist organisation and be richly rewarded.
To work as a climate scientist for a government or quasi-government body (for example, the CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology) you need to demonstrate genuine excellence. These jobs, although not particularly well-paid, are highly prized and there are many, many applicants for each position that falls vacant.
To work as a "scientist" for one of the many very wealthy denialist organisations is easy, you need only have some sort of qualification (not necessarily a relevant one) and be very dishonest or ignorant or remarkably stupid (it doesn't matter which). Unlike cash-strapped government departments, these huge companies and their front organisations have enormous wealth to splash around.
The really interesting thing is that there are so few scientists prepared to lie about climate just to get the money. It is a remarkable testament to their dedication and integrity - or perhaps to their intelligence, for after all, who wants to be the richest man on a dying planet anyway?
It is about as hard to make big dollars working as a denialist climate "scientist" as it was for a doctor to get good money spruiking for tobacco companies. And even less honest.
geoffsta
08-07-2011, 1:37pm
You only have to look at the poll above. I think it's pretty reflective of what the wider community want.
Another stuffup from Julia. $23 a tonne, not as she promised $20 a tonne. ( On todays news)
While you are right, money is the main reason people work ,be it for or against any belief, for these organisations CSIRO included relies on funds from the government, and is no different for people on the other side, it relys on funds and if it is asked a question or to enquire as to the affects of any subject, they will find on this and report to government,or to who is paying the bill.
Jack.
rellik666
08-07-2011, 1:42pm
I am sorry Tannin you are saying that if you work for a government you are as pure as the driven snow and because you do not you are some kind of evil person?
Unfortunately people work for the government for many reasons and yes money isn't usually one of them, but it can be. Research funds are rare and fought for just as much as jobs and there is still pressures to deliver results. On both sides there are legit and the non legit, to tar everyone with the same brush is not only derogatory to the individual but also naive.
I respect your desire to look after the world, you would be surprise how many of us so called sceptics have the same goal. I want Tigers to live in the wild and get on with their lives, I want the Great Barrier Reef to be there for future generations, I want to live a sustainable lifestyle, but I am sorry, the world changes, the dinosaurs are no longer here and it wasn't their fault but they are gone. I am pretty sure many thousands of species have come and gone a long time before we came along.
And yes it is a scary thing to admit but we don't have ultimate control over this world. I am sure this planet will still be here in one way or another long after we have gone
I am sure this planet will still be here in one way or another long after we have gone
It will. It will shrug us off and in a few short million years you'd never know we'd been here at all.
Very comforting, eh?
rellik666
08-07-2011, 1:59pm
It is amazing when you seen the modelling for how quickly a city would be taken over if we all left suddenly. That is what is really scary! :eek:
Lance B
08-07-2011, 2:01pm
Pixy, you are absolutely right to say that people, well, some people, will say whatever they have to say to get money. This is where much of the denialist nonsense is coming from - there are vast amounts of money on the table from big polluters like (for example) the coal industry - any dishonest scammer who has some scientific qualifications (even irrelevant ones will do at a pinch) can work for a denialist organisation and be richly rewarded.
To work as a climate scientist for a government or quasi-government body (for example, the CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology) you need to demonstrate genuine excellence. These jobs, although not particularly well-paid, are highly prized and there are many, many applicants for each position that falls vacant.
To work as a "scientist" for one of the many very wealthy denialist organisations is easy, you need only have some sort of qualification (not necessarily a relevant one) and be very dishonest or ignorant or remarkably stupid (it doesn't matter which). Unlike cash-strapped government departments, these huge companies and their front organisations have enormous wealth to splash around.
The really interesting thing is that there are so few scientists prepared to lie about climate just to get the money.[quote]
Rubbish. Where do you get this from. These scientists are generally funded by the government as many work for universities and other government departments and need funding in order to survive. Go to the government and ask for a grant to study man made climate change and they'll fall over themselves to give you the money. Go and ask for a grant to study whether it is a hoax and they'll give you nothing. So, in the interest of keeping funding, they will keep getting the results that the government wants to hear and it is easy to prove it because there is evidence of warming, just that it's not man made and natural. A classic case of adding 1 and 1 and getting 3 because 3 is the answer you want to get.
[quote]It is a remarkable testament to their dedication and integrity - or perhaps to their intelligence, for after all, who wants to be the richest man on a dying planet anyway?
It is about as hard to make big dollars working as a denialist climate "scientist" as it was for a doctor to get good money spruiking for tobacco companies. And even less honest.
What a load of garbage. Your theory actually flies in the face of evidence about paid results from scientists as it is the pro global warming set that are actually getting the funding, not the other way round. As I said, all the pro global warming results all come from government funded science areas which is interesting in itself.
Advocacy groups like Get Up who are pro carbon tax actually received donations from the CFMEU, to the tune of $1.1m in 2010 and from George Soros. Get Up used many of it's members to ring the Bronco's Rugby League club pretending to be members and saying that they didn't want Lord Monckton's address to be allowed to be heard as they would never set foot in the club again. The Bronco's management, thinking these were actual members expressing concerns, understandably decided to not allow the Lord Monckton address go ahead. Unbelievable!! I don't see this happening from the other side trying to stop pro carbon tax/global warming advocates from having their free speech. This is typical of the freedom of speech being eroded. It seems to me that the pro carbon lobby are worried that they are actually wrong and don't want the truth to be heard.
