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 > What price carbon? > Comments

What price carbon? : Comments

By John Le Mesurier, published 29/7/2010

If carbon is not priced, there will be penalties, namely the very serious effects of carbon emissions on global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
John has "read extensively on the topics of global warming and climate change, both the views of scientists and sceptics", which is a bit of a hands up, because he apparently hasn't noticed that there are many thousands of eminent scientists who don't buy the global warming/climate change crap. It's not "scientists" versus "skeptics".

But he has compiled a very comprehensive list of disasters which are about to visit us because human-derived CO2 now amounts to about 0.004 per cent of the atmosphere by volume. It's just that he doesn't bring forward any evidence to support his contention.

"Australia, the world’s largest per capita emitter" actually emits about 0.00006 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere by volume - at that level, per capita emissions are entirely irrelevant - and yet he wants us to destroy the national economy for our sins.

The real problem John has, however, is that the great bulk of Australia's emissions are from coal-fired electricity generation (about 80 per cent of our electricity is generated from coal) and road transport, which ensures that food can be grown and transported to markets or processing and manufacturing. Even moderately small towns cannot survive without carbon emissions for good production, processing and distribution. For big cities, eating would be a luxury.

But don't let reality get in the way of a good scare story, John.
Posted by KenH, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:10:58 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
Typo, second last par, last line should be "food production". Apology.
Posted by KenH, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:13:36 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
This article starts off with a false premise, like 'man's CO2 emissions are causing global warming or global cooling or last night's lightning storm' and gets worked up into a sweat of statistics and ramifications.
All this information is irrelevant because it relies on a disproved theory.
What are we to make of the Vostok ice cores which tell us that it's natural warming (most likely caused by warmish bodies in our solar system) which causes nature's release of CO2, after an 800 year average time lag.
Posted by CO2, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:27:19 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
John - you do realise that there has been a lot of tooing and froing over the economic effects of climate change? the only report of any significance to say that the economic effects will be sufficiently severe to be worth cutting emissions now is the Stern report. All the rest say no, and complain that Stern could only make his conclusions by making extreme assumptions and adopting a very low discount or rediscount rate. There may be well be room for arguement in that but I see you have made no mention of any of thess issue. Happy to send you material which will at least give the basics of the debate .. drop me a line on ecocriminal@optusnet.com.au
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:42:29 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
ETS and climate change are being treated as synonyms - if you believe 1 you believe the other. They are not synonyms.

CPRS is a field of dreams – either it is: a Pigovian tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax) designed to suppress demand and hence production of carbon; a mechanism to create economic advantage for alternative production; or a mechanism to transfer capital to activities that will reduce the “negative externalities” (carbon pollution). Will the desired outcomes be achieved? There is no evidence to support it – in the case of CFCs regulation achieved what was desired.

Firstly, on the basis of science it is insightful to look at the fight between the University of East Anglia, the British met Office and one David Holland. Holland has asked for access to data both hold covering a medieval warm period to check the work of scientists and the IPCC. Both are refusing (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2962392.htm).

The lack of transparency damages the credibility of the debate on climate.

Secondly, on the basis of efficacy of markets those deeply involved in behaviour that led to the GFC will be the same players involved in an ETS. In any market facing shortage of supply those that provide the mechanism for trade inevitably are the ones to benefit.

Thirdly, the efficacy of using Agriculture to trap carbon remains questionable. Farms can provide a positive outcome on carbon if they cease farming and grow trees. If they continue to grow food &/or fibre they can only slightly mitigate carbon.

Fourthly, who has track record in terms of changes? The Danes responded to the oil crisis in the 70s by moving to alternatives. How did they do it? What did they do? Does the total incompetence and waste involved in Gillard’s “Building the Education Revolution scheme” and Garrett’s home insulation scheme prove Australian politicians are incapable of acting competently, efficaciously and efficiently to achieve desired outcomes?

Relying on market mechanisms, which inevitably serve the strong players in the market, is the refuge of governments unwilling to govern and incompetent at achieving the outcomes required to secure a desired future for our grandchildren.
Posted by Paul @ Bathurst, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:49:46 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
John, please assure us that you understand the problem before you offer solutions. I don’t know what “reading” you have done on this topic but you seem to have missed at least the past six months worth.

For other related responses please see threads on, Richard Dennis, Geoff Carmody, Del Weston, Malcolm King and Sophie Trevitt.

