The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon dioxide tax raises street temperature > Comments

Carbon dioxide tax raises street temperature : Comments

By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 31/3/2011

The carbon revolt is on the streets, along with our correspondent.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Ben, agreed - I think Labor and their media arm the ABC (ALPBC) have misread the situation completely and possibly do not realise they are insulting and p*ssing off half the country with their alarmist antics and continued denigrating of anyone who disagrees.

It might be all believers in the ABC and some of the media organizations, but you come across very few people out in everyday life who believe a word of the AGW spin.

Hey, I don't mind them playing it this way, suits me.

I am very amused at the arrogance of various ministers, ABC comperes and some of the science community at their hurt disbelief that they have told the people what to think, and the people have the temerity to continue to question the faith!

The Climate Circus going around the country are only preaching to the converted, no one is going along to be converted, Big Tim has given us a range of predictions over the years, none of which have eventuated .. hey, we know when we're being sold BS, as we're paying for it.

And the government has the hide to say the CC is independent!

Seriously do they really think we're that stupid.. oh, they do don't they.

It's not a good look for the government to be insulting taxpayers calling them extremists and deniers amongst other things - that's fine when they are bagging out the opposition, but they have gone too far and lost sight of what's going on in their panic to "do something"
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 31 March 2011 8:53:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The writer appears to be proud of his critical thinking prowess “people on my side are more willing to serve our PM critical-thinking questions”, yet writes an article devoid of any evidence of such thinking. The killer question posed is only stunning in its obvious shortcomings. It is not enough to ask “By how much will your carbon dioxide tax reduce Australia's temperature”. You also need to ask “If we carry on carbon dioxide emissions under a business as usual scenario how much will temperatures rise?”. The stated objective at Copenhagen was about taking action to limit future temperature increases not securing an immediate reduction.
Then the writer states “As we know, there is no global warming”. A bold statement for which no evidence is offered and which is contrary to the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion. If you disagree with this statement then provide details of just one reputable body of scientists who support your contention and while you are at it list all those reputable scientific bodies that disagree with you.
Come on – the level of debate needs to be raised above having emotional rants.
Posted by Rich2, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:35:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although it is difficult to judge popular feelings from demonstrations, there is little doubt that the carbon tax has aroused voters - and traditional labor voters at that.

This opposition has been given further imputus by most voters suspecting, with good reason, that this tax will simply have no effect. Without an stringent, enforceable international agreement on limiting emissions - which is never going to happen - the most it would do is export Australia's emissions to other countries.

These points are obvious to the bulk of voters, it seems, but not to activists and the labor government. Activists, however, have proved particularly inventive with excuses/reasons for this tax, claiming that we need to show leadership (who would follow us on such an idiotic policy?) and that emission intensive industries can be compensated (this violates various international trade treaty obligations).

It is difficult to believe the Federal Govenrment is serious with this policy, but then stupider things have been done in the name of ideology - I think.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 31 March 2011 10:20:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Terpstra protests against a carbon tax apparently because he doesn't 'believe' in global warming. As Rich2 points out, Terpstra offers no evidence for this 'belief'. I, as a scientist, am always astounded that anyone can profess 'beliefs' in relation to such complex scientific matters. I do of course understand the main reasons - they cannot see the evidence of climate change for themselves and they can see that there are many other sceptics who use arguments of a scientific nature. But neither reason ought to be adequate to pit oneself against what must surely be recognisable as the bulk of scientific wisdom. Just pick any representative body that looks like it has some air of scientific authority about it and see what it has to say. As for personally being able to feel the evidence for climate change, no-one can. A small trend of a fraction of a degree per annum superimposed on the usual wild fluctuations of the weather is simply not discernible to the individual observer. Finally, I challenge any sceptic to raise a credible argument against the theory, based on 140 year old physics, that an increasing level of any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere would influence climate.

Having said that, I will perhaps surprise Terpstra by agreeing that there should not be a carbon tax. The reason is simple. Without global agreement, Australia's actions are totally irrelevant as we produce only about 2% of global emissions. And I do not 'believe' (here it is legitimate to hold a belief) that there will global agreement for a very long time, so long as China, India and the like are catching up to our living standards.