1: Most governments would prefer that their scientific advisors decided that global warming was nothing to worry about. Who needs more problems? Who likes having to enact unpopular policies? Ans: no-one.
2: It beggars belief that anyone could imagine that governments have more money than the big coal and oil companies, and their various fellow travelers.
3: the amount donated for the public good is absolutely swamped by the amounts poured into crackpot denialist organisations.
4: a scientist with appropriate qualifications can name his own price for work dedicated to "demonstrating" that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. There is any amount of dirty money floating around. Same as there was for doctors prepared to say that lung cancer had nothing to do with smoking.
I'm taxing each of you in this thread $23 - not enough to make a difference in your behaviour, but, it will enhance my coffers. As the largest thread poster Tannin is exempt :)
Bennymiata
08-07-2011, 2:30pm
All of you here that say this is because of the money, are correct.
A lot of people are making a lot of money trying to scare us, including so many scientists.
Al Gore has added many millions to his personal bank account because of idiots.
My father always told me that the easiest way to make money, is make it out of peoples' stupidity.
Friends of mine in the scientific world have told me that if they put something in their proposals about how the farting of an almost extinct species of invertabrate will affect Global Warming, they will get a grant, but if the proposal is only concerned about the animal, with no mention of global warming, they get nothing.
Scientists aren't stupid you know. They know which side of their bread is buttered.
We all have to think a little outside the square here.
IF Global Warming, or Global Climate Change (if they can ever decide what is really happening, if anything at all) was such a huge concern to the world at large, don't you think that governments all over the world would be trying to find ways of preventing it? And if they were trying to do something, don't you think they would be thinking of ways to reduce or eliminate the main causes of this, like the outputs from active volcanoes etc., instead of trying to drive us backwards in time and taxing us to oblivion?
For example, if you had really noisy neighbours that were affecting your life, would you tell your children to be quiet, or would you go to the neighbours and ask THEM to quieten down?
After all, it is your neighbours that are causing the vast majority of the noise, and your children just sit at a PC and surf the web.
Even if your children were as quiet as they could be, would their reduction in noise help the situation?
Absolutely not, as you are not going to the root cause of the problem.
Take the Chilean volcano that is erupting and distrupting our air travel.
I don't hear any scientists or government departments saying anything about trying to stop it or even try to mitigate it's noxious fumes, and considering its output is many times what man is putting out per day, no-one does anything about it.
Why?
Because there is no money in it, that's why.
As I've said before, if the Australian Government was REALLY interested in our carbon footprint, and trying to reduce it, why do they consistantly reduce the budget of the CSIRO and keep sacking those scientists that might actually be able to do something about it?
Because they can't make money out of it!
However, they can make lots of money, and provide lots of employment for their cronies if they push ahead with this carbon tax.
Juliar has still not said one word about how this tax will fix anything, it is just a grab for more of our money, so it can be wasted on nothing but fattening the wallets of various ministers and their departments.
For something that is so life threatening to the entire world's population, it really doesn't seem that anyone is actually doing ANYTHING to seriously do anything about it, so it leaves a huge doubt in my mind (and you can call me synical if you like) that there is anything wrong at all.
If I was being choked to death, I wouldn't be worrying about a pimple I had on my face, I'd be trying to do something about the choking.
Same with the governments.
None of them has come out with any plan or idea to reduce carbon emmissions, but they sure do have plans on how to tax us for them.
I think it is very pompous of us to even think that mankind weilds more power than the Sun, the oceans and our earth and that it is man that must change.
It's a bit like all the advertising about how speeding kills people.
Police reckon that UP to 30% of all fatal accidents are caused by excessive speed, yet the government does nothing about the other 70%.
Why?
Because speeding is so easy to make money out of.
A speed camera generates income, a good, safe road does not.
This whole thing is about a re-distribution of wealth and tending towards communism, where everyone earns the same, lives the same and gets the same wage.
Sounds wonderful in theory, but the prcatical side lets it down.
If everyone gets the same, why should you work, when the state will look after you, then when everyone starts to think the same way, no-one does any work and the country goes broke (look at Russia for example).
As far as the Greens go, they say that anyone who earns over $150K a year should pay 105 cents in the dollar tax, and that this money should go to the poor.
So, they want to take the money out of the hands of people who know what to do with it, who generate wealth and provide employment, and give it to the morons to spend it all on booze and gambling and generally piss it up a tree.
Poor people do not employ other people. Rich people do, however. Without the rich, who are willing to risk their money, there would be no employment, so getting rid of the rich will hurt a lot more poor people than rich people.
I'm afraid that all those people that believe in what the Greens are doing is right, should go and live in a real communist country, like North Korea or even China and see what this sort of life is REALLY like, with few, if any, personal liberties and absolutely no hope of ever progressing and doing well, because hard work over there does you no good at all, as the guy next door who just bludges, gets everything that you do.
