PDA

View Full Version : Aha! Phooey to the Carbon Tax!



DB
27-06-11, 10:17 AM
This has been with me for a while........ 


Professor Ian Plimer (a member of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide. He is also a joint member of the School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering) could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.


Are you sitting down?


Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet, all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress, that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $1000 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus ''human-caused'' climate change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention ''Global Warming'' any more, but just ''Climate Change'' - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme (that whopping new tax)
imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

Bad Bones
27-06-11, 10:27 AM
LOL DB.
Just what we all already know.
Carbon tax is just another GST. Just a way for govt to feather nest & pay off deficit.

Any idea she has that it won't make a difference to everyday Australians is just fooey. Any extra expense a business has gets passed straight on to the consumer.
So whilst we may not have to pay this tax directly, we will be paying it no doubt and income tax cuts won't go anywhere near covering it is my bet.

BB

midnightly
27-06-11, 10:34 AM
Seems the whole world is getting stupider instead of smarter. I'm just so glad I don't have grandkids.

pepe001
27-06-11, 10:41 AM
The Carbon Tax is not like the GST. The GST is a tax and the money raised is used by the Gov to support the people. (I'm ignoring the wastage of tax dolars and bad decisions etc - yes it occurs but at least the GST provides money to the Gov). The Carbon Tax will not make money for the Gov to spend - the money is passed to other sections of the population. It is a money-swapping compensation tax so some groups profit and others pay. The predicted compensation is similar to the predicted tax.

It is actually a vote-producing exercise to try to prove to the growing number of 'voters who want to do something but don't know how' that the Gov is doing something and will save the planet. They are convinced that the Gov is going to help the planet with this tax so are more likely to vote for them.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 10:42 AM
What does the science say:

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year.



From http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=245&&a=28

Fyadara
27-06-11, 10:51 AM
And a recent article in the Guardian which challenges Plimers comments:

Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic mythsClimate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption


Along with the ash and lava, there have been many interesting asides tossed into the air for our consideration by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. We have noticed just how reliant our globalised systems are on air travel. We have been reminded of nature's brute force and primordial beauty. And we have been intrigued by what a wonderfully complex language Icelandic appears to be – to Anglo-Saxon ears, at least.


But one opportunity the volcano has gifted us in particular is the chance to put to bed once and for all that barrel-aged climate sceptic canard which maintains that volcanoes emit far more carbon dioxide than anthropogenic sources. It's always been a favourite, but has been pushed even further up the charts of popularity in recent months by the repeated claims of Ian Plimer, the Australian mining geologist who wrote the climate sceptic bible Heaven and Earth last year.


Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:



The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.


John Cook of the increasingly popular Skeptical Science website currently lists the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" viewpoint as number 54 on his ever-growing list - 107, to date - of debunked sceptic arguments.


It was also a point picked up by my colleague James Randerson when he interviewed Plimer last December. In Heaven and Earth, Plimer says: "Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." Randerson challenged Plimer on this point, stating that the US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes."


Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:



I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.


Despite having seemingly lanced this festering boil for good, the focus on Eyjafjallajokull over the past week has allowed this question to bubble back up to the forefront of people's minds. It was enough to trigger the Paris-based AFP news agency to seek some answers:



Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.

Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, "the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day," Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain's University of Durham, said in an email.

Patrick Allard of the Paris Institute for Global Physics (IPGP) gave what he described as a "top-range" estimate of 300,000 tonnes per day.

Both insisted that these were only approximate estimates.

Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development.

A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005.

Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount – less than a third of one percentage point – of global emissions of greenhouse gases.


So, please, can we now put this hoary old chestnut to bed?


One extra volcano-related aside: with European carbon market prices fluctuating around the €14 per tonne mark at present, this would mean that Eyjafjallajokull would theoretically be liable to a maximum daily bill of €4.2m if it were a fully fledged, carbon-trading nation or corporation. But who would dare get close enough to present it with an invoice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics

Harriette
27-06-11, 10:58 AM
Mr Pilmer is a geologist, an eminent geologist.
his 'views' regarding biological sciences are held to be 'alternative', very alternative, by quite a few academics in the biological and life sciences at Adelaide Uni.

a crank,

snake oil seller

Mr Tim Flannery however is held in high regard, as are his peers in the Wentworth Group.....
Mr Pilmer is out on a limb all by his lonesome

pepe001
27-06-11, 11:28 AM
Professor Tim Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist.

He is not a climate scientist but an activist. That means he will say anything to get the climate change point across.

He cannot be compared with a person who actually trained and works in the field of climatology.

I don't think there is any argument that people hold different opinions on whether climate change exists as a result of man. What is fact is that those that are on the pro-climate change bandwagon are sucking up huge amounts of scientific funding. And organisations (just like Australia's CSIRO) prefer not to advertise (and have actually sacked) scientists going against the pro-CC alarmists as this may result in less funding in the future. There is also the fact that a significant number of pro-CC scientists have been found guilt of fraud by fudging data. I work under the principal that where there is smoke there is fire so why fudge if it is so TRUE.

tgh05
27-06-11, 11:37 AM
Harriette , would we assume from your post that you not only disagree with the stone man .. you seek to insult him.
If that is the case ; upon what basis ? .. ...noting that you do not appear to offering an opinion or seeking to explain it ?

Renvers
27-06-11, 11:39 AM
"The stone man" (((snort)))

kevarose
27-06-11, 11:49 AM
There is also the fact that a significant number of pro-CC scientists have been found guilt of fraud by fudging data. I work under the principal that where there is smoke there is fire so why fudge if it is so TRUE.

Rubbish. Show us the evidence. Fraud is pretty hard to do these days in peer reviewed publishing and if you don't publish in the top peer reviewed journals, then your science ain't worth anything. This was my (professiorial) workplace although my science was in a different field.