So there is no need whatsoever to be a climate sceptic in order to oppose a carbon tax. There is another perfectly logical reason that does not require silly science to back it up.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 31 March 2011 10:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is an hypothesis put forward by the warmists.

It is up to the warmists to prove that the hypothesis holds in the real world.

No scientific paper has yet been published that unambiguously invalidates the null hypothesis of a natural origin for observed modern climate change, despite about US$100 billion (US$79 billion in the US alone) having been spent since 1990 and the intense efforts of many scientists to find evidence that favours dangerous AGW.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:08:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee.
You state that people "cannot see the evidence of climate change for themselves". I suggest that a lot of people can see evidence of climate change whether it be a nagging feeling that there are a lot of extreme weather events happening or a sense that seasons are changing.
Your other comments about why you dont support a carbon tax are also problematic. Apart from a certain moral bankruptcy to suggest that other countries should do something about carbon dioxide but not Australia because we are small there are other problems with this thinking. The main one would be to question how it can be in Australia's self interest to ignore a major trend in power generation that is still in its infancy and will sweep the world at some point. Generally this is not an approach that makes sense in business. There is also an implication that other countries are doing less than Australia - something that it is easy to prove is not the case for most countries and especially not true for China. A couple of other thoughts. Firstly how can a country or a person seek to persuade others to do something they are not prepared to do. And secondly what is it that is so wonderful about coal and oil that we cant bear to give up? Various reports point out that the economic impact of transitioning to renewable energy is dwarfed by the economic impacts of dealing with the consequences of climate change.
Posted by Rich2, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:16:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tombee, as a scientists, you "assume" the author doesn't believe in global warming, and assume he doesn't believe the climate changes. That's the basis of your post on how silly people are not to go with overwhelming authority? Being a scientist, its astounding that you are confronted with people who offer no proof for what you assume .. fascinating.

What if he does believe, as we all do, that the climate changes?

What if he does agree, as we all do, that the world is warming?

You assume you know what is in people's minds?

The author explains, his problem is with a tax, that cannot be explained as a beneficial device, you even agree with that.

Yet you have not offered any sound evidence why you believe in AGW, or are you still stuck believing everyone who is skeptical doesn't believe the climate actually changes .. too busy reading from the alarmist material to understand what the skeptical side actually is?

"I, as a scientist, am always astounded that anyone can profess beliefs' in relation to such complex scientific matters", how courteous of you to condescend to posting in an opinion blog, we all are so much better off for your efforts, and you reinforce, very nicely the view of many skeptics that many on the alarmist side of the house, don't have a clue and just go with the flow.

Quick to find fault, without understanding the issue.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Well, sort of yes but probably could be.'

That's what I reckon people think of a carbon tax. I'm in favour of it as a general precautionary principle but I don't know if it's going to do any good.

First of all, very few people understand global warming and the link to Co2.

Second almost no one understands what a carbon tax is. It could be a charcoal tax for all people in the burbs know.

Third, the environmental movement's image has been seriously tarnished by people making extraordinary and unsupported claims about population (there will be more next week re release of the pop report), rising sea levels, food shortages, etc.

Admittedly the environmental movement is made up of a numberous single issue groups and this is nowhere more inevidence as they all rush to out do each other for media space. It makes for irrational commentary and people turn off.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:41:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Terpstra says
"people on my side are more willing to serve our PM critical-thinking questions."

For example, critical-thinking People like Chris Smith, of 2GB, who touted on behalf of the Consumers and Taxpayers Association (CATA), on March 21:

Chris Smith: From Sydney there are now 23 buses paid up in full with paid up passengers, paid up protesters ready to get to Canberra. 23 buses chockers...
we need to make this a message that they listen to, a message in their face on the lawn of Parliament House on March the 23rd...

— 2GB Sydney, The Chris Smith Afternoon Show, 14th March, 2011

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3169309.htm

Who are CATA? I couldn't find out from their website. What I found in a very brief, free ASIC search was:

"Registration Date 07/03/2011"
and "Principal Place of Business not available".