So, let's kill off all the coal mines, all the coal-fired power stations, oil wells, gas wells - anything that causes any output of CO2, which includes farming of animals and growing food.
How are we going to live in a world like this?
We have to be realistic, otherwise we WILL all die.
rellik666
08-07-2011, 2:39pm
I think it is very pompous of us to even think that mankind weilds more power than the Sun, the oceans and our earth and that it is man that must change.
^^ This:th3:
Lance B
08-07-2011, 2:43pm
1: Most governments would prefer that their scientific advisors decided that global warming was nothing to worry about. Who needs more problems? Who likes having to enact unpopular policies? Ans: no-one.
You mean by giving research that says there is global warming and therefore give them a reason to introduce a tax and therefore redistribute wealth which is in line with their left wing mantra, especially the communistic greens. Nah, I can't imagine that at all. :lol:
2: It beggars belief that anyone could imagine that governments have more money than the big coal and oil companies, and their various fellow travelers.
But you're making the assumption that the coal compnies are: 1) paying for scientists to study the whether there is global warming and 2) that they are skewing their results to suit such a study.
Gillard seems to splash money around like she is bigger than the coal/oil industry.
3: the amount donated for the public good is absolutely swamped by the amounts poured into crackpot denialist organisations.
That's quite a statement to make. Can you back that up with figures and proof that there are "crackpot" (trying to denegrate and discredit the disbelievers again with derogatory terms) denialist organisations actually funding questionable scientific research?
4: a scientist with appropriate qualifications can name his own price for work dedicated to "demonstrating" that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. There is any amount of dirty money floating around. Same as there was for doctors prepared to say that lung cancer had nothing to do with smoking.
Again, I'd like to see these figures and who is actually funding those that are supposedly to do scientific researchg against the global warming theory.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 2:49pm
All of you here that say this is because of the money, are correct.
A lot of people are making a lot of money trying to scare us, including so many scientists.
Al Gore has added many millions to his personal bank account because of idiots.
My father always told me that the easiest way to make money, is make it out of peoples' stupidity.
Friends of mine in the scientific world have told me that if they put something in their proposals about how the farting of an almost extinct species of invertabrate will affect Global Warming, they will get a grant, but if the proposal is only concerned about the animal, with no mention of global warming, they get nothing.
Scientists aren't stupid you know. They know which side of their bread is buttered.
We all have to think a little outside the square here.
IF Global Warming, or Global Climate Change (if they can ever decide what is really happening, if anything at all) was such a huge concern to the world at large, don't you think that governments all over the world would be trying to find ways of preventing it? And if they were trying to do something, don't you think they would be thinking of ways to reduce or eliminate the main causes of this, like the outputs from active volcanoes etc., instead of trying to drive us backwards in time and taxing us to oblivion?
For example, if you had really noisy neighbours that were affecting your life, would you tell your children to be quiet, or would you go to the neighbours and ask THEM to quieten down?
After all, it is your neighbours that are causing the vast majority of the noise, and your children just sit at a PC and surf the web.
Even if your children were as quiet as they could be, would their reduction in noise help the situation?
Absolutely not, as you are not going to the root cause of the problem.
Take the Chilean volcano that is erupting and distrupting our air travel.
I don't hear any scientists or government departments saying anything about trying to stop it or even try to mitigate it's noxious fumes, and considering its output is many times what man is putting out per day, no-one does anything about it.
Why?
Because there is no money in it, that's why.
As I've said before, if the Australian Government was REALLY interested in our carbon footprint, and trying to reduce it, why do they consistantly reduce the budget of the CSIRO and keep sacking those scientists that might actually be able to do something about it?
Because they can't make money out of it!
However, they can make lots of money, and provide lots of employment for their cronies if they push ahead with this carbon tax.
Juliar has still not said one word about how this tax will fix anything, it is just a grab for more of our money, so it can be wasted on nothing but fattening the wallets of various ministers and their departments.
For something that is so life threatening to the entire world's population, it really doesn't seem that anyone is actually doing ANYTHING to seriously do anything about it, so it leaves a huge doubt in my mind (and you can call me synical if you like) that there is anything wrong at all.
If I was being choked to death, I wouldn't be worrying about a pimple I had on my face, I'd be trying to do something about the choking.
Same with the governments.
None of them has come out with any plan or idea to reduce carbon emmissions, but they sure do have plans on how to tax us for them.
I think it is very pompous of us to even think that mankind weilds more power than the Sun, the oceans and our earth and that it is man that must change.
It's a bit like all the advertising about how speeding kills people.
Police reckon that UP to 30% of all fatal accidents are caused by excessive speed, yet the government does nothing about the other 70%.
Why?
Because speeding is so easy to make money out of.
A speed camera generates income, a good, safe road does not.
This whole thing is about a re-distribution of wealth and tending towards communism, where everyone earns the same, lives the same and gets the same wage.
Sounds wonderful in theory, but the prcatical side lets it down.