Graham Y, where are you getting all these from? We are going into overload here
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 29 July 2010 1:18:52 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
Carbon is one of the commonest elements. There is already a price for carbon in all our coal, steel, trucking, manufacturing, service industries, and in all our goods and services.

Let's at least be honest in our use of terms. The subject of policy debate is a carbon *tax*. And trying to re-jig production by imposing a tax on carbon is not a market-based solution, it's a national socialism central-planning based solution. What we've got now is a market based solution and that's exactly what the fascists don't like!
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 29 July 2010 3:51:07 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
But it just isn't true. Carbon is basically harmless,let alone the building block of life as we know it. And now there are some very eminent physicists (including Nobel Prize winners) saying the same thing.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 29 July 2010 4:55:32 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
In a similar post yesterday I made a plea for an objective analysis of the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. To-day there is a report in the media that The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in conjunction with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association compiled a report claiming that we are overheating.
I downloaded a critic of the BOM surface temperature record and a couple of quotes show that the BOM methodology may not stand up to critical scrutiny. The following reference is some 98 pages long.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

“In a commendable effort to improve the state of the data, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has created the Australian High-Quality Climate Site Network. However, the effect of doing so has been to introduce into the temperature record a warming bias of over 40%. And their climate analyses on which this is based appear to increase this even further to around 66%.”

“This study shows a number of problems with the Australian High Quality Temperature Sites network, on which the official temperature analyses are based. Problems with the High Quality data include:
• It has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
• The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
• Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included.
• Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
• The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record.
• The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does.
• The warming bias in the temperature trend is over 40%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%.
• The trend published by BOM is 66.67% greater than that of the raw data.”
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 29 July 2010 5:00:13 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
Atman
You state:

"But it just isn't true. Carbon is basically harmless,let alone the building block of life as we know it. And now there are some very eminent physicists (including Nobel Prize winners) saying the same thing.http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html"

Although I don't doubt the quotes by the 7 eminent scientists, I do note that 4 of them are dead- Edward Teller died aged 95 in 2003, Frederick Seitz died aged 96 in 2008, Robert Jastrow died aged 83 in 2008, William Nierenberg died aged 81 in 2000.

Freeman Dyson is alive aged 87, Ivar Giaever is alive 81, Robert Laughlin is 59.

I also note that although they are or were physicists, none of them researched climatology.

Although age is not necessarily a barrier to clear and deep thinking, I suspect that death is.

And speaking of death and carbon dioxide- try breathing it by itself. You will join the ranks of the aforementioned deceased gentlemen within several minutes.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 29 July 2010 6:45:24 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
There is no need to put a price on carbon.All we need to do is to reward solar energy users via tax incentives,rather than punishing carbon users.There is no proof of AGW caused by CO2.The science is not settled.

As I've posted recently on OLO; 90,000 of the world ships produces 260 times more sulphur pollution than do 760 million cars on the planet.The shipping industry uses the rubbish oil left over by the oil refinery process.It is very high in toxic pollutants.Why is there not a tax also on sulphur dioxide,one of the most toxic gases on the planet? Well the Global corporates cannot have big profits without cheap transport.We have all these goods moving around the planet creating billions of tonnes of CO2 and SO2,when they can be produced at home with far less pollution.

Is there a disconnect here with logic and reality?

The shipping industry is all about free trade without confronting the real perpetrators of pollution? There is an agenda here that has very little to do with the environment.They want tax on carbon, the basis of life,you breathe out CO2,animals & humans fart methane CH4.Tax carbon and you can tax life and the basis of our present energy.

When they have their carbon tax enslavement in place,they then create a derivative share market that sucks the very essence of productivity from the tax payer.It will mean more economic slavery.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 29 July 2010 8:51:11 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
John, you list a whole lot of ominous things that are likely to happen this century if CO2 emissions are not brought under control.

This list SHOULD be well and truly sufficient to galvanise national populations and their governments into strong action. Alas, it isn’t.

But wait…. there IS another motivation that should definitely lead to strong action……

This is the consequences of the rising price of oil. Western cultures are so dependent on oil and the price of the stuff is so critical to their economic functionality that MAJOR upheavals will occur if the price rises significantly.

And the likelihood of this is very high, in the very near future.