Harriette
27-06-11, 12:02 PM
Tugs,
Having studied in his school, the stone man, coming from his rock-centric position, has sound ideas (according to my little brain).
sadly human civilisation and biological sustainability doesnt feature highly.

yes, absolutely taken in 100,000 year cycles, what we are experiencing is a blip,
he admits the blip
but says that 'in the big scheme of things its just a blip' I absolutely agree

yet.... and this is where our views diverge
biological life on earth will not survive a 100,000 year cycle blip. Human civilisation, at the apex of the tree of life, a very precarious position, will not survive a 100,000 year blip of the magnitude shown to previously have occured. previous 'blips' can be seen in rock formations and ice cores. very concise and perfect data.

but to survive, humanity needs to minimise the blips.
I have found, and I was a green agrarian, that we are in far worse shape than I realised. Collating info from many schools- mathematics, geology, biology, chemistry, agriculture, ecology- pooling info from around the globe...we are not doing well, and will continue to do badly.....truthfully mate, its a bit depressing, because the scientists I speak to cant say things will get better for all our efforts. maybe we can extend the 'grace period' but engineering and technology has proven to cause more trouble than it solves....balancing the earths ecology seems the only avenue we have.....so do we shrug and like a young friend....say "we are screwed anyway, we may as well enjoy ourselves" or try to do the BEST we can.....just so we can say we tried.....its MY best option, so thats what I believe...the science....the information and pictures and footage.......I just have to resort to blind faith to see a solution....

about 10,000 years ago, the north atlantic current stopped cycling for periods over a century or so. this plunged Europe into an ice age....cro magnon civilisation survived, Neanderthal didnt, neither did many 'top' animals, scaber tiger, mamoth, auroch,
in the last decade the current has been stopping for weeks at a time. not promising. and the 'global warming'? well as it caused the current cessation in the first place, it may not help keep the place as warm as we thought.

yet...before the collapse of civilisations.....I most fear anarchy......food for billions of hungry mouths becomes 'currency' for the war lords.....either China or US take your pick.

ah, depressing discussion over.... it is too nasty to contemplate...and it concerns me that people 'out there' forget or dont understand Mr Pilmers rock-centric bias, and disregard for the biological collapse view....which to me....whilst rocks and 100,000 year old ice cores are marvelous, they may not be good predictors of the liklihood of humans being able to take core samples in the next 1000 years

Alas, poor Yorick ! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!
My gorge rises at it.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 12:07 PM
Rubbish. Show us the evidence. Fraud is pretty hard to do these days in peer reviewed publishing and if you don't publish in the top peer reviewed journals, then your science ain't worth anything. This was my (professiorial) workplace although my science was in a different field.

I was going to post the same thing, what a load of rubbish. On the other hand there are plenty of statements from scientists who deny that climate chance exist which have been proven false (sometimes by their own admission). Perhaps that is why they complain they can't get their papers published? It is very hard to get papers published in highly ranked journals, many more get rejected than get accepted. The requirement for rigoreous science is pretty high, and very few 'anti-CC' papers make the cut.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 12:11 PM
in the last decade the current has been stopping for weeks at a time.

Harriette, have you got any references for this? I have not read anything about this?

dragonlady
27-06-11, 12:18 PM
and rubbish to you too. the alarmists have come up with lots of dodgy "facts" and oohhh, hasn't al gore been quiet lately.

earth's climate changes regularly, always has, always will. we haven't caused it and no amount of carbon taxing is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

there are people who believe the alarmist theories. fine, but don't impose taxes on the rest of us because of your beliefs.

airlines and power companies offer the option of a higher priced service to "offset" your misplaced guilt. i suggest that the proposed carbon tax be structured in the same way.

if you believe that a carbon tax will save the planet then sign up to pay a higher percentage of income tax. if you believe juliar then the majority of taxpayers will flock to do this. simple and no more arguments, no complicated tax then compensation which would see most of the money raised disappear in implementation costs.

it would be an interesting exercise to see just how many people would actually put their hands in their pockets if not forced to do so.

G Dog
27-06-11, 12:21 PM
A cleverly worded,witty rant from either side may get you thinking,or screaming.
Me,I don't care for the carbon tax one bit and I don't care about volcanoes much but I do like to breathe clean air and go fishing occasionally and be safe in the knowledge that the food I eat isn't polluted by chemicals.I also like to see forests that haven't been logged for housing or destroyed by salts from below and acid fom above.
By my way of thinking the global warming argument has been an offshoot of the larger problem.We are,no matter which way you look at it,trashing the planet.Taxing it probably won't do much.Maybe it will.I'm not sure.
Personally I'd like to see a wholehearted effort by our government to supprt modern technologies that would see us in a cleaner greener world.
The hydrogen car?Where's that gone?I know they exist I've seen them driving in snippets of news since I was a boy.Funny how they just dissapear isn't it.You think we can't do it?Really?We've been to the moon:)
Maybe try to forget about the global warming thing and concentrate on the wrecking the planet thing.If by chance the world is getting warmer because of our activity then as an offshoot of not covering the world in persticides or raping the oceans or destroying the forests the world might cool back down.
Whenever I think of global warming I picture in my head the horizon over Brisbane.Not sure if it's warmer up there but geez it looks like crap and I'm very happy I live in Toowoomba on the Great Divide where the winds can blow.I can only imagine what Bejing actually looks like in the flesh.

tgh05
27-06-11, 12:21 PM
Thanks Harri_it... very well argued post.

Perhaps James Lovelock would find merit in an argument that Gaia is speaking , that the current human plague needs truncating,and that something is being done about the problem on quite a few fronts.


There are far too many of us , we are raping the planet , perhaps the Gaia solutions ( change the climate/ select better bacteria etc etc.. ) won't be needed as we fight over the remains of the feast and reduce ourselves to a more balanced representation .

We are after all, probably the most deadly predator the planet has seen, killing ourselves and anything else that moves with gay abandon.

The sooner it all happens the sooner peace will again reign on earth.


Renvers A geologist is a stone man .. No geologist that I know would object to such a term in the context it was written.

