Climate Change
- Thread starter NedKelly
- Start date
How about an option, "I'm not convinced that global warming exists?"
I should clarify my position on this. I'm not entirely convinced that our planet is heating up, as opposed to going through a longer term cycle, although overall it probably is (I'm just not completely convinced).
I do believe that the human race polutes too much in a manner that is ulitmatley unsustainable.
The Carbon Tax will help a little, but unless the rest of the world chips in with something similar, the difference will be negligable.
I'd like to see the tax imposed on a larger range of businesses but I'm in no way satisfied with the compensation arrangements. The compensation is being set up in such a way that it won't really encourage most people to change their habits, thus resulting in less polution.
If you want to reduce energy consuption, a substantially more radical approach will need to be implemented on a much larger scale.
Take a look at what you plug into the wall in your home. Most electical goods have a transformer in them. The exceptions tend to be larger whitegoods (fridge, oven, washing machine).
Most of our appliances run on 10 volt, 1.5 Amp yet our outlets are all 240 volt 10 Amp. Our requirements are 150 Watts or less, yet the delivery is 2400 Watts. Get get 16 times more power delivered than is requried. Even lighting is now down to 7 Watts from 100 Watts.
A lot of the excess power is simply wasted as heat in the transformer in almost every electrical system we use.
The easiest way to use less power is to install lower power outlets with a few high power outlets. We'd use less power and appliances would be lighter and cheaper (without needing a transformer).
The downsides would be the massive infrastructure changes and the fact that energy companies wouldn't need to charge as much and the goverment wouldn't have any taxes to collect.
On the other hand Australia would become the most energy efficient country in the world and almost all of our electrical needs could be met with renewable sources.
I should clarify my position on this. I'm not entirely convinced that our planet is heating up, as opposed to going through a longer term cycle, although overall it probably is (I'm just not completely convinced).
I do believe that the human race polutes too much in a manner that is ulitmatley unsustainable.
The Carbon Tax will help a little, but unless the rest of the world chips in with something similar, the difference will be negligable.
I'd like to see the tax imposed on a larger range of businesses but I'm in no way satisfied with the compensation arrangements. The compensation is being set up in such a way that it won't really encourage most people to change their habits, thus resulting in less polution.
If you want to reduce energy consuption, a substantially more radical approach will need to be implemented on a much larger scale.
Take a look at what you plug into the wall in your home. Most electical goods have a transformer in them. The exceptions tend to be larger whitegoods (fridge, oven, washing machine).
Most of our appliances run on 10 volt, 1.5 Amp yet our outlets are all 240 volt 10 Amp. Our requirements are 150 Watts or less, yet the delivery is 2400 Watts. Get get 16 times more power delivered than is requried. Even lighting is now down to 7 Watts from 100 Watts.
A lot of the excess power is simply wasted as heat in the transformer in almost every electrical system we use.
The easiest way to use less power is to install lower power outlets with a few high power outlets. We'd use less power and appliances would be lighter and cheaper (without needing a transformer).
The downsides would be the massive infrastructure changes and the fact that energy companies wouldn't need to charge as much and the goverment wouldn't have any taxes to collect.
On the other hand Australia would become the most energy efficient country in the world and almost all of our electrical needs could be met with renewable sources.
I don't believe that Gillard's tax will stop global warming but IMO the measures will bring some balance into the energy sector and we will benefit from a cleaner environment with hopefully less diseases, alergies etc.
I think most people these days would be skeptical of the actions of our government to tackle global warming because like me they are not convinced that it is caused by humans and it could be cyclical.
Most scientists would agree that average temperatures have slowly been creeping up and sea waters are rising. I would have thought that a lot of human generated heat escapes out to space. But who knows? perhaps it isn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIG7vt1ZPKE
I think most people these days would be skeptical of the actions of our government to tackle global warming because like me they are not convinced that it is caused by humans and it could be cyclical.
Most scientists would agree that average temperatures have slowly been creeping up and sea waters are rising. I would have thought that a lot of human generated heat escapes out to space. But who knows? perhaps it isn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIG7vt1ZPKE
This was debunked a while ago, the Kiribati islands have actually been shown to be growing:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...wing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html
Your electrical theory is just a bit shaky.
Just cause an outlet is rated for 2400w does not mean you use that much. The power used is whatever the device itself draws.
Running everything in low voltage as you suggest would result in even more inefficiency. The power loss from resistance is huge at such low voltages.
In copper alone we use about 1/2 what an house at 110v uses for the cabling just to deliver the same amount of current safely.
