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 > Meeting the carbon challenge? The place of your house in the city > Comments

Meeting the carbon challenge? The place of your house in the city : Comments

By Juris Geste, published 25/7/2008

Expecting to meet the carbon challenge without adjusting our cities is like telling your doctor you want a lung cancer cure without giving up smoking!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I wonder who I'll be able to sue for compensation in the coming years after the Labor party introduces the carbon tax?

Al Gore? Kevin Rudd? The Labor Party?

Basically the carbon tax is nothing but a swindle, where the average Australian will pay to make the rich, richer.

this is not to say we should not take steps to reduce pollution, when Western governments introduced laws to reduce pollution, manufacturing just moved off shore to countries that did not have laws against pollution.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 25 July 2008 8:48:39 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
Its nice to have a few dreamers about but this is what this article is--only a dream.
Posted by Sniggid, Friday, 25 July 2008 10:10:59 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
My suburb was planned in the 1970s. Nothing new in the ideals the author states. They are the obvious and all embraced in my suburd.

One thing, I work as a business consultant. A job role which cannot be supported by the industry in my local area, I wish it could.

Despite the bus and the train station I to wherever I need to get to, usually at least 50k round trip.

“Expecting to meet the carbon challenge without adjusting our cities is like telling your doctor you want a lung cancer cure without giving up smoking! And exempting petrol from the ETS is equivalent to loosening your belt to deal with obesity.”

I would like to know exactly what else I can “adjust” to meet the “carbon challenge”, my suburb complying already with the authors list of ideals “tests”.

But before anyone tells me I have to change, I want to know why?

What proof that the shenanigans of "Australian" carbon tax will actually produce any "Global" benefit?

All I know is carbon taxation is going to be used for increasing the cost of services and products I but through artificial means to meet some mythical notion of politicians.

It is Socialism by Stealth.

It is not designed to raise taxes needed to meet the legitimate needs of government.

It is a deliberate attempt by government to reduce the consumption choices, through increasing prices to the electorate.

Governments are not elected to curb the choices of their electorate, they are elected to reflect the will and best interests of the electorate.

Before installing this carbon tax, this government needs to consider

Do they have proof of the dangers of carbon emission and

Do they have proof of the benefits to be derived from the curtailment of carbon emissions.

If they lack that proof, they are leading the electorate into an impossible and illegitimate position.

And what happens “globally” without India or Chinas support?

The only consequence of a carbon tax will be monetary INFLATION and we will have Krudd and Co to blame for -

Socialism by Stealth
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 25 July 2008 10:52:30 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
It's all very well to move into a tree-lined street but the predations of council workers armed with chainsaws mindlessly trimming up shrubs, or Optus cable maintainers chopping the crown out of mature trees to protect their precious cable as well as electricity linesmen have actually degraded the urban streetscape in my neighbourhood.

We have a long way to go to reduce our reliance on private cars for daily living.

That said it must be imperative for new houses to be aligned so they are solar passive as well as installing solar panels on the northern roofline and the 200 litre water tank.

If people were encouraged to install solar panels on northern rooves that aren't overshadowed so they can feed excess power back into the grid this would reduce the growth in domestic electricity usage.
Posted by billie, Friday, 25 July 2008 12:07:41 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
The ice cores taken back in 2003 have revealed that CO2 follows temp increases by some 800 yrs.They thought that the reverse was true and even Dr David Evans who was 90% sure in 1999 is only 20% certain that CO2 is the culprit or that even GW is actually occurring.
see; http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvanswager.html

The more I read about AGW,the less I believe in it.With $50 billion now given to science for research,the theory now has a lot of political momentum.Already the Rudd Govt is hedging it's bets.They are now calling it carbon pollution and thus at a convienent time the word "carbon" will be dropped.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 July 2008 12:25:22 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
David Evans has been oft quoted here as a basis for argument on climate change. However as UNSW Professor Andy Pitman explained in a reply on 2gb on 23/7, his assertions and assumptions are as incorrect as those provide on the GGWS (Check CSIRO). So please do not rely on another sceptic to provide the true science.
Posted by sillyfilly, Friday, 25 July 2008 2:05:43 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
So according to sillyfilly{good name}Dr David Evans who worked for The Australian Govt for 6yrs studying C02 is a liar and is frabricating this evidence?There is nothng wrong with being a sceptic.All good scientists should be sceptics.