Did CATA pay for organising the 23 buses from Sydney to Canberra? At a ballpark estimate of 100 people per bus, that's about 2300 people, more than half of the 4000 members of what is looking more and more like a well-organised "rent-a-crowd", geed up by a loudmouth radio announcer.
What the Yanks call "AstroTurf"

How many Liberal supporters who saw Tony Abbot's performance think he showed good judgement? How many who heard his later apology thought it was up to the mark? I thought it was weak. Perhaps that's how he wanted it to sound.

There is so much I don't know, can only put a "perhaps" to. What I do know is that the weather changes from day to day, and place to place, on a daily basis and yearly cycle. Climate is a wider, more slowly changing pattern that changes over decades and centuries.

Ordinary folk like you and I are no more likely to sense a change in climate than we are to see one of the electrons lighting up our computer screen.

Pretending that neither electrons nor climate change exists is on a par.

http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?state_number=INC9894900&juris=2&hdtext=NSW&srchsrc=1

Registration Date 07/03/2011

Principal Place of Business not available
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:29:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, the reason very few people, [in fact none], understand the link between global warming, & CO2 is that there is none.

Not one of the thousands of so called scientists that have joined the gravy train has ever been able to come up with a link.

The fact that over 30,000 scientists, including 9,000PhD's partitioned the US congress arguing against the belief that CO2 was, or could be responsible for global warming is something that the media assiduously avoids mentioning.

I have not been able to find any convincing math attempting to prove the AGW theory, but can find quite a lot proving it can't happen.

While it is true that the conversion of carbon based fuels do produce some short term heat, during their conversion to CO2, that CO2 has so little resultant effect that even the thousands who have been paid taxpayer money to try to find proof of such a result, have all failed.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee
since when has the "the bulk of scientific wisdom" been a test for accepting a scientific proposition or not? In fact, it has not (or should not have) the slightest relevence to the debate.

The same could have been said of the Y2K bug or the proposition that stomache ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods. The collective widom got overturned by reality. If climate scientists think they actually know stuff then they need to prove this by providing forecasts that are accurate, and can be verified as accurate. Seasonal forecasts would be a good place to start but, unfortunately, the seasonal forecasts produced by the UK met office - to name buyt one body in the game - are known to be wrong more often that they are right.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Amicus for the compliment.

Fair statement too: “It might be all believers in the ABC and some of the media organizations, but you come across very few people out in everyday life who believe a word of the AGW spin.”

I’ve also noticed over the years that even Greens are very big on consuming, travelling, and partying (all high energy activities). The true believers don’t care about struggling families and never have (my guess). They can afford their opinions.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a…hypothesis put forward by the warmists. It is up to the warmists to prove that the hypothesis holds in the real world.”

I agree (author here). And they should lead and live by example.

That’s why they’re so in love with censoring people. Of course, if “independent” Tim Flannery of the green Toyota car advertisement is their best salesman, we win.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:26:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The fact that over 30,000 scientists, including 9,000PhD's partitioned the US congress arguing against the belief that CO2 was, or could be responsible for global warming is something that the media assiduously avoids mentioning.”

Author here: I take your main points. If one only watched the ABC one would think that every scientist sings from the same hymn book, when in fact millions of years of preindustrial climate changes prove otherwise. It’s sad that government-first reporters are so committed to supporting Julia that they ignore or attack questioners.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be fair, I think Julia Gillard has slowed down the introduction of a carbon tax for as long as she possibly could, presumably in the hope that events would kill it off without her having to lead her party in an embarrassing U-turn. It's just unfortunate that she has inherited this increasingly putrescent albatross of a policy. Hopefully it can still be averted without the frightening prospect of handing the reins to Mr Abbott.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 31 March 2011 4:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that there is no compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused any measurable global warming, it is disingenuous of the Government, the CSIRO, the BOM, the IPCC and all the other warmists to claim that dangerous AGW is real. The Govt and its advisers are using a false premise to promote the carbon tax .

There is no scientific or economic justification for the Govt to take action to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Nor is there any international treaty that binds the Govt to take action. Even if there were, the Govt should wait to see what action the USA, China and India would take.