If everyone gets the same, why should you work, when the state will look after you, then when everyone starts to think the same way, no-one does any work and the country goes broke (look at Russia for example).
As far as the Greens go, they say that anyone who earns over $150K a year should pay 105 cents in the dollar tax, and that this money should go to the poor.
So, they want to take the money out of the hands of people who know what to do with it, who generate wealth and provide employment, and give it to the morons to spend it all on booze and gambling and generally piss it up a tree.
Poor people do not employ other people. Rich people do, however. Without the rich, who are willing to risk their money, there would be no employment, so getting rid of the rich will hurt a lot more poor people than rich people.
I'm afraid that all those people that believe in what the Greens are doing is right, should go and live in a real communist country, like North Korea or even China and see what this sort of life is REALLY like, with few, if any, personal liberties and absolutely no hope of ever progressing and doing well, because hard work over there does you no good at all, as the guy next door who just bludges, gets everything that you do.
Yeah. The communistic way of thinking is: "If I can't have it or am too lazy to work for it, then you can't have it eiher"
So, let's kill off all the coal mines, all the coal-fired power stations, oil wells, gas wells - anything that causes any output of CO2, which includes farming of animals and growing food.
How are we going to live in a world like this?
We have to be realistic, otherwise we WILL all die.
Exactly.
Some of the nonsense spouted in this thread is quite unbelievable. Consider this howler as an example:
the main causes ..... take the Chilean volcano ... its output is many times what man is putting out per day
As explained in detail in this New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html) "claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true".
All of the world's dry-land volcanos put together emit, on average, 0.3 billion tons of CO2 per year - around one percent of human emissions.
So here we have a frantic denialist claim that a single volcano is putting out "many times" more than humans, where in fast that volcano and all the others put together between them emit one one-hundredth as much as humans emit. Yes, you heard right, much less than 1/100th in the hands of a denialist, becomes "many times more".
As always with the climate denialist myths, when you examine them they turn out to be drivel - though admittedly, not usually quite so absurdly and spectacularly wrong as this one is.
But it gets worse.
Not only is the denialist figure for volcanic emissions wrong by a factor of about 1000 to 1, the effective contribution of volcanic activity to greenhouse warming through CO2 release is in fact zero. The carbon volcanos release eventually makes its way into ocean sediments which are, in turn, subducted under continents (earthquakes are a side effect of this perfectly normal tectonic activity) and, in time, is re-heated and re-released by volcanic activity. Averaged over a reasonable timeframe, releases through volcanic activity and subduction of ocean floor are equal. It's just another one of nature's many cycles.
We can check on this by measuring the changes in global atmospheric CO2 in years with major eruptions, and comparing it to years when there was little activity. There is no significant difference. We can check on this yet another different way by measuring the difference in the ratio of atmospheric carbon isotopes. Same answer.
Also worth reading is this Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics) on the Iceland volcano.
Here is another magnificent howler:
anything that causes any output of CO2, which includes farming of animals and growing food
A real pearler this one, because the direct contribution of food production (plant and animal) to atmospheric CO2 is nil. Zip. Nada. Zero. None at all. No-one with any credibility has ever claimed otherwise.
Bennymiata
08-07-2011, 3:32pm
Well Tannin, if you don't think that volcanoes spew out noxious fumes, go and stand near one when it's going off, and tell me if the air smells sweet.
If this particular volcano, which is just one of hundreds going off on the planet, is not putting out noxious gasses, what the hell is all that smoke that is coming out of it?
There's so much coming out of it, that it is affecting us by going half-way around the world first, and it's STILL causing a problem.
If food production adds nothing to CO2 outputs, why do the greenie scientists keep telling us that our major ouputter of CO2 is farming?
You are just so one-sided that even if the evidence is put in front of you, you would still be in denial.
I guess you still believe the earth is flat and that the earth is the centre of the universe.:lol:
Oh do try to keep up. (And please stop pretending I wrote stuff I did not.)
Now, lets deal with facts. Exactly which "greenie scientists" think that food production directly causes excess CO2 emissions? Names and references please. (Hint: you won't find many. None at all, is my guess. Be sure to show that you understand the difference between food production and fossil fuel consumption, and also between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. )
For bonus points, demonstrate that you have some understanding of volcanic activity and aviation by explaining why flights had to be canceled. Be sure to mention what role CO2 has in that. (Hint: none whatsoever is the correct answer. But you will need to explain why so that we know you understand something about the subject.)
sunny6teen
08-07-2011, 4:23pm
I thought it was a carbon pole tax...I was about to sell my manfrotto.
ApolloLXII
08-07-2011, 4:41pm
It's all about the money alright. There are a lot of people who have posted here saying that they believe something should be done about CO2 emissions but don't want to pay a tax. Money speaks very loudly in our society and nobody will do anything about reducing carbon emissions, particularly those companies etc. that are the largest carbon emitters unless a tax is imposed. We must learn to start reducing our overall impact on the environment and if that means that having to consume less due to prices rising, that can only be a good thing for the planet as a whole. Humans are the most wasteful species on the planet and it is time we all started living within our means and conform to the rules that nature laid out, long before mankind rose to it's current level of dominnance.