Massive economic corruption and hence civil corruption could very easily result, to the extent of widespread unemployment, severed supply lines for essential goods and breakdown in law and order. Societies like ours are very precariously positioned and could basically collapse if the price of oil rose sharply to a considerably higher level.

So, what should we do? We should, as a matter of great urgency, relieve ourselves of our dependence on oil.

Now, if our government in Australia, and others around the world, would just strive to sell this concept with great urgency, we would have a motivation that is much more tangible and significant than the current one, in terms of dealing with fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions.

We’d bypass the constant wrangling about whether AGW is real or not and step straight into a scenario where there would surely be a much greater level of agreement and willingness to act.

We need to address the imperative to develop a sustainable society and economy that is not critically dependent on oil. THIS is the all-important thing. Climate change is very secondary.

If we addressed this primary objective in a meaningful manner, we’d definitely be much more successful in addressing climate change than if we addressed it in isolation.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3836
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 30 July 2010 8:47:01 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
That is far too sensible a suggestion for anyone to take seriously, Ludwig.

>>So, what should we do? We should, as a matter of great urgency, relieve ourselves of our dependence on oil.<<

And coal, for that matter. (For power generation that is, we should still sell as much of it overseas as we can dig up.)

But the idea that non-renewable energy resources must, repeat must, be eventually replaced by renewables, is so simple that a reasonably articulate five-year-old can make the case, cogently and irrefutably.

The only question needs to be "with what".

If all the scientists, both warmist and sceptic, would stop trying to argue a position that simply perpetuates division, and turn their attention to replacement technology, we'd have the whole thing licked in a decade. Unfortunately, it is now something of a gravy-train for both camps.

And if in fifty years time, when we are fully renewables-powered, and the climate is still warming happily away - or has regained a more temperate equilibrium - then one or the other side can say "I told you so", if it gives them satisfaction.

Or more likely, "my dad told you so".
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 30 July 2010 9:29:02 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 seems an issue in this debate is the number of ulterior agendas being followed. Requirements for energy will only increase not decrease. If the debate is about ensuring supply of energy then let it be that, don't hide it in another debate. Integrity does matter.

Phillip Adams once allegorised the election of an atheist as Pope to the election of governments that don't want to govern. Laissez faire appeals to freedom with opposition to 'socialism' believing markets will 'solve' problems is naive – markets serve those with power to achieve their personal interest.

As I posted earlier look at how the Danes set about addressing energy; but whether Australia has become a culture purely of self interest and can consider others/future generations remains to be seen.
Posted by Paul @ Bathurst, Friday, 30 July 2010 9:54:27 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
Paul @ Bathurst makes some very pertinent observations, so too Ludwig.

As has been suggested, a carbon market will just end up as an another dirivatives market, where Icelanders pay alot of money for something they do not understand and end up losing their sealskin shirts

If I favour anything it is Ludwigs observation that market forces will rally to the occasion, as they always do.

Those who don’t like to leave things in the hands of market forces are merely trying to divert some of your discretionary income into their pet projects and fetishes ,

Which is politely called

collectivism by stealth

regarding Paul@Bathurst later comment “believing markets will 'solve' problems is naive”

and being governments can solve problems is plain stupid.

Capitalism might be considered Laissez faire but being subordinate to the whims of a government, elected to supposedly represent, not rule, is despotic

Like one politician said

Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form so far tried

Likewise

Free market capitalism is the worst form of ownership, except for every other form so far tried
Posted by Stern, Friday, 30 July 2010 11:50:38 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
Stern's comments bring up some axioms we seem to work to, Democracy and Free market capitalism as truisms.

Where do we see democracy and/or free market capitalism?

In democracy we argue for democratic rights but who argues for democratic responsibilities? With markets name a place where they are free? These are myths.

Both these tools are seen as being successes yet during GFC it was government intervention that was used to rescue the market. In similar vein it is government intervention that is being called for to address climate change through tools such as Kyoto protocol and CPRS type legislation.

If markets are a success why aren’t they of their own accord dealing with climate? Markets have always been governed by those with power abusing it requiring some corrective force. My point is these tools don’t address the issue in the absence of the need for democratic responsibilities.

The tools are neutral. Their outcome will be determined by what collectively we regard as our democratic responsibilities; and the collective responsibilities will set boundaries on how the tools are used.
Posted by Paul @ Bathurst, Monday, 9 August 2010 2:42:30 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. All

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