Carbon tax

[gooram]

this cuts to the guts of it hey? to achieve carbon emissions reductions we need to lower our living standards. so the people with the prados with carbon neutral stickers on the back may need to get real and actually sell the car and walk. which really sucks if you have just built your house in the boonies. and sucks even more because when you voted labor you thought it was just everyone else that would suffer

And so we should, we are all massive over consumers and our standard of living is completely unsustainable.

The only way to get through to people is via their hip pocket.

Do you notice the majority of people concerned about this tax are concerned about how this affects them personally.

 

[gooram]

The only thing to do now is wait for the Pollies to vote on the thing to see if it comes in on July '12 as per the package proposed in July '11. The changes and rangling and jockeying and backroom deals will be thick and heavy between now and when it comes in. Despite what Gillard bravely said yesterday, she has no authority whatsoever to introduce it and certainly no approval from the Australian people.


Then of course we just need to wait for the next Federal election to see if it stays in or gets turfed out....cos no Australian has had a say in any of this yet. Both major parties went to the last election promising not to introduce this toxic tax - for very good reason.


....I predict an absolute landslide victory for the Libs / Nats coalition and a thorough mandate to scrap the carbon Tax completely. Not change it, not modify it...scrap it completely. I also predict they will have no hesitation whatsoever in dissolving the Senate if the Greens get in their way.


This hung parliament has been disasterous for the nation. I'm thoroughly ashamed, and cannot wait to have my say on this Carbon Tax at the ballot box. Bring it on.

I think you forgot the inverted commas for all your Tony Abbot quotes.

 

[our obsession]

...and from Diana's 'murder' to Moon Landing 'Hoax' to Lord Monckton's 'lies and stupidity', the 'King of Skeptics':

The Believing Brain--Michael Shermer..

In June 2006, Shermer, who formerly expressed skepticism regarding the mainstream scientific view on global warming, wrote that, in view of the accumulation of evidence, the position of denying global warming is no longer tenable.

So we are left with the legacy of two types of thinking errors:

Type 1 Error: believing a falsehood and Type 2 Error: rejecting a truth. ...

Believers in UFOs, alien abductions, ESP, and psychic phenomena have committed a Type 1 Error in thinking: they are believing a falsehood. ... It's not that these folks are ignorant or uninformed; they are intelligent but misinformed. Their thinking has gone wrong.
— Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, 1997, 2002, Introduction

But don't let me or good evidence and peer reviewed science interfere with your Type 2 errors!

 

[Ausprop]

And so we should, we are all massive over consumers and our standard of living is completely unsustainable.

The only way to get through to people is via their hip pocket.

Do you notice the majority of people concerned about this tax are concerned about how this affects them personally.

isn't democracy based on a majority of individuals interests?

the first 2 paragraphs are value judgements entirely.

the tax may have merit if:

(a) global warming is proven to be true
(b) we can do something about it
(c) it was enforced by the UN on a global basis.

To some extent the greenest option would be mass national suicide. Is crazy but illustrates the point - whilst inflicting self harm may reduce carbon emissions it will have no bearing on global issues.

 

[lizzie]

Lizzie, it's a bit rich for someone receiving a subsidy equal to around $400/tonne for the solar panels on their roof to complain about a $23/tonne carbon price for the rest of us.

Just sayin' - in the nicest possible way!

that's okay - I'm not complaining on behalf of myself ... I just don't believe this is the best and fairest way for the country as a whole.

 

[Graingrower]

the tax may have merit if:

(a) global warming is proven to be true
(b) we can do something about it
(c) it was enforced by the UN on a global basis.

To some extent the greenest option would be mass national suicide. Is crazy but illustrates the point - whilst inflicting self harm may reduce carbon emissions it will have no bearing on global issues.

If (a) and (b) are true then doing (c) depends on whether the pain of change is greater or lesser than the pain of staying the same.

Pain of change A severe cut in CO2 emissions. Carbon tax much higher than $23/tonne. A shift to wind, solar, hydro, biofuel, nuclear. Less reliance on energy, travel less, stay at home more, smaller houses, shorter cooler showers, lights off, consumerism curtailed.

Pain of staying the same Sea levels rise, frozen land thaws, deserts become inhabitable, more rain in some places, less rain in others, some places too hot or dry to grow food, other places now warm or wet enough.

I think we will eventually do the pain of change as we run out of fossil fuel and the real unmanipulated market forces the most efficient result.

As for the effect of climate change, there seems to be two sides. One says, "we better stop this or we're all gonna die" and the other says "she'll be right"

 

[bluestorm]

Pain of staying the same Sea levels rise, frozen land thaws, deserts become inhabitable, more rain in some places, less rain in others, some places too hot or dry to grow food, other places now warm or wet enough.