In the realm of improbability believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you hear.Co2 in a minor GW gas.Temps have fallen with the expodential increase if CO2 by India/China.The ice cores reveal that CO2 comes 800yrs after heating.Christopher Scotese made this observation decades ago from studying fossils.The computer models used by the IPCC cannot possibily cope with the millions of factors that affect climate.They are not even aware of all the variables or how they inter-act.Garbage in and garbage out.So Prof Bob Carter and thousands of all the other sceptical scientists are wrong?Most Scientists are too scared to utter a peep for fear of losing funding.They've never had it so good!The alarmist rubbish coming out of the CSIRO bares witness to this reality.Dr Evans was once a 90% true believer,he is now only 20% sure.

Both the Political System and the scientists cannot afford for this AGW industry to fail.There is too much money and reputations at stake.They will maintain the charade and slowy metamorphose into a general anti-pollution body,while leading a trail of unnecessary economic/human devastation in their wake.

There is one way to find out.Let all the scientists who are 90% sure put up $100,000.00 of their own money on a bet that CO2 causes AGW.That is my challenge.They can put their own money up for grabs instead of ours.Then I will be less sceptical.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 July 2008 3:53:44 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
It doesn't matter to me if you are a skeptic or not of GW. IMHO it just makes sense that we have to, as the human race, stop plundering the earth to obtain fuel. Eventually it will run out.

Why isn't there more government grants to advance the research into renewable energy like solar, inertia and wave technology? And have a look at possibly Natural Gas as an interim fuel. It disturbs me that the new government axed the $5 million grant for the Fuel Saver in Ballina NSW then gave Toyota $35 million for what reason I don't really know.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23892705-2702,00.html
If we want to get with the program we will need a far better system than the carbon tax system which seems to be just another confusing tax on the people and has left the main players/ polluters out.

For instance, instead of a luxury car tax why not be daring and use a fuel consumption duty on new cars, it would be easier for one and might convince the population that Australia is serious about breaking the fossil fuel dependence we have grown up with.
Posted by speakup, Friday, 25 July 2008 5:01:51 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
Has anyone heard of the IPCC? Not one guy's opininon but 100s of scientists in fields actually related to climate change. The latest report is pretty definite - "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

No one knows for sure what the long term effects will be - but how much is going to cost us in the long run if they're right. Pay a bit now or a lot later...
Posted by stuartw, Friday, 25 July 2008 5:42:04 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
Why is everyone focused on global warming?

Surly the increase cost of our rapidly dwindling energy supplies will solve the problem in two ways;

First, energy cost will decrease demand

Second, higher energy cost will , at last make re-new-ables far more attractive, unless govt like ours allow personal use of energy to be compensated for by regulation.

A laugh that one, put up the energy cost, and then makes a system to negate the effect.

Why don’t we have a discussion about where we are going to get energy from , in the case of liquid energy, it appears it will not be long before demand exceeds supply by a large amount.
Posted by dunart, Saturday, 26 July 2008 1:01:51 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
“Expecting to meet the carbon challenge without adjusting our cities is like telling your doctor you want a lung cancer cure without giving up smoking! And exempting petrol from the ETS is equivalent to loosening your belt to deal with obesity.”

I very much doubt you would agree to “adjusting our cities” since it would impact on your perceived inalienable right to pollute to accommodate your lifestyle of choice and to hell with the rest of the planet.

"But before anyone tells me I have to change, I want to know why?

Because of Global Warming Col, Global Warming."

"It is a deliberate attempt by government to reduce the consumption choices, through increasing prices to the electorate."

Got it in one. Well done, you passed Global Warming 101

"Governments are not elected to curb the choices of their electorate, they are elected to reflect the will and best interests of the electorate."

The government, to my best recollection, recently got elected with a substantial majority and MANDATE.

"Do they have proof of the dangers of carbon emission and do they have proof of the benefits to be derived from the curtailment of carbon emissions?"

No, the best that the have to go with a very strong hypothesis, agreed on by a large number of scientists and disagreed by others, like you Col. It's a free country.

"If they lack that proof, they are leading the electorate into an impossible and illegitimate position."

So you want your side of the argument to be exempt from the onus of proof? Hardly cricket Col.

"And what happens “globally” without India or China's support?"

You, me, India and China are pretty well stuffed, Col. What do you suggest? We all hold hands while we do nothing and walk over the cliff together?

"It’s Socialism by stealth."

Col, anything that prevents you from doing what you want to do is Socialism, including probably keeping to the left hand side of the road.
Posted by thylacine, Saturday, 26 July 2008 6:28:03 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
This is where people like thylacine and Prof Andy Pitman just don't get it.They argue from the premise of fait accompli;AGW is happening and it is caused by burning fossil fuels resulting in CO2 pollution.Well the new evidence does not support the theory that this is happening.Do we have a a logic or comprehension problem here?