Charlypops
27-06-11, 12:39 PM
By my way of thinking the global warming argument has been an offshoot of the larger problem.We are,no matter which way you look at it,trashing the planet.Taxing it probably won't do much.Maybe it will.I'm not sure.
Personally I'd like to see a wholehearted effort by our government to supprt modern technologies that would see us in a cleaner greener world.
Maybe try to forget about the global warming thing and concentrate on the wrecking the planet thing.If by chance the world is getting warmer because of our activity then as an offshoot of not covering the world in persticides or raping the oceans or destroying the forests the world might cool back down.


Could not agree more. I am still undecided about global warming. But I am fimly set in the belief we are trashing this planet at an alarming rate.

Who is going to give crap about global warming in 200 years. When we are at a point of population explosion that more than half of the world does not have enough food to eat, and has no way of producing enough.
We only need to look at our popluation growth in the past 200 years compared to that of the last 4000 to know that we are in big big trouble.

Charlypops
27-06-11, 12:40 PM
Sorry tgh, typed my response before I read yours.

Renvers
27-06-11, 12:53 PM
Yes, I know tgh. It just made me laugh in the way that Zorro made me laugh when he'd refer to the Inglis corp as "chicken man".

mindari
27-06-11, 01:33 PM
Could not agree more. I am still undecided about global warming. But I am fimly set in the belief we are trashing this planet at an alarming rate.

Who is going to give crap about global warming in 200 years. When we are at a point of population explosion that more than half of the world does not have enough food to eat, and has no way of producing enough.
We only need to look at our popluation growth in the past 200 years compared to that of the last 4000 to know that we are in big big trouble.

anyone watch landline this weekend?
the amount of food that can be produced is being outstripped by population growth

china realised the danger far enough back to introduce the one child policy. yes its an infringment of human rights. but i too realised the day is comming when there will be precious little "human rights" if the human lemmings dont regulate population growth and soon. bugger the carbon tax it is not going to stop what is a growing certainty, ask any farmer what happens when you overstock.

at this stage only farmers realise how close to the edge although i did read somewhere an aussie politicion did bring up the subject of how far over the stocking rate is china and what is the predicted stocking rate for australia so it is being discussed in political circles. just the mantra of populate or perish is still being pushed.

pity the brains of the world arent working on that or are they?

MissMagnum
27-06-11, 02:08 PM
G Dog, I totally agree! I don't want another tax. We have more than enough as it is. And with the financial climate the way it is, none of us can afford another one.
But, by the same token, can we really afford to be complacent? Yes, I agree, cycles in climates happen on a regular basis. Have done for millions of years. But,now, the population is huge, and the carbon emissions are way more than ever before. Surely this has to have an impact? I, personally, would rather be safe than sorry.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 02:17 PM
MM, you don't pay an extra tax, businesses do. This will mean that some products increase in price, but as long as you earn less than $150,000 you should get compensated. If you would rather be safe than sorry something needs to happen to stimulate the use of alternative energy (which is why we will have a carbon tax).

Bats_79
27-06-11, 02:19 PM
Originally Posted by G Dog http://forum.cyberhorse.com.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.cyberhorse.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=826774#post826774)
By my way of thinking the global warming argument has been an offshoot of the larger problem.We are,no matter which way you look at it,trashing the planet.Taxing it probably won't do much.Maybe it will.I'm not sure.
Personally I'd like to see a wholehearted effort by our government to supprt modern technologies that would see us in a cleaner greener world.
Maybe try to forget about the global warming thing and concentrate on the wrecking the planet thing.If by chance the world is getting warmer because of our activity then as an offshoot of not covering the world in persticides or raping the oceans or destroying the forests the world might cool back down.


Could not agree more. I am still undecided about global warming. But I am fimly set in the belief we are trashing this planet at an alarming rate.

Who is going to give crap about global warming in 200 years. When we are at a point of population explosion that more than half of the world does not have enough food to eat, and has no way of producing enough.
We only need to look at our popluation growth in the past 200 years compared to that of the last 4000 to know that we are in big big trouble.

Well said. :)

Supersport
27-06-11, 02:19 PM
I have absolutely no science background whatsoever, but did make an observation with my own eyes and nose back in the late 90's when visiting China. Spent a week in Beijing and actually thought it was overcast all week, until the plane went up and above the thick layer of black soot was surprisingly - blue sky! My clothes and luggage had a stench about them for 12 months after.

My observation - anything we do to create or control pollution in Australia is merely a spit in the ocean compared to the damage being done in China. And I believe that India is worse. No amount of extra taxes here, will have any affect on the overall picture. It is all about votes and money.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 02:23 PM
I have absolutely no science background whatsoever, but did make an observation with my own eyes and nose back in the late 90's when visiting China. Spent a week in Beijing and actually thought it was overcast all week, until the plane went up and above the thick layer of black soot was surprisingly - blue sky! My clothes and luggage had a stench about them for 12 months after.

My observation - anything we do to create or control pollution in Australia is merely a spit in the ocean compared to the damage being done in China. And I believe that India is worse. No amount of extra taxes here, will have any affect on the overall picture. It is all about votes and money.

So even though our per capita emissions are much higher than China's we should do nothing and point at Chine to reduce their emissions?

Lucky for us China is actually pretty pro-active in reducing their emissions. Not via a tax or ETS as this is a pretty capitalist way to deal with CO2 emissions.

justme:-)
27-06-11, 02:31 PM
Carbon pollution problems or not, uncontrolled population grow is real and a genuine threat.

Dick Smith is very aware of and articulate about the population crisis the world is facing. His new book makes very interesting reading.

http://dicksmithpopulation.com/

There is also a great interview with him on ABC classic (about 50mins), http://www.abc.net.au/classic/throsby/ in the Tues 21st Section

There must be a few under 30s here that could take up
a) his of "a special $5,000 prize for the first young person under the age of thirty who can get definitive coverage of the Wilberforce Award in the Murdoch press, including the fact that you can’t have constant growth of the use of resources and energy in a finite world" (Scroll down on the first link for more details)

b) strive for being eligable for the Wilbourforce award (click on his link top right of first link page) for more details

I admire Dick Smith for his willingness to use for good his accumlated wealth, and not just hord it.

