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 > The economic case for slashing carbon emissions > Comments

The economic case for slashing carbon emissions : Comments

By Frank Ackerman, published 30/10/2009

A group of economists maintain that striving to meet a target of 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is a smart investment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Tom Tiddler, there are many natural sources of CO2, including breathing by the world's animals. These were balanced by the natural absorption by plants, the oceans, etc. The problem is with the extra emissions from our fossil fuels, and from disturbing crop lands and forests. These are only partially balanced.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Saturday, 31 October 2009 9:11:01 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
No matter how it is packaged, there is no economic case for slashing carbon emissions, and neither is there any need whatever to pursue this foolish notion. Like it or not, all life on Earth depends on carbon dioxide, and if economists took a carbon dioxide meter to any of their meetings, they would find levels twice or three times the dreaded 350 ppm in the room (from their collective breathing as they all vent their spleen). If the people in power do not listen to the derisively named 'climate sceptics' the world economy will be in deep doo doo. All the recent evidence I have read indicates the world is cooling, and cooling will be mankind's greatest challenge. In the meantime, may I suggest all of those promoting carbon taxes and the quaintly named 'emissions trading' spend a year on Heard Island without the benefit of a coal-fired power station to contemplate the latest total and sound rebuttals of any effect on the climate of the globe by the puny carbon dioxide emissions of human activity.
John McRobert
Posted by John McRobert, Saturday, 31 October 2009 5:07:04 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
Certainly Adam Smith's Greed and Need philosophy comes into trying to not bugger up the Planet.

The trouble is most of us don't know the difference.

Economists certainly don't help by using terms like de-regulation, which any bushman knows can only mean one thing, but to encourage Rip Sh-t or Bust not only in play, but also in business
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 31 October 2009 7:05:54 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
John McRobert

You need to check your sources. I've posted the reputable data on warming over the past decade at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/
Cooling since 1998 is a myth generated by a disinformation campaign.

And of course you give no reason why you so airily dismiss the economic case put by this article. It's a simple fact that many people are demonstrating how to reduce emissions, cheaply or for 'negative cost'. We just have to start doing it more widely. The economy would be more efficient and there would be multiple spin-off benefits, as I noted in my comment above.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Sunday, 1 November 2009 10:09:32 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
Geoff. Just check out http://chiefio.wordpress.com
on how to cook global temperatures.

Why are there now only 4 compliant met stations in California in GCHN, all on the coast, none on the mountains? and only 2 in Uk, Bournemouth and Waddington, for a country which has continuous records since 1660 for 4 towns in central England, all ruthlessly expunged when they do not show warming. same in Australia, where BoM does no adjustment for the century average when it weeds out cool Tasmania & Vic. in favour of hot top end.

Take care, you could find yourself arraigned for spreading false and misleading information (you would be if you put your stuff in a stockbroker's report).
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Sunday, 1 November 2009 11:33:20 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
I read the article, and links, and found them to be a wonderfully naive look at how the entire world can change.

The same logic would propose to engender world peace by everyone getting to understand each other. A laudable but wildly unrealistic.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 1 November 2009 11:54:26 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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