Again, I'd like to see these figures and who is actually funding those that are supposedly to do scientific researchg against the global warming theory.
Oh goody a challenge. Ok I'm up for it. You can't expect actual scientific research though, when lobbying is more effective and predictable.
In 1989 PR firm Burston Marsteller created an organisation called the Global Climate Coalition. It was chaired by an executive from the American Petroleum Institute and operated from the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers. Between 1994 and 2002 it spent over $63 million opposing global warming. It coordinated its efforts with those of the National Coal Board ($700 000 to combat climate change research) and the American Petroleum institute (1.8 million in 1993 to coordinate a "grassroots" campaign against a tax on fossil fuels.)
In 1991 the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electricity created the Information Council for the Environment. ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel using scientists Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia, Robert Balling from Arizona State University and Sherwood Idso from the US Water Conservation Laboratory. They did some publicity, but the whole thing collapsed after Edison's Michael Brier was quoted saying "It will be interesting to see how the science approach sells..." and Michaels disassociated himself from ICE, citing its "blatant dishonesty".
Balling by the way is a geologist who's speciality is desertification and soil related issues. Once he hooked up with ICE he received nearly $300 000 in research funding from coal and oil interests...
A couple of oldish examples. These efforts continue of course.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 5:24pm
Oh goody a challenge. Ok I'm up for it. You can't expect actual scientific research though, when lobbying is more effective and predictable.
In 1989 PR firm Burston Marsteller created an organisation called the Global Climate Coalition. It was chaired by an executive from the American Petroleum Institute and operated from the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers. Between 1994 and 2002 it spent over $63 million opposing global warming. It coordinated its efforts with those of the National Coal Board ($700 000 to combat climate change research) and the American Petroleum institute (1.8 million in 1993 to coordinate a "grassroots" campaign against a tax on fossil fuels.)
In 1991 the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electricity created the Information Council for the Environment. ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel using scientists Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia, Robert Balling from Arizona State University and Sherwood Idso from the US Water Conservation Laboratory. They did some publicity, but the whole thing collapsed after Edison's Michael Brier was quoted saying "It will be interesting to see how the science approach sells..." and Michaels disassociated himself from ICE, citing its "blatant dishonesty".
Balling by the way is a geologist who's speciality is desertification and soil related issues. Once he hooked up with ICE he received nearly $300 000 in research funding from coal and oil interests...
A couple of oldish examples. These efforts continue of course.
A good a couple of examples, but hardly huge amounts when compared to the vast amounts spent worldwide by governments for the pro global warming science, and these funds are also very isolated. Government research of global warming has spent much more than this piddling amount.
US government spent $75billion since 1989:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2300030/posts
US government, $2.48 billion for 2011.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/great-climate-change-taxpayer-rip-2011-0
They are relatively small amounts, at least when compared with what the US Government is capable of wasting (even in a good cause) but I wouldn't call these cases isolated, and they're certainly supremely well targeted attempts to spread misinformation. Much like CNS News I suspect.
I did forget one in my earlier post.
The hole in the ozone layer. I haven't heard about that for a while.
I'm no expert, however I think a bunch of scientist identified why the ozone hole was happening. Fluoro carbons (there's that c word) or something. Governments legislated and encouraged industries to find alternatives to whatever the damaging things were. Solutions where found and nature took care of the rest.
I think it's why refrigerators , air-conditioning systems and aerosol cans have different chemicals now compared to 15 years ago.
Good news story, maybe that's why you haven't heard about it for a while.
A good a couple of examples ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2300030/posts
Thankyou, that'll do nicely. Your citation tells us pretty much all we need to know. Let's do the research and track it down. shall we?
The very short extract Lance links to is on Freerepublic, a self-proclaimed right-wing American chat site with quasi-anonymous articles. But there is no article there, only a link to the next organisation in the chain.
This is TransWorldNews which, despite the name, is not a news site at all - it is a commercial pay-for press release publicity site which, for US$2495 a year, will host your press release and send it off to various real news organisations in the hope that some of them will print a story about your product. So who wrote the article and paid to have it on the publicity site? Read on.
The organisation which wrote the article, commissioned the "research", and presumably paid the bill at the press release agency is the Science and Public Policy Institute, a shadowy climate change denier body which keeps its funding a secret.
However, we can dig a little harder and discover that the SPPI Executive Director is Robert Ferguson, formerly executive director of two other well-funded denialist think tanks, the Center for Science and Public Policy and the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation. The SPPI claims to be "free from affiliation to any corporation" but in fact Ferguson's US$300,000 a year salary is paid by the CSPP.
The Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) and the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation are equally secretive about their sources of funding, but some of the known supporters on the public record include ExxonMobil, the Western Fuels Association (discreetly funneled through a front group, the "Greening Earth Society"), at least one other oil industry company, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation is on the public record as having received money from oil and tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. Other recorded funding sources include the Earhart Foundation (funds derived from the White Star Oil Company), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Bradley was an original charter member of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society),
The Sarah Scaife Foundation is a shell which distributes money from the billionaire Scaife family, which owns (among other things) Gulf Oil Alcoa, and Alcan.