Bad Bones
27-06-11, 02:31 PM
Getting back to carbon tax -
Figures I heard: 50% of it will go back to recompensing the 'masses'.
So where is the rest of it going? Govt coffers.
There is no way this tax would be imposed if the govt wasn't getting anything out of it.

As to climate change - my belief/understanding is that the Earth's climate has always been changing & always will be. I doubt that human impact has had much to do with it thus far.......

However if the population explosion predicted for the next 50 years happens then I imagine that human existance will have some impact on the rate of climate change....
but by that point we will be so far down the slippery slope to doom in other ways that climate change will be the least of our worries.

BB

tgh05
27-06-11, 02:33 PM
So Fydara .. what are you hoping for ?

You say a Carbon Tax will happen.. ( I'm not prescient so it's nice to hear from someone who is .. ) but isn't Abbot going to win the next election and dump it ?

If you get a Carbon tax.. what exactly do you think it will do ?

Supersport
27-06-11, 02:34 PM
Fyadara, maybe you could fill us in how "per capita emissions" are calculated? Is wide open space, long traveling distances and fewer people, more pollution producing than millions (or billions) living on top of each other? A serious question - never could understand how this is worked out. From all the countries I have traveled to, the air, countryside, etc. is cleaner here than anywhere else. Looking at the overall picture of Australia, by far the nicest and cleanest place to live. How will the carbon tax change this?

MissMagnum
27-06-11, 02:36 PM
MM, you don't pay an extra tax, businesses do. This will mean that some products increase in price, but as long as you earn less than $150,000 you should get compensated. If you would rather be safe than sorry something needs to happen to stimulate the use of alternative energy (which is why we will have a carbon tax).

Fyadara, when big business pay tax, so do we in the long run. All I am saying, is that we are all responsible, whether in a small way or a large way. And we have to claim that reponsibility and do something about it.

kevarose
27-06-11, 03:19 PM
Thanks Harri_it... very well argued post.
We are after all, probably the most deadly predator the planet has seen, killing ourselves and anything else that moves with gay abandon.

The sooner it all happens the sooner peace will again reign on earth.


I agree. I no longer have any interest in any human achievement or much of anything really .. except I like my food and I watch TV and some DVDs. But the last thing I want to see is any cities or things in them. I see these all as transient. Let's do a "human bill" bingo. I give the human race (and most other creatures as they will all be eaten or killed from no homes) ... if we are lucky 99 years from now. Any takers on lower? If you see the graphs of the planet's temperature there is no doubt that it is getting hotter although the upward line has lots of small 'blips' in it but ignore these and it is a straight line upwards. Once a few key continent sized sheets of ice give out in the poles (and it has started), it is an accelerated downhill rush from that point on with suddenly decreasing land spaces in our childrens' lifetime and well ... if you thought the Global Financial Crisis was bad ...

I cannot see why anyone would doubt this hard evidence. But I just ignore the blatherers like Tony A who just winge for their own political advantage like a school boy seeking sweeties and never show any facts. But I am not being political ... If Malcolm would take up the helm, I'd vote for him in a second. Or someone equally committed in Labour - not sure there are any left on that side but Julia is trying as she sees what the rest of the world is doing.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 03:25 PM
Fyadara, maybe you could fill us in how "per capita emissions" are calculated? Is wide open space, long traveling distances and fewer people, more pollution producing than millions (or billions) living on top of each other? A serious question - never could understand how this is worked out. From all the countries I have traveled to, the air, countryside, etc. is cleaner here than anywhere else. Looking at the overall picture of Australia, by far the nicest and cleanest place to live. How will the carbon tax change this?

There are a lot less of us :). Still doesn't give us the right to produce as much CO2 as we like, just because we are a small country population wise.

thejoth
27-06-11, 03:57 PM
Seems the whole world is getting stupider instead of smarter. I'm just so glad I don't have grandkids.

I pity even the fools with actual children. Something the size of Vesta would solve all our problems.

Supersport
27-06-11, 04:39 PM
So Fyadara, you are saying because there are less of us, in a cleaner country, we are penalised more? Doesn't seem right to me.

Also, don't make the assumption that those against the carbon tax, are producing as much carbon as they can. I am very environmentally aware in many ways, and cut electricity, fuel, whenever I can, but it doesn't mean I have to believe that a carbon tax is the only way to go. And surely you don't trust a government to use the money in the most effective way possible? It is this type of attitude that divides many. Those that "believe" think those that don't are some type of sinner!

kidshorsesme
27-06-11, 05:28 PM
china realised the danger far enough back to introduce the one child policy. yes its an infringment of human rights. but i too realised the day is comming when there will be precious little "human rights" if the human lemmings dont regulate population growth and soon. bugger the carbon tax it is not going to stop what is a growing certainty, ask any farmer what happens when you overstock.

at this stage only farmers realise how close to the edge although i did read somewhere an aussie politicion did bring up the subject of how far over the stocking rate is china and what is the predicted stocking rate for australia so it is being discussed in political circles. just the mantra of populate or perish is still being pushed.

pity the brains of the world arent working on that or are they?


Have just returned from China, spending the last two weeks getting up close & personal with what the average Chinese person lives with on a daily basis.

What got my attention the most was the pollution that people deal with & just simply can not escape !!!

China has over 7000 Iron & steel producers supplying around 40% of the worlds demand for steel products.

This production capacity is something that has to be seen to be believed, I only saw a small percentage of their total capacity with my own eyes ... but what I saw was something that is pretty hard to comprehend. The producers I saw mostly had their own power generation facilities or had others located nearby all spweing out toxic wastes from their stacks into the atmosphere. The sky was so polluted in Jinan, that we NEVER once saw the sun in the entire time we spent there.

All this polution affect the population on a daily basis ... you get dirty just walking around the city from the fall out from the sky & the fumes from the vehicles on the roads.