It is grossly negligent of the Govt to propose the carbon tax, which would indirectly assist the installation of high-cost inefficient wind and solar renewable energy, but reduce the productivity of all other industries by raising their costs. By not comprehending this economic dysfunction, Professor Ross Garnaut by advocating a carbon tax is doing the national interest and his profession a GROSS DISSERVICE.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 31 March 2011 4:46:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' Tell me not, O infidel, there is no God, no heaven, no hell! Tell me not O infidel, there is no risen Christ!

What intelligence less than God’s could fashion the human body? What motive power is it, if not God, that drives those throbbing engines of the human heart, sending the crimson stream of life bounding through every vein and artery?

Whence and what, if not God, is this mystery we call “mind”? What is it that thinks, and feels, and plans, and acts? O, who can deny the divinity that stirs within us?

'God is everywhere and is in everything. His mystery is in every bud, and blossom, and leaf, and tree; in every rock, and hill, and mountain; in every spring, and rivulet, and river.

The rustle of his wings is in every zephyr; his might is in every tempest. He dwells in the dark pavilion of every storm cloud. The lightning is his messenger, and the thunder is his voice. His awful tread is in every earthquake and on every angry ocean. The heavens above us teem with his myriads of shining witnesses—the universe of solar systems whose wheeling orbs course the crystal dread halls of eternity, the glory and power and dominion of the all-wise, omnipotent, and eternal God' (Srygley 1949).

No wonder the earth worshippers faith looks so pathetically unscientific when comparing it with reality. Man made gw is faith of unbelievable magnitude. Throw out the truth and you are left with laughable pseudo science made of by men with blindfolds trying to impose their pathetically inept moral system on the masses because they have themselves rejected inner transformation possible by the Only Righteous One.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 31 March 2011 5:03:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon: You raise a good point. Science is not based on a show of U.N.-endorsed hands but must be tested and exposed to open debate. The greatest scientific breakthroughs were made by men who stood up against the so-called consensuses of their time. Of course the UN is a corrupt body, with a history of appeasing dictatorships and selling scare campaigns. The Met is also captive to groupthink.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 31 March 2011 5:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2
1. Your asking someone to prove AGW is not happening has the onus of proof back-to-front. The onus of proving the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve, is on those asserting it, not those waiting to see some real-world evidence.

2. To assume that something is true, and then look for evidence, any evidence, no matter how dubious or partial, is pretty much the OPPOSITE of scientific method.

Credulity and consensus are not the basis of scientific method.

You have got a hide expecting people to accept a hypothesis for no other reason than that the government says so - what kind of intellectual method is that?

Your starting point should not be credulity, it should be skepticism - the PROPER scientific attitude.

3. But supposing the globe is warming, and it's man-made ... so what? What are you saying would be the negative consequence of it? Please be as specific as you can, so we're not just left dealing with speculations of catastrophism. What exactly is the problem, IYO?

4. How have you taken into account the negative consequences of governmental action?

5. What real-world evidence do you have that we face catastrophic man-made global warming?

6. If you have no real-world evidence, please admit that you are wrong.

If you respond by
- assuming it
- reference to absent authority
- reliance on vested interests
- personal argument, including argument to the effect that you are so scientific, or that your opponents aren't
that amounts to admitting that you have no real-world evidence, and your belief in AGW is religious, not scientific
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am simply amazed that so many have missed the point entirely. The proposed Carbon Tax has nothing to do with attacking global warming, nor anything to do with supporting alternative sustainable energy development. It is just a crude tax grab to support socialist ideological wealth redistribution - "in support of lower and middle classes" - the looking after struggling families catch-call. (And with a hefty concurrent building up of bureaucracy - jobs!)
Nor would a carbon tax do anything to offset CO2 emissions, for Ms G is not proposing any significant dividends to alternative energy sectors - in fact the main money-shuffling is to reimburse intensive-energy-use industry to offset their higher costs. Pinch Peter to pay Paul - ludicrous!
The whole CPRS/ETS in the first place was for Mr Rudd to strut the world stage with the big boys, under the guise of pursuing "the greatest challenge of our times" - what a banner! What a farce!
Global warming is real - as evidenced by changes in glacial flows - and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the greenhouse effect is real. (Of course most are forgetting that nitrous oxide produced multifold in chemical manufacture is 300 times more greenhouse than CO2, and lingers infinitely longer in the stratosphere doing the dirty!)
No, the way to reduce CO2 is through massive change to electricity and chemical production - nuclear, bio, geo, solar, wind, wave, new tech whatever. The "Base Load" problem is a construct to protect our coal producers and established power generation - it can be overcome, as seen in some European solar facilities - magma.)
Best of luck, but we are being sold a pig in a poke!
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 1 April 2011 2:45:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everyone seems to overlook that Julia Gillard changed her mind about
the CO2 tax because she could only be PM if she introduced a carbon tax.
I don't think it is a tax grab as she wants to give it away to those
that get lumbered with increased electricity costs, which negates the
alleged reason for the tax.
That is surely the proof that the purpose is to keep her in the Lodge.