The SPPI Chief Scientific Advisor is Willie Soon, an astrophysicst, not a climate scientist. Soon is known as the lead author of a heavily criticised scientific paper written with funding from the American Petroleum Institute which caused the resignation of four members of the journal's editorial board because the paper had been published without proper peer review. The managing director of the journal's parent company later admitted that they "should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" . Many flaws were later exposed. Soon has admitted to personally receiving over one million dollars from oil and coal companies, ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and others. He has also received funding from the Electric Power Research Institute, the Mobil Foundation, and the Texaco Foundation.
The SPPI Chief Policy Adviser is the notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton, famous for calling people "nazis" and "the Hitler Youth". Monckton's qualifications in climate science consist of a Diploma in Journalism Studies. Monckton also has a current patent application for his new miracle cure for (among other things) multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes.
Are we getting the picture?
Lance B
08-07-2011, 8:04pm
Thankyou, that'll do nicely. Your citation tells us pretty much all we need to know. Let's do the research and track it down. shall we?
The very short extract Lance links to is on Freerepublic, a self-proclaimed right-wing American chat site with quasi-anonymous articles. But there is no article there, only a link to the next organisation in the chain.
This is TransWorldNews which, despite the name, is not a news site at all - it is a commercial pay-for press release publicity site which, for US$2495 a year, will host your press release and send it off to various real news organisations in the hope that some of them will print a story about your product. So who wrote the article and paid to have it on the publicity site? Read on.
The organisation which wrote the article, commissioned the "research", and presumably paid the bill at the press release agency is the Science and Public Policy Institute, a shadowy climate change denier body which keeps its funding a secret.
However, we can dig a little harder and discover that the SPPI Executive Director is Robert Ferguson, formerly executive director of two other well-funded denialist think tanks, the Center for Science and Public Policy and the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation. The SPPI claims to be "free from affiliation to any corporation" but in fact Ferguson's US$300,000 a year salary is paid by the CSPP.
The Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) and the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation are equally secretive about their sources of funding, but some of the known supporters on the public record include ExxonMobil, the Western Fuels Association (discreetly funneled through a front group, the "Greening Earth Society"), at least one other oil industry company, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation is on the public record as having received money from oil and tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. Other recorded funding sources include the Earhart Foundation (funds derived from the White Star Oil Company), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Bradley was an original charter member of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society),
The Sarah Scaife Foundation is a shell which distributes money from the billionaire Scaife family, which owns (among other things) Gulf Oil Alcoa, and Alcan.
The SPPI Chief Scientific Advisor is Willie Soon, an astrophysicst, not a climate scientist. Soon is known as the lead author of a heavily criticised scientific paper written with funding from the American Petroleum Institute which caused the resignation of four members of the journal's editorial board because the paper had been published without proper peer review. The managing director of the journal's parent company later admitted that they "should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" . Many flaws were later exposed. Soon has admitted to personally receiving over one million dollars from oil and coal companies, ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and others. He has also received funding from the Electric Power Research Institute, the Mobil Foundation, and the Texaco Foundation.
The SPPI Chief Policy Adviser is the notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton, famous for calling people "nazis" and "the Hitler Youth". Monckton's qualifications in climate science consist of a Diploma in Journalism Studies. Monckton also has a current patent application for his new miracle cure for (among other things) multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes.
Are we getting the picture?
LOL. Nice try. The facts are still there to see, the government spends waaaay more on trying to prove global warming than private enterprise ever could hope to.
geoffsta
08-07-2011, 8:17pm
There are a lot of facts being flown around. Here are the most important facts of all;
Yes. 26.13%
No. 60.36%
Gravy. 3.6%
geoffsta
08-07-2011, 8:28pm
Here are some more facts.
The Galaxy poll for News Limited newspapers, conducted countrywide on June 1 and 2, revealed 58 percent were against the tax, with just 28 percent in favour and the rest undecided.
Newspoll, published in Wednesday's The Australian newspaper, reveals 60 per cent of voters are opposed to the government's plan to put a price on carbon next year, compared with 30 per cent who support it.
It's amazing that our poll isn't that much different, considering we are nature loving photographers. You would think that our poll would show more in the yes vote.
Lance B
08-07-2011, 8:37pm
I'm no expert, however I think a bunch of scientist identified why the ozone hole was happening. Fluoro carbons (there's that c word) or something. Governments legislated and encouraged industries to find alternatives to whatever the damaging things were. Solutions where found and nature took care of the rest.
I think it's why refrigerators , air-conditioning systems and aerosol cans have different chemicals now compared to 15 years ago.
Good news story, maybe that's why you haven't heard about it for a while.
Interestingly, a number of years ago, the British Antarctic Survey (suposedly well respected) was reporting about the fact that Antarctica was losing much of it's ice due to, as they claimed, global warming. They even showed footage, for added impact, of ice falling into the ocean as "evidence" of this catastrophe of global warming. However, it was later shownin 2009 that the ice was melting only from the western side of Antarctica and that on the eastern side, it was growing to the tune of 100,000sq kms every 10 years for the last 4 decades!!!