This is a short video I took with my iPhone on a 'good' day driving in Jinan ...

http://www.mustangfloats.com/IMG_0238.MOV


Because of this pollution, most of the food crops produced are grown in shade houses ... and on a scale I wouldn't have believed if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. We took the D train to Qingdao from Jinan and on the way we came across what is apparently a 'small' greenhouse 'district.

http://www.mustangfloats.com/IMG_0231.MOV

These went for about 15km or so for as far as you could see either side of the railway line


The pollution there, you just can't escape, you can see it, you can feel it and worst off all ... you can taste it in every single thing you eat that is produced there. Something that sticks with me the most in my memory is the smell of the place ... EVERYTHING smells of faeces, urine, vomit or a combination of all three !!!

Carbon tax in Australia ??? What a SAD SAD joke on the Australian people cos NOTHING we do here will make one iota's bit of difference to the pollution emitted daily in places like China. When the world's major emitters all embrace a 'carbon tax' then maybe we should think about it too. The idea of Australia being a 'world leader' is just beyond farsical ... most people on the planet don't even know where Australia is let alone if we are making a difference with reducing our output of pollution.

DO
27-06-11, 06:50 PM
There are many people making a very good living out of Global warming. Just as they did with the Y2K bug.

thejoth
27-06-11, 07:40 PM
everyone deserves to make a living.

gee, making a living out of cleaning up the planet, what a waste of time. I mean imagine trying to leave something in a better state than you found it. silly people.

HQ
27-06-11, 07:52 PM
What I would like to know is why approximately 50% of the non-scientifically trained "man/woman in the street" population give credence to 3% of the scientific populace of climate change sceptics? Why ignore 97% of the scientific thinking for the views of the fringe? It reminds me a little of the flat-earth believers.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 08:14 PM
So Fyadara, you are saying because there are less of us, in a cleaner country, we are penalised more? Doesn't seem right to me.

Also, don't make the assumption that those against the carbon tax, are producing as much carbon as they can. I am very environmentally aware in many ways, and cut electricity, fuel, whenever I can, but it doesn't mean I have to believe that a carbon tax is the only way to go. And surely you don't trust a government to use the money in the most effective way possible? It is this type of attitude that divides many. Those that "believe" think those that don't are some type of sinner!

Far from it, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. PER CAPITA we emit a lot of CO2, so I see it as our duty as a nation to reduce that. While China produces a lot more CO2 than us, there are many many more than us. If you devided their polution by the number of people they don't do as bad as us, although it may seems so in some of they industrial areas over there.

I certainly didn't comment at all about individuals and their efforts to reduce their emission. I realise that some people may do a lot, but are against a carbon tax. It is not so much the emission of the indiviual though, but our collective industries that will make the difference. as far as the government is concerned, if you don't have trust in the government and our democratic system there is not much to say, other than stop paying taxes all together and every man for themselves. Sorry, but that is not my believe. I do wonder though if some of that attitude is behind the reluctance to accept climate science? Nothing to do with the science but more the fear of an intervering government and the dreaded greenies and their ideas.

k8
27-06-11, 08:18 PM
People don't want to believe it because it's 'easier to do nothing', than to admit we are at fault and need to do something to change things.
People are selfish and lazy.... Oh no, not my problem... head firmly planted in sand arse waving in the air.....


I'm glad I don't have children to inherit this mess.

mindari
27-06-11, 08:24 PM
everyone deserves to make a living.

gee, making a living out of cleaning up the planet, what a waste of time. I mean imagine trying to leave something in a better state than you found it. silly people.

as was quoted by landline today australia exports some 48 percent of its produce which equates to 1% of the worlds exported produce.

australia now has no iron industry, no clothing industry no shoe industry the list is pretty long n the "level playing field" they were so keen to promote world wide and started here to show the world how its done, has achieved what?
and our policitions think they can make a significant contribution to curing the worlds ill's? :confused:

talk about arrogance on a mind blowing scale. Toad of Toad Hall has noting on Australia's politicians. and they are just as merrily leading this nation to incapablity of even servicing its own inhabitants, with the necessities of food and clothing, clothing has already been crossed off the list, every stitch right down to your shoes is imported, what happens if not only the planes cant get here but the ships too?.... helloooooo??? anyone listening?

Supersport
27-06-11, 08:30 PM
"as far as the government is concerned, if you don't have trust in the government and our democratic system there is not much to say, "

I am seriously stuck for words on this one?

dragonlady
27-06-11, 08:37 PM
yes, i know. from the language, spelling and attitude i'd say we have a relative youngster there. i've noticed that most seem to have been indoctrinated to believe in global warming caused by evil man from an early age.

unfortunately many youngsters have yet to discover how difficult it can be to earn a living and live on a budget as opposed to having high, unrealistic ideals.

thejoth
27-06-11, 08:51 PM
the last people I expect to solve anything important like human induced global warming are politicians.

humans are clever when they are motivated. money talks, new-age capitalists are our best way through this.

if someone becomes rich saving the planet, all power to them I say.

we need to move past this round about argument and move onto a constructive conversation about sustainability.

so what is the maximum number of people that should inhabit this planet and how should they expect to live?

Charlypops
27-06-11, 09:12 PM
so what is the maximum number of people that should inhabit this planet and how should they expect to live?

I am sure I will be shot down, but personally I feel we are already past whatever that number might be.

I honestly have not solution. As well as exploding populations in third world countries that have little control over the situation. We have idiotic governments promoting breeding constantly in this country. Don't get me wrong, I love my kids, and I am sure everyone else does too. But why do we need things like baby bonuses that promote the breeding of the wrong end of society.

Here in the local city of Wodonga they are never endingly promoting the need to increase the poplulation of the city. Yet for about 5 years in a row everyone there has received a very substancial rate rise. Because there is not nearly enough infastructure to support the people they already have.

How long do we really think the cude oil and coal that we have become so dependant on is going to last for. There sure as hell is not going to be any more made in the next few hundred thousand years. But again like global warming that is probably a longer term problem that the habitable land, food and water shortages the future generation is soo to face.

Sorry for the rant, but I am a little passionate about this.