How is this different to the world today, or in the past. The planet has changes throughout history. It's only now that people panic about it.

Only 6000 years ago, a large portion of the Sahara Desert used to be lush vegetation. Then Climate Change happened, and the Sahara Desert grew. It's also what lead to the rise (in the lush times), and ultimate fall of the Egyptian Empire.
Maybe all the Pyramid construction caused this climate change

Link - Climate change 6,000 years ago in Sahara desert explained

Sometime during the past 6,000 years, the southern boundary of the Sahara desert moved 500 kilometers south, making the desert a much larger portion of northern Africa. The Sahara, the largest desert in the world, covers all of North Africa, from the Atlantic coast to the Red Sea. The "newly" arid area was once covered by lush green grasses and trees and was home to elephants, giraffes and other large wildlife.

Must be CO2 pollution. I mean, if this was to happen in the current day it would be blamed on CO2. The Ancient Egyptians caused Climate Change.
We are not talking millions of years here, but a space of a couple of decades where there was LARGE climate change.

Eltahir's models suggest that the erosion of that 500 kilometer swath of land from arable to arid was likely to have been sudden, occurring over decades and years, rather than a slow evolution over centuries.

But keep panicking about your Global Warming you lemmings. Do some research.

 

[Intrinsic_Value]

That was just to play catch up for the previous decade when prices hardly moved at all. It obviously had nothing to do with carbon did it? And we still get dirty old coal to boot - another step and we get a far cleaner wind / gas hybrid solution reflecting the century we live in.

Lizzie, it's a bit rich for someone receiving a subsidy equal to around $400/tonne for the solar panels on their roof to complain about a $23/tonne carbon price for the rest of us.

Just sayin' - in the nicest possible way!

The reason electricity costs are going up so rapidly is because australia hasnt been efficiently increasing its electricity supplies. The country has grown, yet efficient supply hasnt increased significantly.

In regards to solar panels and its cost, well whose fault is that. That was more pandering to the green wishes at the time. And again how efficient was this system????

In the future australia is going to look back at this whole carbon tax in a similar light.

For australia, our most efficient way of producing energy is coal and gas, this is what we should be focussing on.

But the electorate has to learn this the hard way.

 

[bluestorm]

Pain of staying the same Sea levels rise, frozen land thaws, deserts become inhabitable, more rain in some places, less rain in others, some places too hot or dry to grow food, other places now warm or wet enough.

And here is another one from NASA themselves you Watermelon.
NASA - Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today

Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago.

So in the space of 100,000yrs the sea level range has been 126 metres!!!
And 120m lower at the last ice age, so it's risen 120m before ANY human CO2 burning. Even 1m is a fraction of the 120m it's risen the past 20000yrs.
And guess what, it was also 4-6mtrs higher than it is today, and the world is still here!

Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today.

Man, that's from NASA themselves. Do some research people. The "Global Warming" panic is laughable.

A fourth interval of rapid sea level rise 8200-7600 years ago was first identified by a hiatus in coral growth in the Caribbean about 7600 years ago.
But it only produced about 1 meter of global sea level rise, assuming an even spread of this volume spread across the world's oceans.

Hey, maybe the Cave dwellers 8000 years ago caused this 1 metre rise in sea levels (burning all those fires to cook meat). The "Global Warming" hysteric is insanity. Complete insanity.
Do your own research people. Yes, even from people like NASA!!!, not crackpot skeptic sites.

 

[HiEquity]

Do your own research people. Yes, even from people like NASA!!!, not crackpot skeptic sites.

Bluestorm

I'm confused. Are you saying:

A) Because we know that when atmospheric CO2 levels rose and fell naturally in the past, over periods of tens of thousands of years, and sea levels rose and fell by a prodigious amount in sync, that the same type of thing won't happen as we change CO2 levels ourselves, except this time over the space of a couple of hundred years?

OR

B) You don't mind the fact that sea level rises can cause tremendous damage to modern infrastructure and communities, because the earth has seen it before it will get through it again fine this time.


If A) is correct then I would like to see your evidence as to why the same thing wouldn't happen again. If B) then personally I should say that while I have no real concern for the earth (per se) myself, I'm a bit more concerned for the inhabitants of it in such a scenario? Hard to imagine we would want to impose such a situation on ourselves, tens of thousands of years before nature may get around to imposing it on us anyway?

 

[bluestorm]

Bluestorm

I'm confused. Are you saying:

A) Because we know that when atmospheric CO2 levels rose and fell naturally in the past, over periods of tens of thousands of years, and sea levels rose and fell by a prodigious amount in sync, that the same type of thing won't happen as we change CO2 levels ourselves, except this time over the space of a couple of hundred years?