An excerpt from this article: http://cozay.com/forum/f13/exposing-the-falsehoods-feeding-the-global-warming-hysteria-t2185/
"Last April, the British Antarctic Survey reported that the Antarctic ice sheet is increasing. Hear them: “Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometers a decade." Furthermore, recent NASA satellite images disclosed by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reveal that the supposedly endangered polar ice caps have now recovered. Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service affirms that parts of the Arctic ice are now thicker than usual.
Just last month (Jan 2010) in a scandal dubbed glacier-gate, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reversed its erroneous prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Dr Murari Lal, the IPCC scientist behind the falsehood admitted it wasn't based on any sound scientific research, but was an alarmist ruse to bamboozle world leaders into precipitous action."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/too_much_ice_for_warming_doom/
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/04/al-gore-we-must-protect-the-ice-scientists-arctic-ice-twice-as-thick-as-previously-thought/
http://blog.mystrangemind.com/2011/02/more-holes-shot-in-global-warmist-propaganda.html
And the reason for the increase? Apparently, due to the hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to be so bad all those years ago. They now suggest that the hole in the ozone layer has always been there and always will be there and always fluctuates, just like the climate. So, it was once touted as the evil hole in the ozone layer and now we find out it is the reason the Antarctic is growing ice!! Quite comical.
Let's try the other one, shall we?
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/great-climate-change-taxpayer-rip-2011-0
What do we get with this second example of a "trustworthy" source, Lance?
The article appears at CNS News, originally the Conservative News Service now renamed to "Cybercast News Service". CNS is owned by the Media Research Center (MRC), a far right-wing organisation which was explicitly set up to attack other news organisations.
MRC receives funding from that same front for Gulf Oil, Alcoa, and Alcan, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, that we met in the post above.
It also takes money from another old friend, the Bradley Foundation (that's the John Birch Society one).
The Olin Foundation gets its money from chemicals and weapons manufactuiring. It gave away US$370 million to a variety of far-right causes including a campaign to relax American gun control laws and, of course, climate denial. MRC took an undisclosed amount of Olin Foundation money.
Well, at least this one, unlike the first one Lance relied on, doesn't seem to have directly taken money from big tobacco. Not on the public record, anyway. But it's funded by the same old collection of dodgy fronts for giant oil, munitions, and coal companies.
I invite you - all of you - to start trawling through the references that climate change deniers rely on for "evidence". It really is a fascinating journey into the heart of denialist darkness.
It's easy enough - follow the link, find out where the article has come from, then start hunting down the shell companies and the trusts until you find out who is paying for it, and what the "qualifications" of these fruitcake frontmen actually are. Check out their track records and, if you have a strong stomach, ponder their morals. I'd never actually done that for myself before, but it was quite easy, and a real eye-opener. I certainly didn't expect to find a real-live tobacco company dupe with my very first investigation!
Oh lord, what to make of that garbled mess?
[edit] refers to #320 above, not to Tony's investigation of sources.
:crzy: All this circular argument is making me dizzy! Has anyone changed their opinion as the consequence? :rolleyes:The OP's post was a poll and the results are clearly in. The majority of us don't want a carbon tax; reasons are irrelevant. :shh: :p
I agree, WhoDo - now that someone is taking the trouble to ferret out the dodgy sources and big oil finances behind the deniers fake "science", the best p[olicy might be to keep quiet for a while and hope no-one notices. Me, I would be too ashamed to take tobacco money.
:cool: Last word goes here >>> (see below) :ps:
^ Sorry?
Actually, I have found it wise to always have the last words in any domestic situation.
Usually, those words are "yes Dear". :(
Blueywa
09-07-2011, 11:26am
Follow the link and vote Yes or No.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/4fdf8659-10cc-3882-9508-66c8f0e449a3
Blueywa
09-07-2011, 11:54am
I have no doubt that our little planets climate is changing - as it does perpetually.
Clearing the worlds rain forests and jungles at the current rate certainly doesnt help nature balance things out either.
The reliance on fossil fuels is a major problem for those of us that have engines designed to use them, but to me its the same old thing: why punish me when I didnt create it?
I'm just a prisoner of the system which maintains a very high standard of living for the multi millionaires of the world, and they will be compensated much more than you or I.
I dont leave lights on in rooms that arent being used, I have installed solar panels on my roof to help reduce my footprint and power bills, I recycle what little rubbish I create.
I say NO to a carbon Tax and roll on the revolution:)
Lance B
09-07-2011, 12:25pm
Oh lord, what to make of that garbled mess?
[edit] refers to #320 above, not to Tony's investigation of sources.