I find it hard to believe it will actually come into effect.
Something will happen inside the Labour Party to remove the tax.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 1 April 2011 7:10:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Considering that they are manufacturing most of our goods on our behalf, I wonder how much of our CO2 generation has been outsourced to China, and what the true local CO2 figure would be.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 1 April 2011 12:35:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I find it hard to believe it will actually come into effect.Something will happen inside the Labour Party to remove the tax.”

You could be right Bazz. In any case, the Liberal Party will remove the tax if elected.
Posted by BPT, Friday, 1 April 2011 1:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Considering that they are manufacturing most of our goods on our behalf, I wonder how much of our CO2 generation has been outsourced to China, and what the true local CO2 figure would be.”

Good point, although unlike Gillard I understand that CO2 is not pollution – it is essential to life.

But adopting Labor’s lie, it makes for an interesting discussion. In addition to all the coal plants they’re building in Red China, their treatment of workers is appalling, even in "green" industries.

By destroying jobs here they’re empowering dictators over there. Naturally, therefore, their so-called pollution reduction figures must be questioned.
Posted by BPT, Friday, 1 April 2011 1:39:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tiresomely to the point of stupidity, we continue to waste precious energy allowing every issue to become politically motivated .... arguing over how the deck chairs should be arranged instead of doing whatever it takes to avoid disaster.

"Carbon Tax or ETS" or "no carbon tax or ETS" that is NOT the question. A debate which does little more than delay action which arguably the vast majority of Parliament agrees is necessary.

What if as Chris Lewis reported on the March 24th speech of Lord Deben a former UK Secretary of State for the Environment, Britain’s carbon tax and EU have failed to reduce their true CO2 emissions in the period since 1990 they taxed Carbon?

If true, then labor may well be ignoring 20 year evidence that (dare I say it) Tony might just be right.

Regardless, much can be done without taxing the people.

In fact, to make everybody happy and as a "just in case they are right" action to avoid finding out in 2020 world climate change is irreversible, may I humbly suggest a drastic reduction of consumption and re-education of 8 million unemployed Australians rather than major importation of people, all of whom want to be just like us, incredible consumers, and thus ghg creators!

If as Lord Deben is reported to have said, “about one third China's carbon emissions in 2008 relate to the production of goods for export.”, then attributing the emissions to the producer and not the consumer is no more than a feel good (dare I say) smokescreen.

In the meantime we should also seek out practical ways of cutting emissions, BOTH CO2 and CH4, and focus on big business which looks to promote consumption and avoids “unnecessary” expense in providing for it.

For starters, how about a commitment to "no new generating licenses" for fossil fueled power stations, including existing stations, building renewables, wind, solar and, for the northwest, tidal to power the energy hungry ever expanding Iron Ore miners who could start now by electrifying their diesel driven railways.
Posted by Teddy Bear, Monday, 4 April 2011 3:25:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some good points, TeddyBear, but I wonder if our thoughts are falling on too many deaf ears, or those who will not see.

I'm satisfied Ms G is just wanting to make a good show about doing something, perhaps in a deal with The Greens on some unrelated issue (Super-Profits perhaps?), and she wants to make a spectacular splash.

After all, how much kudos is there in following the real science and simply investing in renewable and sustainable alternatives? And, she would have to go against Garnaut, after treating him as a god!