There is no emperical scientific evidence the CO2 is the main culprit.CO2 is a minor green house gas.Water vapour and nitrogen have a much greater influence.Computer models used by the IPCC to arrive at their conclusions are totally inadaquate.World temps have fallen since 2001 by 0.6 deg C while CO2 has grown expodentially.The ice cores reveal that cause and effect run in reverse.CO2 follows temps increases by 800 yrs.NASA's 3000 robots reveal that the ocean temps have fallen.The Antartic ice has remained the same in surface area since 1980.The IPCC is and arm of the UN which is using this fear to extend their power.Many scientists are fraid to speak out for fear of losing their funding.We are not hearing from the sceptical scientists since this does not make for scary media headlines.The great body of scientists who support this theory are so locked in monetarily/reputation wise,that they have no choice but to maintain the charade.Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are looking like the emperors without clothes.

I shall correct a favourite statement of mine:In the realm of improbability,believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you see.

Politics/populist fear mongering media have now stolen the debate and the facts and logic are running a poor second.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 26 July 2008 11:42:38 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
I am sure it must be obvious now to anyone that this whole New Parasite Religious Mantra of The Global Warming, is a scam, and is also the greatest purge on society ; it has well and truly overtaken the murderous and Idiocy of Communism – and its syntheses of Socialism.
I think Penny Wong had let the cat out of the bag with her droll and lifeless voice when she proclaims it as a Part of the New World Order; or in a language everyone can understand – Parasites gorging, and Self Imposed Barons high up on the Grand Pyramid of Freudian paradigm created Ponzy scheme, eating away at your sovereignty; organized theft of any wealth you may have.

You must realise the winds of change in doctrine; a PhD in History had meant Post Honours degree, - Now days it represents Post Hock Drivel – headed by the Freudian Paradigm Parasites;

OO Many thought Governments were for the people. But are now the democratically elected destroyers of the people.

Makes me feel good that we can elect our assassin?
Posted by All-, Sunday, 27 July 2008 9:18:09 AM
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
You are right All.Penny Wong did say that we would have to adjust to the new world order.[Interviewed by Barrie Cassidy on the 13/7/08.]This means being subjugated by the UN.I never thought that they would be so brazen about their intentions.

This new carbon tax is open to rorting.It is unmeasureable and nebulous.As Dr Evans said "You just make stuff up.It is like angels dancing on the head of a pin."People and aninmals breathe out CO2.

Cows produce 25% of world's so called GW gases in the form of methane.What are they going to tax and by how much? Will they put a tax on breathing or on the meat we eat beacuse of methane.Be rest assured,those like Al Gore at the top of the food chain will make a fortune out of our misery.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 27 July 2008 10:15:16 AM
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
Thylacine – love your work.

You will be interested, if not aware already, in the latest Ockham’s Razor, presented by Ian Dunlop, former Head of the Australian Institute of Directors and now Deputy Convenor of the Australian Association for the study of Peak Oil.

Extract below:

“We face major changes to our lifestyle. It is not just high oil prices and global warming but the very question of the sustainability of humanity on the planet as population rises from 6.-1/2-billion people today to 9-billion in 2050, all aspiring to an improved quality of life. New technology will undoubtedly come to our aid but that will not be enough; our values must also change. Conventional economic growth in the developed world will have to be set aside in favour of a steady-state economy where the emphasis is on non-consumption and the quality of life rather than the quantity of things.

There will be far more focus on local food production, opening up new opportunities for rural areas; cities will be redesigned using high-density sustainability principles to avoid urban sprawl, and properly integrated with public transport to minimise energy consumption. Work centres will be decentralised. Rail, powered by renewable energy, will become a major transport mode for both freight and high-speed passenger traffic. Air travel will reduce unless new technology develops jet fuel from, for example, bio sources, and even then emission constraints may limit its use. The internal combustion engine will disappear in favour of electric vehicles for many applications. Cycling and walking will become major activities for both work and pleasure - obesity and diabetes will decline!

The challenge is enormous, but it is the greatest opportunity we have ever had to place the world on a sustainable footing, for what we are doing currently is not sustainable. We must not waste this opportunity, but it needs far bolder and broader thinking than we are seeing at present.”