What to make of it? Simple. We have global warming believers showing us footage of ice melting from the Antarctic as "evidence" of said global warming, all the while knowing full well that the Antarctic was actually increasing in size on the other side of the continent to the tune of 100,000sq kms every decade, but they didn't tell us about that, so we have selective reporting in order to bolster their case. They had to reluctantly admit that it was happening. This is typical of the way many of these people go about their reporting in order to convince us no matter what the cost or outcome. So, what I am saying is, just because these so called scientists who believe in global warming make statements we cannot just take it as fact as there are so many more variables involved and it is easy for them to miss these variables. The global warming believing "scientists" are not all pure as the driven snow and not everything they do is above reproach as the global warming protagonists here would like us to believe. It seems that they believe everything these global warming "scientists" say as gospel simply because they have this idealistic notion that they are all supposedly for the good of mankind and there are no agendas. It's so laughable it's scary. Now, they may not have known about the increase in the ice of Antarctica, or they may have known full well that it was occuring, but that is irrelevent as they should have known before making any pronouncements that this is proof of global warming.
Anyway, it is clear that the minority of people here are global warming protagonists and will not be convinced by me no matter what proof is forwarded or whatever they read from reliable sources. And as Waz says above, "All this circular argument is making me dizzy! Has anyone changed their opinion as the consequence?" Well, no because they are not going to admit it. The fact is, a carbon tax will do nothing, nada, zilch to the temperature of the world and it will not in anyone's woldest dreams shame any other country into introducing one as well. If they think that China, USA, India or Indonesia will be shamed by us into intorducing one, then they are living in la la land.
I leave you to your ignorance.
junqbox
09-07-2011, 1:04pm
I leave you to your ignorance.
Pot calling will get no-one anywhere
I too am taking my leave from this thread for now. It's been enjoyable, but as others have observed, ultimately an exercise in futility. Not to say somewhat frustrating.
But it has been educational.
nzmacro
09-07-2011, 3:26pm
Its an interesting one alright and very subjective. Does get kind of heavy though :)
The last word... muffin :p
Sent from my TR718D
Go and take some photos you lot!
Thats an order :p
Sent from my TR718D
geoffsta
09-07-2011, 7:47pm
The last word.... Ummm. No gravy WOW
I think it is important, for the record, to subject some of the ridiculous claims above to proper analysis using hard evidence, so that we can start nailing untruths to the wall where everyone can see them for what they are, and verify that they are indeed worthless claims.
That's quite time-consuming (it took me two or three hours yesterday to research and write up the shadowy background to those fossil-fuel funded carbon denialist front organisations I exposed in detail above) and I'm tied up for the next day or two, but I'll try to find the time when I can.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/michael-leunig-20090711-dgl6.html :):confused013
Every time i see the word denialist on here, i read dentist....
Those dentists have alot to answer for!
Sent from my TR718D
ameerat42
10-07-2011, 8:23am
Every time i see the word denialist on here, i read dentist....
Those dentists have alot to answer for!
Sent from my TR718D
(I did too.) And you can't deny that!
Hmmmm, the government hype says that the average household won't be worse off but using their calculator (https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/) it tells me that we will be be paying $9.00 a week extra for a rebate of $16.00 a year. :o
Sounds alright, we will just have to wait n see
Sent from my TR718D
Hmmmm, the government hype says that the average household won't be worse off but using their calculator (https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/) it tells me that we will be be paying $9.00 a week extra for a rebate of $16.00 a year. :o
In my case $763 per year out but only $306 per year back. A little maths and we are $457 per year worse off, or $8.79 per week worse off, even before the effect of rising prices. For what I may well ask ... hmmmm ... $4 billion just to administer the scheme over the next 4 years before a single ounce of carbon is saved with my dollar? I'm sure I remember saying something about a revenue raising scheme rather than a serious attempt to reduce carbon pollution. At least my car is exempt at the pump! :eek:
terry.langham
11-07-2011, 7:55am
Hmmmm, the government hype says that the average household won't be worse off but using their calculator (https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/) it tells me that we will be be paying $9.00 a week extra for a rebate of $16.00 a year. :o
According to the estimator we will be paying $511 more per year but get $998 back. WOOHOO!!! More free money! :party6::lol: Now we can afford to run the aircon in reverse cycle instead of using blankets. Thanks Wayne and Julia......[end Sarcasm]
welcome to the moneygoround.... :rolleyes:
does it irk you that if us humans werent on this planet then 96 - 98% of the current CO2 production would still be occurring... and yet all this fuss and bother is still happening.
hey I am not against the tax, I am getting extra money. :confused013
does it irk you that if us humans werent on this planet then 96 - 98% of the current CO2 production would still be occurring... and yet all this fuss and bother is still happening.
In a word ... YES! :confused013
junqbox
11-07-2011, 12:25pm
All a bit of moot point now isn't it?
All a bit of moot point now isn't it?pretty much... i was just hoping to get the last word in :p
geoffsta
11-07-2011, 3:58pm
Since Julia has announced her deal. Should there be another poll to see if attitudes have changed?:confused013
Minus all the facts and figures. as in;
Yes. I think that i will be better off with a carbon tax.
No. I think I'll be worse off with the carbon tax.
Gravey. Goes well with roast lamb.
:confused013:confused013
New poll...
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?87554-Carbon-Tax-post-announcement
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.