Fyadara
27-06-11, 11:26 PM
as was quoted by landline today australia exports some 48 percent of its produce which equates to 1% of the worlds exported produce.

australia now has no iron industry, no clothing industry no shoe industry the list is pretty long n the "level playing field" they were so keen to promote world wide and started here to show the world how its done, has achieved what?
and our policitions think they can make a significant contribution to curing the worlds ill's? :confused:

talk about arrogance on a mind blowing scale. Toad of Toad Hall has noting on Australia's politicians. and they are just as merrily leading this nation to incapablity of even servicing its own inhabitants, with the necessities of food and clothing, clothing has already been crossed off the list, every stitch right down to your shoes is imported, what happens if not only the planes cant get here but the ships too?.... helloooooo??? anyone listening?

This is partly because we can't stimulate manufacturing as well as our mining industry. I think this comes from both parties. We don't have the labour or the investment to do both, so we rely on mining and little else. There are other high wage countries with high taxes and very strict environmental laws that do have manufactoring industries in highly specialised industries. none of those countries would try to compete on clothes and food though. Personally I feel that Australia should be less dependent on mining and develop some value adding industries.

mindari
28-06-11, 12:33 AM
This is partly because we can't stimulate manufacturing as well as our mining industry. I think this comes from both parties. We don't have the labour or the investment to do both, so we rely on mining and little else. There are other high wage countries with high taxes and very strict environmental laws that do have manufactoring industries in highly specialised industries. none of those countries would try to compete on and food though. Personally I feel that Australia should be less dependent on mining and develop some value adding industries.

the last thing the australian government has been interested in is any form whatever of maintaining let alone "stimulate' manufacturing in any form in this country for the last 40 years, forget which brainstorming poli decided australia was going to lead the world in creating the first level playing field. we were told all import tarifs would have to be lifted or australia would lose thier overseas markets. odd how the supposed countrys still have theirs in place though but hey our polies are leading the world by example, just like the carbon tax seems more ego than anything else but then im only a stupid pleb n can't see the BIG PICTURE.. whatever that is

often wonder if some of this stuff is more along the lines of the emperors new clothes,, admire what you cant see or be afraid to be thought a fool

n this pleb is too much of a fool to realise am supposed to agree the non existant is beautiful

Fyadara
28-06-11, 09:56 AM
yes, i know. from the language, spelling and attitude i'd say we have a relative youngster there. i've noticed that most seem to have been indoctrinated to believe in global warming caused by evil man from an early age.

unfortunately many youngsters have yet to discover how difficult it can be to earn a living and live on a budget as opposed to having high, unrealistic ideals.

Don't know if this was aimed at me or not, but I'm definately not a youngster. I understand a lot of the science of global warming because I have actually read a lot of the papers and have talked to some of the climate scientists. No indoctrination here, and as HQ pointed out, scientists believe in climate change, it seems it is the public who has a problem understanding the science (or perhaps the scientists having a problem in communicating it?).

tgh05
28-06-11, 10:08 AM
I suspect that many people quietly believe in Climate change as there is extensive evidence.
Most folks are bright enough to actually see and understand the big picture.

What ordinary people don't buy , is being talked down to by rabid believers and being offered esoteric solutions at great social cost that appear to achieve little.

It seems to me that myopia is more common among the believers than the long suffering populace who are constantly bombarded with hype and propaganda.

Fyadara
28-06-11, 10:57 AM
I suspect that many people quietly believe in Climate change as there is extensive evidence.
Most folks are bright enough to actually see and understand the big picture.

What ordinary people don't buy , is being talked down to by rabid believers and being offered esoteric solutions at great social cost that appear to achieve little.

It seems to me that myopia is more common among the believers than the long suffering populace who are constantly bombarded with hype and propaganda.

If this was true why doesn't the debate centre around this question. Why give so much attention to so called 'scientists' who deny climate change?

I agree that a debate about mitigation of climate change and how we deal with the future would be a very useful one, and I can see that there would be many valid but different points of view. Rather than wasting energy on debates of science that really has been settled lets concentrate on what to do from here. Because if you really think about it, we may not be able to do much about it if we do not get most of the world population behind the possible solutions. If we don't manage to produce alternative energy for a price that is competative with fossil fuels I think the world is going to have to deal with some major problems in the next 100 years.

Than again, some of the most contentious issues within climate change science centre around the numerous feedback mechanisms and how much the world is exactly going to warm. This is probably not going to be a certainty until it happens.

Bad Bones
28-06-11, 11:08 AM
Climate change has been happening for millions of years on earth - long before human existance
Scientists tell us this too!

So how can they now suddenly say that the curretn changes are due soley to humans?

Nobody denies climate change. What we are sceptical about is the cause & our ability to make a difference.

IMO we should be less concerned with trying to change what is probably/possibly inevitable and concentrate more on expanding the worlds food producing ability.
This is going to be much more immediate problem, this century.

BB

dragonlady
28-06-11, 11:20 AM
exactly bb.

thejoth
28-06-11, 11:38 AM
I think we all agree the planet will do it's own thing. why add to the problem?

we are going to run out of our beloved fossil fuel anyway, so this whole argument is a waste of time.

So we do nothing until we have to leave our cars on the side of the road and walk or will horse come back into vogue?

actually there could be something in that!

Fyadara
28-06-11, 12:08 PM
From Sketical Science:

The argument:
Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

What does the science say:
If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.

Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).

How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.

How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990). However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour. As temperature rises, so too does the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. However, water vapour is a greenhouse gas which causes more warming which leads to more water vapour and so on. There are also negative feedbacks - more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect.

What is the net feedback? Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations. One needs to find a period where we have temperature records and measurements of the various forcings that drove the climate change. Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated. Figure 1 shows a summary of the peer-reviewed studies that have determined climate sensitivity from past periods (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

There have been many estimates of climate sensitivity based on the instrumental record (the past 150 years). Several studies used the observed surface and ocean warming over the twentieth century and an estimate of the radiative forcing. A variety of methods have been employed - simple or intermediate-complexity models, statistical models or energy balance calculations. Satellite data for the radiation budget have also been analyzed to infer climate sensitivity.