Full program at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2313512.htm#transcript

To those who hold an open mind - well worth a listen.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 27 July 2008 10:25:17 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
If you come to understand its entirety the thoughts and reasons that become Occams Razor; (Only taken 4 years to re introduce it); and it is out of context; then you would be quite familiar with a word; Solipsism;
You only seem to apply the theology to Cosmopolitan existence and forget the greater expanse of this continent;
Then consider the political and Bureaucratic incompetence, perhaps more criminal intent than thoughtless incompetence than anything else; then you will appreciate what are the defining attributes of Occas Razor; and the technical attributes of the terminology of Solipsism.

Perhaps if you could for a moment understand what constitutes science?
An E book; Volume 5 REASON IN SCIENCE
Volume Five of "The Life of Reason"
GEORGE SANTAYANA

And if you enjoy reading; "The Structure of Scientific Revolution”; by Thomas S Kuhn will teach you how Philosophical corruption has be construed as scientific inclusionment. A new word; this word you will come to know; "Paradigm shift".

1+1=9 and Labour party pseudo accounting techniques.
Then you will know with out doubt or any ambiguity, we are being lied to.

The main question that every single soul needs to ask themselves is Why?
Posted by All-, Sunday, 27 July 2008 11:05:38 AM
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
thylacine “agreed on by a large number of scientists and disagreed by others, like you Col. It's a free country.”

However, we will not be free to contract out of the carbon tax rort.

AGW / carbon taxes is disagreed with by a large number of other scientists, business leaders and most importantly, electors and a represents patent case of a government going beyond its authority by imposing taxes which are not needed to fund the necessary work of government.

“Col, anything that prevents you from doing what you want to do is Socialism, including probably keeping to the left hand side of the road.”

Not at all. I have consistently supported the need for government, acting as a regulator.

However, how I and even you decide to spend our discretionary income is not the necessary work or interest of government.

Such designs on social control is the work of economic despots.

However, thylacine, your simplistic pronouncements and attempts at talking down to us are typical what one would expect from something which has achieved extinction (if only we could say that with all the socialist swill).

All “it has well and truly overtaken the murderous and Idiocy of Communism – and its syntheses of Socialism.”

I would agree there.

Socialism by Stealth, removing the purchasing opportunities of the able to fund the mythical carbon needs and costs of the mediocre,

Typical socialism and as Lenin said

“the goal of Socialism is Communism”

You will note here on this post we see a couple of “Lenin’s Useful Idiots” defending the corrupt and indefensible.

Anyone with an open mind is challenging this attempt at individual oppression.

Krudd is a one-term prime minister. Another 2 ½ years of this swill and he will be higher on the nose than a dead whale, left out to rot for three week.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 27 July 2008 6:57:16 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
Love some of this guff, particularly references to Prof Andy Pitman. Pitman agrees with the science associated with ice-core research, he also agrees with natural climate variation due to sunspots, our orbit as well as historical data on global warming and ice age periods. None of this changes the fact that human induced global warming is happening in spite of any of these natural impacts. For example, we hear of the last decade being in a cooling period, this is a relevant fact and according to science will occur every 40-50 years. Hence we have the same temperature cooling in the early 20th century, again in the 1940's and the past decade. There is no dispute for this evidence but it is also undeniable that the overall trend for the last hundred years is historically significant and upwards. Many bloogers here seem to think that there is some sort of idealogical nonsense at work, it's a pity that they let their idealogy interfere with their intelligence.
Posted by sillyfilly, Monday, 28 July 2008 2:08:02 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
Sillyfilly,it seems that the AGW Cult are again shifting the goal posts.100 yrs is a very short period of time to assess anything to do with climate.Only since WW2 has the industrial revolution really taken off.The last 50 yrs should be showing real results and it hasn't,particularily with India and China adding huge amounts of CO2 in the last 10 yrs.

Bob Carter has photographic evidence in the US of hundreds of thermometers being relocated near air conditioning units,on bitumin,near buildings and concrete.They have shown scant regard for the heat island effect and this is distorting data.

If the alarmists had not carried on fools,reasonable people would have listened.Forget about computer models.We need old fashioned empirical science,whereby theories are tested by experiment and observation that leave no doubts in anyone's mind.So let's do more research and get the facts right before jumping to conclusions.In the meanwhile ,we should all remain very sceptical.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 1:28:54 AM
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
Make it easy on yourself and visit http://www.thegreenroad.com.au/ .

They'll offset the greenhouse gases from your car trips for free, and then you've done your bit for the environment, painlessly and without hurting the wallet either.
Posted by johnsamuels7484, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 9:38:17 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. All

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