Then take into account the loss during transmission and that little transformer suddenly does not look so bad.
Personally I believe we are having an effect to worsen a natural warming cycle.
Gillards tax from what I understand is going to do little to effect the big overseas owned companies.
If they were serious about it they would be targeting our coal fired powerstations rather than giving them kickbacks.
Another reason people are cynical is because of the track record of this government, they have proven they cannot manage much smaller schemes, spend millions patching up their mismanagement.
This is totally out of our depth. The USA are struggling to stay afloat economically and here we are saving the world.
You need to reread that article. The article doesn't say that sea levels aren't rising, nor that the islands aren't affected by sea rising. What the authors discovered is that as sea levels rise the islands fringing coral reefs adapt and grow higher, additionally water washing across the islands as sea rises deposits sand, causing the island to 'rise' in height.
This is a natural example of a complex adaptive system, and is interesting from a scientific point of view, but doesn't change the scientific consensus that climate is changing, but does show that we still have a lot to learn about how the globe will respond.
As some one who works in modeling/simulation, I can say that I'm confident that the environment will eventually reach a equilibrium (complex adaptive systems genrally do that) and will counter act the effects of human interference. Of course, this might take several thousand years.....and the point of equilibrium might not be where we might want it to be...
Murphy
Mate, that's a dumb question. The carbon tax is not designed to "STOP" global warming.
Its designed to make large polluting companies pay for their pollution. In turn reducing carbon dioxide and helping to reduce man made global warming.
Do you Liberal guys actually think about things at all? Sorry, but i had to ask.
Its designed to make large polluting companies pay for their pollution. In turn reducing carbon dioxide and helping to reduce man made global warming.
Do you Liberal guys actually think about things at all? Sorry, but i had to ask.
Well I never thought I would hear it. Evand has admitted that the carbon tax was not designed to stop global warming. Since carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant it won't stop pollution either, can't you see that?
None of the poll options reflect the actual answer -
"Howard's/Rudd's/Gillard ETS provides an incentive to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and thereby reduce our future contribution to climate change."
"Stopping global warming" is not a realistic goal in our lifetimes.
"Howard's/Rudd's/Gillard ETS provides an incentive to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and thereby reduce our future contribution to climate change."
"Stopping global warming" is not a realistic goal in our lifetimes.
Yes, it's an amazing revelation that it doesn't do something that noone but it's detractors claimed it would.
Go stick your head in a bucket of it and report back.
Oh really? The way Gillard and all her party's warming alarmist are carrying on the who east coast will be flooded due to sea level rise if we don't pay the tax right now.
Your inability to see anything other than black and white is very clear.
Are you for real? Stop global warming? Stop pollution? How ill it do that? How can anything stop it? Please answer that? 
It will reduce pollution and stop the countries biggest polluters freely polluting with no limits.
The word 'stop' is way too stupid and simplistic and typical of the ridiculous people on the right wing call back stations for the Lib shock jocks.
Mate, you are just reinforcing the dumb stereotype of the people who are against the carbon tax and global warming but are too lazy and/or stupid to fully understand it.
Maybe you should re label your poll and delete the word 'stop'. Thats if you want it to have any credibility and fairness. Thats a big ask i know.
It will reduce pollution and stop the countries biggest polluters freely polluting with no limits.
The word 'stop' is way too stupid and simplistic and typical of the ridiculous people on the right wing call back stations for the Lib shock jocks.
Mate, you are just reinforcing the dumb stereotype of the people who are against the carbon tax and global warming but are too lazy and/or stupid to fully understand it.
Maybe you should re label your poll and delete the word 'stop'. Thats if you want it to have any credibility and fairness. Thats a big ask i know.
It is designed to distribute wealth. It does that well.
You try it with water first and see how polluting that is.
Are you for real? Stop global warming? Stop pollution? How ill it do that? How can anything stop it? Please answer that?
It will reduce pollution and stop the countries biggest polluters freely polluting with no limits.
The word 'stop' is way too stupid and simplistic and typical of the ridiculous people on the right wing call back stations for the Lib shock jocks.
Mate, you are just reinforcing the dumb stereotype of the people who are against the carbon tax and global warming but are too lazy and/or stupid to fully understand it.
Maybe you should re label your poll and delete the word 'stop'. Thats if you want it to have any credibility and fairness. Thats a big ask i know.
Do your own poll if you don't like this one. Or is it that you don't like the fact that nearly 95% have voted NO.
Similar threads