Some recent analyses used the well-observed forcing and response to major volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century. A few studies examined palaeoclimate reconstructions from the past millennium or the period around 12,000 years ago when the planet came out of a global ice age (Last Glacial Maximum).

What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.

The combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive. There is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate.

CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.

Fyadara
28-06-11, 12:10 PM
Or a more basic explanation from the same website:

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.


Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.

What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing.

Charlypops
28-06-11, 12:36 PM
Most of us get the climate change thing.

We don't think the tax will be affective.

How many people on this thread have dramatically decreased their fuel consumption due to the increasing price of fuel. I know I havn't. I only drive to work and back. There is not public transport. I have to drive my car.

Will paying a tax on carbon actually decrease the amount of carbon dioxide being produced? I think not.
Or will it just cause an increase in costs in general commodities.

Research in other countries has proven that one of the most effective ways of reducing carbon emmisions is to fund the replacement of inefficient appliances, with more energy efficient ones. This can drop usuage by up to 30%. What are we as a country seriously doing there?

Government had a big initiative to get lots of people on LPG for their cars, and are now putting on a massive excise.

Goverment are happy to take the easy way out most often to 'appear' like they are doing something. But in actually fact they are basically doing nothing.

Charlypops
28-06-11, 12:42 PM
And another rant just because I can :).

Having just gone through the process of building an energy effiecient home. We are now looking at the finite details of our solar system. Why is it that we are not even payed the price of electicity per Kw for the power we produce. But a lower amount. That is real incentive to put in a big system isn't it?

They actually don't want to encourage you to produce to much power, why is that? And yes that is a rhetorical question :)

gg_vice
28-06-11, 12:57 PM
Blah.....just finished uni exams on climate change, so I've been avoiding this thread.
Yes, anthropogenic climate change is happening, VAST majority of science is saying so. You always get some nay-sayer who wants their 10 seconds of fame by saying otherwise. This is why we act on the Precautionary Principle.
Is carbon tax going to make a difference?? I'm pretty sure government will manage to screw it up. What IT IS doing is making people think and discuss this topic.......EXCELLENT!

I think carbon reduction and sequestring industries should some how be rewarded, and polluters need to pay or mitigate. Now, how can this be done in a fair and equitable way?

Fyadara
28-06-11, 01:11 PM
And another rant just because I can :).

Having just gone through the process of building an energy effiecient home. We are now looking at the finite details of our solar system. Why is it that we are not even payed the price of electicity per Kw for the power we produce. But a lower amount. That is real incentive to put in a big system isn't it?

They actually don't want to encourage you to produce to much power, why is that? And yes that is a rhetorical question :)

I guess you are in the wrong state, blame your state government.

Feed in tariffs
Feed-in tariffs (FITs) reimburse you for any power your solar electricity system feeds back into the grid. They’re designed to encourage more Australians to generate their own electricity.

Thanks to increased State Government solar feed-in tariffs in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, you could now be paid up to double the price you pay for energy exported back into the grid from your solar electricity system if you're on a net metered arrangement - that means you’re paid for the surplus electricity your system feeds back into the grid when it generates more power than your home uses at the time of generation. So it pays to go solar now.

Horsegears
28-06-11, 01:13 PM
Have not read previous posts but I am not prepared to 'bet' the world on what any professor or politician says.

People have no problems paying out thousands in house, car insurance etc, so I am somewhat baffled why they wont pay money to effectively insure themselves and the world.

Why be stingy when such is at state. :confused:

shadowmystique
28-06-11, 03:14 PM
Climate Change is indeed taking place and has been doing so for millons of years at varying rates...

How is a "carbon tax" going to reduce the damage we are doing to the earth or protect our food production and control population numbers??? Its not... Its that simple... All it will do is lower the standard of living of the australian population...

In Australia we have so LITTLE farmable land... and yet we only build on the prime farmland... Please tell me where we are going to produce our food in 100 years time???
Yet if we were to build our towns and cities inland on the arid land that cannot produce food in any form and leave the farm land to be farmed, our continent could support itself far more sustaniably... There would also be less pollution to the land and wildlife...

If we can understand that carbon pollution is a symptom not a cause of the current issues, then perhaps we could focus our efforts where they make a difference...

All of this third world country aid and uproar over children dieing in country XYZ...

Really... its sad, but they are excess to requirements... Thats why they are dieing...
Their location cannot support that many humans and so they are not surviving...
If we could stop interfering then the population would level itself back out to a comfortable level instead of artificially supporting it by shipping in food and medical aid...

Throwing money at a problem does not solve it... first you need to actually work out the cause and stop treating only the symptoms...
Children dieing in third world countries is a symptom not a cause...
Importing 90% of our country's food and material goods is a symptom... not a cause...

and the list goes on... people get very tunnel vision on the symptoms and forget to look at why it is taking place in the first instance...

dragonlady
28-06-11, 03:33 PM
wow, very brave. i agree with you but probably wouldn't have written it, i'm considered to be too harsh most of the time anyway.

horsegears, since when did paying more tax to a government ensure anything but the fact that we become poorer?

i agree with whoever wrote that the best thing our governments could do would be to provide solar units, insulation and water tanks to any buildings where it would be possible. that action might actually make a difference and placate the carbon guilt nazis. then again, we've seen how they can screw up such schemes haven't we?

no, much easier just to tax us blind and pretend they're DOING something. horsegears believes them so probably some others do too.

Charlypops
28-06-11, 03:45 PM
All of this third world country aid and uproar over children dieing in country XYZ...

Really... its sad, but they are excess to requirements... Thats why they are dieing...
Their location cannot support that many humans and so they are not surviving...
If we could stop interfering then the population would level itself back out to a comfortable level instead of artificially supporting it by shipping in food and medical aid...

In all seriousness we need to get real with the fact that every person on earth, 3rd world or not, is looking at this exact situation in the not to distant future.

Although we are not excess to requirements. But excess to be sustainable.
We are still getting along just fine, because we have money. But as time goes on the starving will increase, and only the rich and elite will be able to buy food. Looking at what is happenning in these 3rd world countries is like looking into a crystal ball.

Supersport
28-06-11, 04:24 PM
Now this post is bringing out some real problems in our environment! Someone told me this quote recently and I am not sure where it comes from - "You Australians are mad, you build houses on the best land and leave the farmers in the desert". But then if our forever wise, and worshipped by some on here, Government made the suggestion to stop chopping up the coastal acreages, god forbid, they may have to build some INFRASTRUCTURE!

But then, perhaps a carbon tax will solve all these problems? And some of you with tunnel vision wonder why there are us sceptics out here!

Fyadara
28-06-11, 04:55 PM
i agree with whoever wrote that the best thing our governments could do would be to provide solar units, insulation and water tanks to any buildings where it would be possible. that action might actually make a difference and placate the carbon guilt nazis. then again, we've seen how they can screw up such schemes haven't we?

no, much easier just to tax us blind and pretend they're DOING something. horsegears believes them so probably some others do too.

Subsidy of solar units may feel to many people like the right way to go, but it is actually very expensive in terms of CO2 emission reduction (something like $40 per tonne). Much more expensive than a carbon tax at $26. The reason the government has chosen for a carbon tax is because it is the most cost effective way to reduce emission, no matter how you may feel about it. Other measures work out more expensive.

Charlypops
28-06-11, 06:16 PM
Do you have any projections or data, on how a tax on carbon will reduce emmissions.

Are the 'big polluters' that are the ones who will be taxed in a finacial position to purchase all the new equipment that will be required to be greaner, and pay the tax?. Are they actually going to reduce emmissions, or will they`just pass the cost down the line?

Are the new technologies these companies require even currently available. Or will there be a huge time lag for their development and availabilty?

mindari
28-06-11, 09:17 PM
Now this post is bringing out some real problems in our environment! Someone told me this quote recently and I am not sure where it comes from - "You Australians are mad, you build houses on the best land and leave the farmers in the desert". But then if our forever wise, and worshipped by some on here, Government made the suggestion to stop chopping up the coastal acreages, god forbid, they may have to build some INFRASTRUCTURE!

But then, perhaps a carbon tax will solve all these problems? And some of you with tunnel vision wonder why there are us sceptics out here!

The first time I heard your quote was direct from the mouth of a man named Sam D'Agostino, he was an Italian and he simply could not believe his eyes.
when he arrived in australia. he said at home if you built a house on good agricultrual land you had the house demolished and 5 years in jail.

yet here the very govenments subdivide it. he shook his head at the insanity of the australian people to the day he died .

Good old Sam why? doesnt australians demand the same?

Supersport
28-06-11, 09:40 PM
Thanks for clearing that up Mindari. It always bugged me that I didn't know whose quote it was.

Interesting that he was Italian. If one drives from Spain, along the mediterranean coastline through the south of France, the coastline is dotted with wealth, upon wealth. Yachts and cruisers and mansions. Then after crossing the border into Italy, you see green houses and vegie gardens. Quite amazing the difference and I really did wonder how they can justify such valuable land for farming when you see the outline of the French side. But then I did think, well good on the Italians, not being manipulated by wealth on this valuable land.

I my area, the state government, well now ex state government, had added a clause to rural zoning that allowed development for retirement villages. This allowed the state gov to override the local council on approvals for this. The developers are having a ball, buying up these beautiful properties. The gov then relies on the private developers to provide the aged care facilities. It is not necessarily the best locations for the retirees but they are making mega bucks from the deals, due to the size of the land they are purchasing and the number of units they can fit. Yet, only a kilometre away, some residential land, accessible by foot to shops, etc. had been rezoned to high density, yet no retirement villages here? All determined on profit. It may be a state governments decision, but I will never believe that the environment will rule over money or votes for any government in this country. The carbon tax is just a "look good" tactic with no documented proof of the expected result.

tgh05
28-06-11, 10:14 PM
For the first time, Japanese authorities have suggested the situation at the Fukushima nuclear plant may have gone beyond a meltdown.

An official report, which Japan will submit to the UN's nuclear watchdog, says nuclear fuel in three reactors at Fukushima has possibly melted through the pressure vessels and accumulated in outer containment vessels.

Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper says this "melt-through" is far worse than a core meltdown, and is the worst possibility in a nuclear accident.

This is the first official admission that a "melt-through" may have occurred.

mindari
29-06-11, 11:21 AM
anyone else heard the news this morning? forget who it was but critizing our esteemed prime minister asking since australia is a dot on the world emissions map compared to the BIG offenders, why is she risking the stability of australias economy by leading the world in bringing in the carbon tax?


obviously the asker doesnt realise its been decades of prime ministers of both persuasions determined to LEAD the world by example, as they have done and continue with their level "playing field" being the first to be implemented to many decades ago.. so she is just being a good prime minister and head held high leading australia to where?????

we will find out, but even if its a disaster for the rest of the voters she like all her predecesors will live in luxury for life for taking on the enormous task and responsibility of leading australia.

again i ask though to where?

they have sold the mining rights to the most productive farmland this country ever had, to mine the coal beneath it. the water tables will be destroyed the fertility destroyed and who will loose?

not one single world leading poli living in retirment funded by the mug voters.

and dont forget the snowy mountain scheme, that too once it is sold will see anyone needing the water paying some offshore owner again sending the cost of producing food through the roof for the producer but it wont be reflected in the shops, the mug producer is supposed to get more streamlined to increase production at less profit per unit produced. dont think production cost rises are passed on to the middlemen and passed onto the consumer. if that were the case the dairy industry wouldnt be in the dire straights it is in now that its been deregulated and they have to take whats offered even if its less than the cost of production, which is the case during droughts. australia lost over half its dairy producers within 2 years of deregulation being implemented.

remember that there is a price ultimately, ok the man on the land stays there because they like living out back. but when they cant feed themselves let alone their families they have to call it quits and stop producing at a loss. the middle men dont lose a cent or a days sleep, they get their markup. every single govt levy is paid by the producer not the middle men or the supermarket or shoppers.