As I've said before, CO2 levels FOLLOW temperate rises (as a lag effect), they are not the cause of it. Therefore the whole Carbon Tax is bogus. CO2 has risen since 2000, global warming has stopped.

Anyway, I'll let you people panic all you want. I can 100% guarantee you that by 2018-2020 you'll be seeing the Global Cooling trend very evidently.

It's the holy grail of governments. Make people want to pay tax. The Carbon Tax is the holy grail. I've never see people so excited about paying more tax (indirectly)

 

[Aaron_C]

I'm not surprised at this crappy policy. Bunch of latte drinking university students who never had to earn a dime in their lives trying to dictate policy.

It's laughable how everyone is drinking this Kool-Aid down. Hopefully everyone sobers up in time for 2013 and vote this dangerous coalition out of office

 

[bluestorm]

It's laughable how everyone is drinking this Kool-Aid down. Hopefully everyone sobers up in time for 2013 and vote this dangerous coalition out of office

The problem is it won't matter. The Greens have control of the Senate, so even after the next election they will likely have control until the following election after than given senators generally sit for 6 years. Abbott would have to force a double dissolution. Otherwise Liberals would be held ransom to the Greens in Senate as well.
My guess is that by 2013 the public will be so fed up with Labor and the Greens that were Abbott to force a double dissolution on some legislation, then the public would be in favor.

 

[Aaron_C]

That is what I'm afraid of too. But I think the public backlash against this is going to be huge. Unlike Howard, Gillard never had the mandate of the public and I know that Tony Abbott is no Kim Beazley - he will fight this tooth and nail!

 

[Ausprop]

it seems to be part of the natural ebb and flow of this country across the ages. things go exceedingly well and then we feel guilty about our success so vote in "the fair guys that look after the bogans and the environment". then sure enough everything gets taxed to the hilt and stuffed up and the country is brought to its knees. Then comes the long years of pain and finally recovery.

 

[StefanA]

So by how many years has Puyehue, Pinatubo, and all the subaquatic volcanic activity brought forward our ultimate demise?

If global warming is so serious, then why haven't our wise masters capped Australia's population and introduced a one child policy? Come on, GW alarmists are trying to sell us the end of world as we know it. Surely, our socialist masters, knowing the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, realize reducing the world's population and living standard is the ONLY viable way to save the selected asses of the chosen few over the next 200 years.

That they don't dare talk about such solutions confirms they don't believe their own hysterical hyperbole.

 

[NedKelly]

Anyway, I'll let you people panic all you want. I can 100% guarantee you that by 2018-2020 you'll be seeing the Global Cooling trend very evidently.

It's the holy grail of governments. Make people want to pay tax. The Carbon Tax is the holy grail. I've never see people so excited about paying more tax (indirectly)

This is what worries me. When this happens and temperatures start to drop through the natural cycle we will be getting all the pollies saying how wonderful they were to introduce the tax and save the planet.

 

[bluestorm]

This is what worries me. When this happens and temperatures start to drop through the natural cycle we will be getting all the pollies saying how wonderful they were to introduce the tax and save the planet.

Yeah, that is exactly what will happen. Carbon Tax in 2012. The world Global Cooling which has already started, will really begin to show up in the trends in 2018-2020. The lemmings will see Gillard as some kind of messiah who saved the planet.
Don't forget just the volcano's on the surface, but literally thousands of sub-sea active volcano's as well. And the world is generally more active now anyway.
What what can you do. "Global Warming" is like any religion. The devotees will never be convinced. Just understand what is happening, and let the poorer people eventually feel the financial pain that they wanted inflicted on them.

 

[shiftyphil]

My guess is that by 2013 the public will be so fed up with Labor and the Greens that were Abbott to force a double dissolution on some legislation, then the public would be in favor.

There won't be a DD until 2015 unless the government changes early.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...uble-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html

 

[StefanA]

It's very difficult to quantify the real benefits of R&D until decades later, if then. But it still needs to be done if we are to make any breakthroughs... the huge reductions in price we have seen wind and solar technologies make, to take two examples, in recent years are all the result of government support somewhere in the world, in some shape or form. Left just to the private sector nothing would have happened.

So who are to be the recipients of the $10B? When universities fight over the tax peanuts thrown at the ARC, many of our PhD's head overseas, and CSIRO has had its funding slashed time and again by Labor, who exactly do the Left think are going to make the breakthrough discoveries into nuclear fusion or whatever?

By your argument, the USA should keep developing weapons and funding NASA, rather then fund Medicare, increase welfare, or increase employment, because of the 'you never know' possibility of discovering a 4th law of thermodynamics.