And, Garnaut has been pushing the same barrow for so long I wonder if he takes any notice of the school of economic thought that has determined that pushing renewables is the only path assuring positive reduction of emissions. I think he may be too proud of all the work he's done on this to now turn around a say he got it all wrong.

Ms G appears to be waving a magic wand of tax cuts alround, to gain support from the electorate (and make Tony Abbott look bad), but the house of cards relies on taxing carbon and taxing mining to do it.

I think taxing carbon is just an easy way out for Ms G, but, like the Insulation Infamy and the Education Escapade, this too will turn out to be a poisoned chalice, and Oz will be the one to suffer.

Meanwhile, China and Europe will continue on with sustainables, and we'll just be falling further behind, both in the science and in the fiscal capability to take truly effective action.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 12:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I think taxing carbon is just an easy way out for Ms G, but, like the Insulation Infamy and the Education Escapade, this too will turn out to be a poisoned chalice, and Oz will be the one to suffer.”

You make an important point Saltpetre. Why should voters trust Labor with the world if they can’t even provide pink batts without deaths?
Posted by BPT, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 1:01:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“A debate which does little more than delay action which arguably the vast majority of Parliament agrees is necessary.”

TB: Debates don’t delay action they save lives. If we had more debates on say the pink batts lives would have been saved.

Surrendering our nation to UN-serving bureaucrats is bad policy. For those genuinely concerned though, they can live in grass huts, and save all their fury for energy-hungry movie stars and Labor heads.
Posted by BPT, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 1:07:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the "Insight" program on this issue last night, I didn't catch anyone asking the vital questions:

1. "IF electricity producers will be able to pass on the increased production cost (under a carbon tax), HOW will that provide ANY incentive to invest in low emission or renewable technology??"
(Answer: WHAT?; a higher price will be sufficient to induce massive private equity investment in alternative energy development - with no guarantees, no subsidies, no tax-breaks?? Think again!)

2. "IF electricity-intensive industry is to be compensated for their higher costs, WHAT INCENTIVE DO THEY HAVE for investing in low emission or lower energy consumption alternatives??"

3. "WHY is the debate all about taxing electricity producers, AND THEN they start talking about increased petrol prices?? What's the correlation?? We are missing something!" "Isn't it time Ms G came clean with the Oz public, and revealed the full detail of this proposed tax, so that people can make a properly informed decision??"

4. "If European countries can mandate more energy-efficient standards on all new vehicles, WHY CAN'T WE do the same - on all new vehicles, home made or imported??"

5. "IF the objective is genuinely to reduce emissions (and not just a tax-grab as I have previously suggested), THEN the only effective mechanism must surely be the development of low emission technology - AND NOT, as Garnaut has suggested, for Oz consumers to reduce their consumption JUST BECAUSE IT WILL COST MORE!" "(AND, of course, this would mean that they could keep more of Ms G's handout!) Some would call this BRIBERY? (Or Blackmail?)

5. "INSTEAD of creating a whole mess of confusion and money-shuffling, WHY CAN"T our government just bite the bullet and i) SET EMISSION LIMIT TARGETS, and ii) INVEST in the development of RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES?? (including paying bounties to farmers who plant trees and/or embark on soil sequestration initiatives), AND iii) ADMIT that the budget has a fair few 'black holes', and PROMISE that any review of the tax system will only be along lines recommended by the Henry Tax Review and Depts of Treasury/Finance!"
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 1:46:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre: SBS is known for stacking shows with politically-correct guests so I’m not surprised to hear that certain questions weren’t asked.
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 3:25:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The present cost disadvantages of wind and solar energy generation relative to coal-fired electricity generation are so great that it will take probably generations before R&D can make them become cost competitive with coal-fired.

As there is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming, there is no urgency to reduce those emissions.(The climate modelling and assertions of the alarmist climate scientists do not qualify as science.)

Consequently, it makes a lot of scientific and economic sense for Australia to lag way behind China, Europe and the USA, and then to capitalise on those countries' technological breakthroughs in renewable energy, if and when they eventuate
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 4:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy