1. If the presumed wisdom and goodness of governments hadn't spent billions of dollars developing coal-fired power over the last hundred years, alternative technologies would already be that much more developed.

2. Carbon is used in all production: fuel, steel, transport, agriculture, manufacutring - you name it. There already is a market price on carbon - that's exactly what the warmistas don't like.

3. The scheme is, in plain terms, to make it illegal to engage in productive activity without governmental permission, granted on condition of paying tribute to the carbon Caesars. It is not a market in carbon that is being touted - it's a market in tax receipts.

4. Oh and lets' not pretend that the authors have got to square one in justifying policy action on the basis of supposed catastrophic global warming in the first place, either in the natural or the social sciences.

5. Good luck in powering industrial civilisation on sunbeams and breezes. It is easy to prove that these expensive toys are mere corrupt boondoggles - just observe the willingness of their zealous advocates to fund them voluntarily!

6. The very idea that we need an *increase* in prices to make new technologies more available just goes to show how backasswards the warmists' conception of economics really is.

7. By the author's own assumption, government's attempt to run the energy market has produced an unintended negative consequence, being the worst problem in the history of the world. How do you know that the unintended consequences of your interventions are not going to produce unintended negative consequences worse than the original problem, which could almost be said to be a defining characteristic of interventionist policies? The evidence that you have even thought about this is...?

John, yes we need a price on carbon so that we can get stuck into developing clean energy sources and improving energy-use efficiencies.

But it is unlikely to happen for the simple reason that government is in bed with big business and big business wants business as usual.

The big factor that you have left out, which is nearly always the case in articles on climate change and CO2 emissions, is Australia’s very rapid population growth. If we headed swiftly towards a stable population, instead of continuing with the current massive growth rate, we’d be able to reduce carbon emissions much more easily. For one thing, there’d be much less pressure on us to constantly increase coal exports for export income.

But again, this is unlikely because big business loves high population growth and therefore our totally biased government will continue with it.

The scenario is extremely grim. The key factor is to make government independent of vested-interest big business, or considerably less tied to their wishes. And I can’t see that happening any time soon, or ever.

<< The very idea that we need an *increase* in prices to make new technologies more available just goes to show how backasswards the warmists' conception of economics really is. >>

What?

Peter, John Le Mesurier made the perfectly valid point that if carbon is more expensive, then clean energy sources would be more viable. That’s pretty basic economics and basic commonsense. It doesn’t mean that we’d be running the country on << sunbeams and breezes >>, we’d just be changing the mix somewhat.

If I may say so, your whole position seems backasswards. You are apparently an arch advocate of the continuation of business as usual, with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions, with a society based on never-ending expansionism, with a totally unsustainable economic regime, which HAS to come crashing down before too long or be greatly modified. The longer we leave it, the more greatly and more urgently it will need to be modified.

Quite apart from AGW, there compelling reasons to develop a sustainable society in which a large component of its energy requirements is clean.

I just don’t understand how anyone can realistically uphold the current energy or economic regime.

Ludwig,
Let's talk about your "pretty basic economics".

We can let the market set a genuine price for coal (which is what we're talking about, not "carbon")and we can reap the benefits of cheap, productive energy.

Or we can let governments "set a price" - that is, a tax - and let them continue to squander taxpayers' money as our own government has been doing since the end of 2007.

On what basis is the second option preferable?

Further, making inefficient, grossly expensive technologies, such as wind and solar, "viable" by raising the price of coal is just moronic. I'm sure pretty well any ten year old would be able to nominate a thousand other things to spend our money on, including the various streams of the health profession, education, defence, police, aged care and, where essential, social services.

Have you never heard of opportunity cost?

Come on John, you can't make bald statements, & expect to be taken seriously.

You can't have opposed statements of fact, & expect it, either. First you have the governments dependent on income from coal to survive, but a few words later you claim that coal is subsidised. You do seem a bit confused.

We all know the whole country rides on the coal train, but I'm damned if I can find subsidies in there. I can also remember how the Beattie government here in Queensland was ripping a quarter of a billion a year out of the electricity industry, some subsidy.

Due to this we are all ready paying far too much for our power today. We don't need some pie in the sky dreamers plan to make it even dearer.

I'm just old enough to remember that old reprobate Joe Bjelke making the coal companies build the railways to carry their coal to port, & give them to the state. That doesn't sound like much of a subsidy, now does it.

What is it with greenies, that stops them from telling the truth of things. The other day we had some green fool claiming that not charging road tax, [now renamed petrol tax] on the fuel farmers use in their tractors, was a subsidy on petroleum.

Will the spin never stop.

I am glad you have read extensively on global warming, I hope you enjoyed it. However, could I suggest you try something other than the distorted rubbish served up in the IPCC reports, you may get to understand the subject if you do.

It may help if you read up on what has happened in those poor misguided countries who were silly enough to "lead" in this greeny rush to suicide by wind mill & solar cell. Try Spain to start with, it's a good one.

We can use it to subsidise the only proven non GHG emitting base load - nuclear power as recommended by Anna Blight, the head of the ALP

The reason big business is big is because it is providing what many people buy. Why do they buy it? Because they want it! If business does not provide what the masses want, it goes broke, simple as that.

So there's no use blaming the "big business" bogeyman.

And as for governments, I thought the entire justification for democratic governments is that they are supposed to represent what the people want? If it's true that they want to pay more for carbon-using products, then there'll be no need to force them, will there? So it's not true, or you wouldn't need any policy on it.

The idea that we are going to hell in a handcart is to me so hysterical, so self-indulgent, so reminiscent of mediaeval Christian flagellation parades, as to be ridiculous.

Of course China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. etc. have no intention of participating in this foolery. They have more important priorities to focus on - like providing for the *real* welfare of their people. They have better things to do than sacrifice human life for the sake of spoilt westerners making a show of pious fretting.

So to achieve the purpose of a carbon tax, you're going to have to crank the price up real good - the entire extinction of the Australian economy should do it (but will not suffice) - but good luck with that politically. You're going to need it.

This stupidity is going into decline all throughout the world, the self-interested hysterics will have to go into some more productive activity to survive - perhaps cleaning toilets? - and all that will be left in a few years will be the curious records of this episode of mass delusion and the madness of crowds.

<< We can let the market set a genuine price for coal (which is what we're talking about, not "carbon")and we can reap the benefits of cheap, productive energy. >>

KenH, the market sets the price of coal without taking into account CO2 emissions or that fact that coal is supporting a rapidly expanding extent of humanity and per-capita consumption rate, which cannot be reliant on coal forever and simply must move to what are currently more expensive energy sources.

In other words, the market is setting a totally unrealistic price.

<< Or we can let governments "set a price"... >>

Yes. Even with all the imperfections of government, I’d much rather that this happened than we just continue with a totally unregulated or insufficiently regulated market-driven economy.

<< On what basis is the second option preferable? >>

On the basis that business as usual is just so grossly unsustainable and is taking us towards a massive upheaval, which by all accounts would be vastly bigger than any problems generated by stronger government regulation.

<< So there's no use blaming the "big business" bogeyman. >>

Peter, I don’t blame big business, I blame government.

<< And as for governments, I thought the entire justification for democratic governments is that they are supposed to represent what the people want? >>

Yes, almost entirely! And how often do we see what big business wants prevailing where it is at odds with what ordinary citizens want? Think high immigration, a big Australia, never-ending growth, coastal development and environmental alienation, just for starters.

It is not entirely the role of government to pander to the people. They’ve got be proactive as well, sometimes in the face of prevailing opinion.

<< The idea that we are going to hell in a handcart is to me so hysterical, so self-indulgent, so reminiscent of mediaeval Christian flagellation parades, as to be ridiculous. >>

Well! That says it all. We do indeed have the most total disagreement then.

Ludwig, just why should everyone have to conform to your ideas. You are obviously in the minority, even if that minority has, in the short term, managed to get the ear of government.

The only reason governments agree with you is they can see another source of income, to allow them to hide some of their incompetence.

The fact that you few want to dictate submission to your ideas says it all, really. The word is dictate. We even have radical ratbag members
of the green community wanting to suspend democracy for a time, to allow them to save the world. That is of course dictatorship, & it has never worked. It is also interesting to wonder if these elites could survive, let alone save any world, without us mere mortals providing the wealth for them.

Surely you don't agree with this. It would be better to lock up these megalomaniac, where they can do less harm. To have these fools running around in society is dangerous.

One of the main problems with these ideas is that they always come from the elites, often academia or the political class, who's members obviously exclude themselves from these limitations. All Gore anyone?

Ludwig
"On the basis that business as usual is just so grossly unsustainable and is taking us towards a massive upheaval, which by all accounts would be vastly bigger than any problems generated by stronger government regulation.

What do you mean "by all accounts"?

I have never seen *any* accounts of the downside of global warming policies by their advocates. Not even a beginning of an inkling of an understanding that there may be something more needed, than to point to alleged global warming, to *assume* a justification for whatever governmental attack on society that they dream of.

*How* do you account for the destruction these policies will do? For their detriments to human welfare? For their own particular destruction of the environment? For the deaths of people whose lives depend on fuel energies? I have never seen any warmist so much as admit that there may be an issue. How do you account for the reduction in standards of living of millions? What value do you assign for the uncertainty in the statistical models that are the basis for all this? How do you account for the value of current lives sacrificed, compared to the value of the future lives their sacrifice is supposed to secure? How do you take into account futurity? What discount or premium do you apply? To what? Why? How do you avoid the conclusion that sustainability requires that no-one may ever use the resource in question? In which case how is that different to saying these things must be your private preserve, to enjoy their non-use, while others die for the want of them? How do you decide who should receive an arbitrary benefit, and who should be forced to pay for it? What account do you take of the unintended consequences of future government action, of past government action, as against the benefits foregone from their waste? How do you calculate these values? What lowest common denominator do you use? How do you bring them to account? What negative consequence do their advocates personally suffer for getting it wrong?

Wow Peter, that’s a lot of questions – 20 in one post! ( :>o

I’ll just note one thing – if you were worried about the potential consequences of AGW, you could ask a very similar set of questions of those in the opposing camp.

That is: if you could envisage terrible consequences of keeping on with business as usual, you’d be asking the denialists and the vested-interest pro-growthers and their government bed-buddies questions like:

<< How do you account for the destruction these policies will do? For their detriments to human welfare? For their own particular destruction of the environment? >>

Etc, etc.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that you can consider all of the sorts of things that you pose in your questions and still manage to apparently have the most enormous blind spot to any evidence for AGW, or any problems with the continued rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption!

I wouldn’t have had too much of an issue if you had indicated that you were a climate sceptic, erring on the side of no significant problem with AGW, and if you showed some concern about never-ending expansion in both population and per-capita consumption. But to come out as a staunch business-as-usual climate denialist is just a big step too far for me.

It is just incomprehensible I’m afraid.

If you wish to continue with this discussion then fine, I’ll have a go, even though I don’t see much point to it.

The sooner this Carbon Dioxide scare is over the better. I wonder how many people realise that it is a very tiny percentage of the atmosphere. Most people I ask rate it at somewhere between 5 to 50 percent. What are we teaching in our schools?

<< Ludwig, just why should everyone have to conform to your ideas(?) >>

Because Hazza, I’m right and everyone else is wrong… oh, except for those who agree with me of course!! { :~)

<< The only reason governments agree with you is they can see another source of income … >>

Oh how terribly cynical!

<< The fact that you few want to dictate submission to your ideas says it all, really. The word is dictate. >>

Pfffff!

<< We even have radical ratbag members of the green community wanting to suspend democracy for a time, to allow them to save the world. That is of course dictatorship, & it has never worked. >>

Wow, that’s a polarised statement if ever I’ve read one! What we need is a MUCH better standard of governance. That means a more socialistic regime inasmuch as a stronger rule of law designed to rein in overconsumption, curtail continuous expansionism, blah, blah.

Isn’t this what you want as well? Or do you want a continuation of a weak rule of law where the big and powerful players just get what they want regardless, and ride roughshod over everyone else?

Actually, what do you want? It is not obvious from your post, nor from your hundreds of past posts, as far as I can recall. Are you in the same camp as Peter Hume in being a total AGW denialist and business-as-usual advocate?

Oh AL, you devout Christian, what are you doin on OLO at 8pm on this particular day?

Hey, we can’t be ruled by the worst possible scenario of devious pollies feathering their own nests. We need to look past that and examine other motives, and in this instance the practical reasons for a carbon price are very real.

As I said earlier on this thread;

< the market sets the price of coal without taking into account CO2 emissions or the fact that coal is supporting a rapidly expanding extent of humanity and per-capita consumption rate, which cannot be reliant on coal forever and simply must move to what are currently more expensive energy sources. In other words, the market is setting a totally unrealistic price. >

Unregulated market-controlled pricing is leading us straight towards the cliff! It is just completely antisustainable. It promotes the rapid expansion of the use of fossil fuels and very strongly inhibits us from developing alternative energy sources.

We CANNOT afford to let the market set a carbon price. It simply MUST be placed in the realm of government control. And isn’t that one of the primary purposes of government – to REGULATE things that are taking us down the wrong track and set them on the right path?

Ahhh, it’s Christmas night…... Where’s my beer?

Ludwig, I can not see how any reasonable intelligent, educated person can't see through the global warming scam. I have enough physics to see through the rubbish, & have seen enough disinformation coming from the "industry" & government to smell a big rat.

I can not see how anyone other than a politician, or a bureaucrat, could believe that government control of the use of energy could be anything but a disaster.

I have not seen a single thing that our present government, & our bureaucrats have done that could make anyone even consider trusting them with anything.

Anytime governments, all over the world have been given control of food distribution, people have suffered, & often starved.

Give me some example of something done right by a recent government decision, if you want us to believe in more government control.

Hasbeen: “I have enough physics to see through the rubbish.” Really?

If you have a reasonable understanding of physics you would understand the properties of greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and would know that its continued emission into the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to rise, inducing other feedbacks and leading to dangerous global warming.

As you will know from your knowledge of physics, that is scientific fact, not speculation open to debate, hence the need to curb CO2 emissions. What better way of reducing CO2 than making those responsible for emitting them pay for each tonne they emit?

"Oh AL, you devout Christian, what are you doin on OLO at 8pm on this particular day? What an interesting Question........I think the Christians don't even know themselves:)

BLUE

Hasbeen, I cannot see how any reasonably intelligent educated person can insist that anthropogenic global warming is a scam. I have faith in the scientific fraternity to believe what I’m hearing regarding the general gist of AGW.

I smell a big rat regarding people who choose to ignore or denounce the great abundance of scientific data that suggests that ominous things are happening. The rat appears to simply be peoples’ morbid fear of changing life as we know it, which we would definitely need to do to some extent in order to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

So rather than strive to see that the necessary change happens in the right way, with the minimum of disruption, they just take the position that AGW is complete bunkum, even though there is no way in the world that anyone can logically or scientifically assert this.

Scepticism is logical. Denialism is just completely illogical.

I share your disgust with the quality of our governance. But we cannot allow this to be the only consideration. We cannot let it stop us from striving to change our evil ways. Business as usual, with rapidly expanding fossil fuel consumption and rapidly expanding human impact on the planet, has just so obviously got to be curtailed, modified, reined in, or ‘sustainabilityised’. Even if AGW is not significant, as I keep saying; there are other compelling reasons for doing this, in the interests of a sustainable future with a decent quality of life.

Governments have allowed us to get into this mess, basically by giving vested-interest big business too much of a free hand. So, to simply say that government is no good and that more government intervention would automatically be bad is to say that big business should continue to have a very free run.

That is definitely NOT what we want. Surely we want MUCH better government regulation.

Yes, governments are notoriously poor at undertaking some of their primary functions. So we should be fighting very hard to improve this and certainly NOT fighting to cut government out of the picture or reduce their significance.

Shadow Minister

I have nothing against nuclear power stations - except their waste – but it is rather misleading to claim that they are the only proven greenhouse gas emission-free way of generating electricity.

What about wind and solar, or for that matter geothermal? All CO2 free, even water vapour free and although wind can only provide a useful source of electricity, geothermal and solar can both be used to generate electricity 24/7.

The problem is that we can’t wait 15-20 years to get our first nuclear power plant and in the meantime keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to place a price on carbon as an interim measure while we transit away from fossil fuels to non-polluting alternatives.

Potential investors tell us that until there is a price on carbon, they are not going to invest in cleaner technologies - so why not price carbon now? Who should price it? Government or or the Business Sector?

Agnostic, in case you don't understand, a green house is a simple structure designed to minimise the loss of heat by convection, yes convection.

As they are almost exclusively constructed of materials invisible to radiation, they have no effect on loss of heat by radiation.

The term greenhouse gas is totally wrong, no atmospheric gas can prevent, or even restrict convection. They sometimes use the term gas blanket as well. Same thing, blankets work by restricting convection.

The fact is that CO2 is part of the convection system which, along with evaporation, removes most of the heat from the surface of the earth, much more than is radiated from the surface.

This heat is then released high in the atmosphere, from where it is radiated into space. This release of heat is far beyond most of the atmospheric CO2, which therefor has no effect, what so ever on it's free passage to space.

I could go on, but as most AGW believers have probably stopped reading by now, in fear of finding something they don't want to know, I won't. If you want an explanation in words of one or two syllables, let me know, & I will go on.

That the academics involved in AGW are prepared to use a totally false description of the mechanics involved in their theory should give you some idea of the class of people involved in the scam.

Hasbeen 26/12.

Thank you for your response. Anyone reading it who has basic high school physics will immediately understand that you really know nothing about physics and even less about greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately utter nonsense is hardly a useful contribution to debate of the le Mesurier article or a meaningful response to what others have contributed.

There are many well written, easy to understand articles on the greenhouse effect and how CO2 contributes to global warming.

You might be interested in reading a few of them? If so, you could try this. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/ Or you might prefer this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html . Both are worth a read.

Big coal mining companies, Electrical power companies and Woolworths(who use huge amounts of electricity in their selling and preserving of food) are simply not going to be affected by the cost of a carbon tax. They will pass it on to the consumer in higher prices.

The fact that they will pass the tax on to the consumer means that the
Tax will not discourage them from using carbon fuels, they will simply not be affected by it.

I as an ordinary consumer object strongly to paying a higher price for everything I buy, the price of things is already too high.

No to a carbon tax Green fools.

Cherful

You are quite right. Of course coalminers, power stations and Woolies will all pass on the extra costs that result from a price being p[laced on CO2 emissions.

That is why government proposals for a price on carbon (CO2) include provisions to compensate households from the effects of the charges passed-on by Woolies etc.

But importantly, an ETS gives the 800-1,000 companies responsible for CO2 emissions a choice: they can either buy emissions permits to cover their emissions or they can take steps to reduce their emissions and there are lots of ways of doing this.

Companies which reduce their emissions wont have to buy permits and that means they can provide goods and services cheaper than companies which must buy permits. Companies compete with each other to supply goods and services and the those that can provide them more cheaply will get all the business – just as Woolies or Coles get your business because they sell things cheaper.

That kind of competition between polluting companies will force them to reduce their pollution or go out of business. And with an ETS, the government sets a reduction target for each year – the minimum amount of reduction which must be made by polluters.

CO2 reduction doesn’t happen all of a sudden like turning off a tap, but gradually making a small reduction – say 2% or 3% - each year so that by 2020 a reduction target of 20% or 25% has been achieved.

Doing it this way means that the increased costs paid by some to buy permits result in their passing-on fairly low costs which might mean paying an extra cent or so on some goods.

But on the other hand, most companies can and will take steps to reduce their emissions, rather than buy permits. And companies that do reduce their emissions often find that this saves them money so that they can, at least in the early years, sell their goods and services cheaper.

hasbeen - I think it is time for you to contribute to the discussion on http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-it-safe-to-double-atmospheric-Carbon-Dioxide-over-200-year-period.html
As I am sure from you statements that you could provide an alternative view.
Better still download The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism from the web site.
Then perhaps you can post without so much misinformation.

Agnostic of Mittagong,

O.K. I can see how you think this would work but would it actually cost big companies any less to install and buy new methods of production or would that cost be passed on to the consumer too?

Also would people still use the public’s perception, that any price rises are the fault of the Government’s Carbon Tax to gouge profits. Not having your faith in human nature when money is involved I think they would.

I still remain sceptical that it won’t be us poor bunnies the ordinary public who end up paying for this. Adequate government compensation, you say, I’ll believe that when I see it too.

Cherful

Businesses will only use technology to reduce CO2 emissions if it is cheaper than buying emissions permits and, if they have a choice of measures they can take to reduce CO2 emissions, they will usually choose the cheapest one. That way businesses stay competitive with each other. If it costs a company money to reduce their CO2 emissions, they will usually pass the extra cost on. Government says it will compensate households for that just as they did when the GST was introduced.

Businesses do raise their prices simply to maintain their margins, particularly if they have little or no competition but most businesses do have competition and know that if they do not keep their prices competitive, they will loose sales. Why? Because they know that people who buy their goods or services will usually choose the cheapest source possible. I mean, why purchase milk from Woolies if it is cheaper at Coles?

You are right that companies that have little or no competition put up their prices and we simply have to pay. For example electricity suppliers in many States seems to put up their prices every year. Blame State Governments for that. They either own the power stations or control the prices they can charge. It has nothing to do with the price of carbon since there is no price on carbon.

Without a price on carbon, CO2 emitters will have no reason to look for ways of reducing their emissions and new technologies will not be developed to help them do so. We can no longer ignore the problems caused by continuing to emit CO2. They must be reduced and stopped altogether by 2100. If they are not, we shall all face serious problems of an increasingly severe climate, temperatures too high to live with, rising sea levels and inability to protect ourselves from their effects.

We either pay an affordable price now and reduce CO2 emissions or we pay a much higher price in the future – a price so high that it costs not only our way of life, but life itself.

A change is a must be; I feel there is a portion of people only worried about how it is going to affect them, what's it going to cost me.
It's only reasonable for the consumer to have a cost, some costs are avoidable and some won't be. You can help yourself out with electricity costs. Household luxuries will be up to you, if you want to pay the carbon tax. The further you travel the more fuel you use, so the more you pay.
People with their head screwed on won't notice any change.

Yes I am worried about the cost considering I don't like paying for fake disasters.

Who is going to stop all the polution happening in in 3rd world countries? The populations there are having a much worse effect on the environment than we in the West are as far as I can see, not to mention the wiping out of major animal species as the bloated populations seek ever more land and resources to survive.

If your theory of consumer led cabon polution is correct people fleeing from overpopulated countries to the West are driving more demand in the West also for carbon fuelled consumer products.Just as the unsustainable populations are leading to the comsumption of more and more carbon fuelled products all around the world. A good case for the massive distrubution of the pill and contraceptives all over the world.

Anyway don't worry, before global warming destroys the world there will be a major world war to settle the dispute over who gets the scarce land and resources left on earth. After the dust-up when the strongest have asserted their claims over control of different territories and resources(much like the old war lord Kings) the billions ethnically cleansed will once again bring the populations down to a sustainable level and there will be relative peace again for a while. This is happening in poor areas around the globe now. Through famine,disease or war nature will restore the balance if man fails too.

As I sit here in Japan at Fukuoka, I am terminally embarrassed to read such nonsense and fatalistic garbage once more. If any one of you thinks for a single moment that any of the Government parasites and its Oligarchic minions is your newly divine saviours, then the inevitable collapse is exactly what you deserve.

The grass roots of the entire Global warming/ Climate change is nothing other than Sociological pseudo scientific con to rob everyone of everything they have, The existing regime of Predatory theft and Printing political money is still never enough, and for the State to have total control and a constant bank roll to feed the ephemeral parasitism of its very own attachments and ever growing ranks of minions.


And some call that an economy.
It is ephemeral in part for when people actually start to use their brains once more and realise their lives are at risk, and their standards of livening have been crushed and annihilated, they might actually be forced to do something in their own self defence from the aggressor.

As other students here read this thread; the question that is asked of me; are they really that stupid and self indulgent in Naiveté?
Sadly and as humiliating as it is to admit, the answer is. YES THEY ARE.

PeterA please explain, in your own words, to show your understanding, where one word of my description of how a greenhouse works was incorrect.

Granted the use of a greenhouse, as a description of any part of the planet's heat budget is meaningless, however you must admit I did not start using the term.

It was the AGW mob who misdescribed their theory. They got the description just about as correct as their theory. If you can't see that there is little hope of you understanding any of this rubbish.

Cheerful; Polluting the atmosphere ain't no fake disaster, it's deliberate.
The thing it does not have to be; or greatly reduced. The more the carbon tax the more investment in cleaner energy. 82% of Australians agree.
If it is cheaper to produce clean energy, the transformation will be huge. The creation of multi thousands of jobs will be a bi product.
Auto manufactures are on the road of non polluting cars. Lesson the dependance of using oil. Change will happen.

A wonderful quote from Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Joel Pett:
"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

It seems Denmark has just been defrauded of 2% of their GDP through carbon trading scams.

2% of GDP. Maybe we should be a little careful about this?

In essence Paul , Fraud is all that it is , Much like any other Ponzy scheme The mercantile state minions can think up and have thought to execute ;
The only difference is that in the Ideological era of 70 years ago, the dictum of Collectivism was only restricted to the central process of National control; Now Morphed to International control.

The Elites are cashed up , You are stripped of your living standards and deprived of the very simplistic right to exist in any independent thought or action ; what even the Marxian Left aptly describe ; Do you argue that man does not need food – shelter or warmth to be the basic elements before politics or any form of cooperation by social means ?

And now the morphed Mercantile minions now wish to deprive you of that by taxation to gain the very basic elements to which every one of us requires; And now , some here think this is good ? Even if it means you suffer?
And many people are suffering and starving ; And the authors of the fraud prosper while others die?
Fairdinkum , how naïve do you have to be not to see the obvious; No matter the amount of Ideological subversion they apply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

If any who think Predatory Theft and to be robbed by compulsion is a good Idea; then there is an obvious malfunction in their thought process.

I don't make any cense of that video, it must be religious.
The world cannot go on polluting, without causing problems.
What harm can a cleaner world do.
One tv / house is enough, not one in every room.
Your budget will have to be redrawn to suit the occasion.
You can't go on with an unlimited lifestyle.
The Australian lifestyle is in the fast lane. We would be the richest country in the world.
A reality check is in order.

Grim,

If it is a big hoax, then reducing C02 emissions won't make the slightest bit of diffrence to a better world. C02 isn't harmful, by any other standard.

In fact, what it will do is push more people back into starvation and poverty. Is that the sort of better world you are looking for?

At least you are honest and up front , so I can do nothing any more to help. If you can not understand that video , good luck then.

PaulL, peak oil has already passed, peak coal is on the visible horizon. Don't worry about what our grand children will spend on transport costs, there are many alternatives; worry about how much things we take for granted will cost, like plastic and nylon and all those things made from an irreplaceable resource we just burn.
Exploiting an irreplaceable resource to total depletion is greed and selfishness taken to the extreme of madness.
In truth, all the basic mechanisms are already in place. For decades now, state and federal governments have insisted on Environmental impact statements. Miners and industry have had to supply their strategies for minimising their impact on the environment, and restoring the environment when impact is unavoidable.
All we need do is treat the air we breathe with the same respect we offer the land.
As to carbon trading schemes, wherever trialled they have failed miserably in their objectives. Far better an environment fund, sourced from anyone, big or small, who adversely affects any aspect of our environment.
The elephant is this particular room is all the people of the Earth yet to be born, who have no say in how the present generation squanders their heritage.

That is the political theory of things Grim, but in reality it certainly is never brought to practise;

If you actually have a look at every single Mine executed by State Government, I can assure you that there has never been any attempt to return any sight to any form of normality , let alone to resemble any form of environmentalism other than total vandalism.

Just fly over any sight you wish to name anywhere in Australia, and you would be forgiven for thinking you were on some scienc fiction flight of fancy over some newly discovered desolate world scared with vast oceans of barren wastelands and impact craters .

And that is Government policy at work , and not how some would otherwise convey the environmental message. It is Oxymoronic.

Port Macquarie NSW.
I have to admit it ain't a perfect example; After Mineral Sands left they were ordered by the State Guvmint of the day to stabilise the dunes with South African Bitou Bush which turned out to be idiotic, but at least it was a step.
The point is it can be done, needs to be done and should be done.
I should also point out these steps are much easier when they are small steps -in keeping with at least one of the points made in the article.

And that is the main point I suppose ; Governments only create the perception that it cares and goes about creating the perception that it had ordered the clean up or stabilisation of any sight ; The fact still remains the opposite.

The other point is also; in many instances when a Geo survey had been done in many instances, that had recommended that it would be strongly advised ; Not to proceed due to natural water courses or other Geophysical Fault plates etc ; To refrain from technical terminologies;

But these reports are re written and superseded by the Minions of Government; so in essence the only conclusion that can be had is that in many, if not all instances their actions are to serve their purpose and not your interest.

And the most important point to make now is;
China , ; Are anyone of us aware of how many sights in Australia have been handed over to the Chinese Government to be mined and executed without Australian Sovereign Law ?

Political corruption at its best. And who gains from that little State Sanctioned order.

The only point that I try to make is the perception of Governments intent and the reality of its execution order is of an utterly different theses.

Why people have this grandiose trust in the largest predator and the supreme executor of organised Crime , and hold this notion that it is here to help – protect and provide , is beyond any realistic comprehension.
Using the Invisible elephant in the room theory, even if people choose not to see it, they still defecate and are now swimming in it.
But still No see , no smell , no feel ;

Grim,

You think we should use less coal, so our grandchildren will be better able to afford NYLON & PLASTIC? Are you serious?

You say “All we need do is treat the air we breathe with the same respect we offer the land.”

Carbon dioxide isn’t harmful to us in the amounts we see in the atmosphere. And as you acknowledge above, it may well turn out that it doesn’t cause a significant problem for the environment either. In that case, carbon dioxide will remain the VITAL, non-poisonous, life sustaining gas that it is today.

Peak oil is NOT an established fact, anymore than is AGW. Neither is peak coal. We have a ready alternative to coal anyway. It’s called nuclear and it’s been used successfully and safely (despite Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) around the world for 50 years. Furthermore the impact of reaching the peak of production of coal and oil is not the catastrophe that you want to paint. The fact is that as the price starts to go up. We will start to use less of both. The Americans are beginning to see that they cannot own 5tonne trucks as their daily drivers anymore.

ALL,

That’s just a flat out lie.

I used to work at a coal mine. The company spent millions of dollars resculpting the landscape and planting trees after we’d finished mining. I spent a lot of time in the Bowen Basin and ALL of the companies in the region were required to do this. I doubt you’ve even been to the Bowen Basin, where we produce almost 30% of our coal, but the area is good for very little else. It’s mostly flat rocky scrub with few animals, and very little water. It’s an eyesore in its natural state.

You won’t find the locals complaining about the mines either. It’s the inner city elites who fly over the area, on their way to Port Douglas or Kuranda, who turn up their nose at the very thing that has brought them the prosperity they enjoy. Its seems almost too bizarre to be true.

It is a rather strong word Paul , Lie , I do not have any reason , so In fact , hire an aircraft and fly over the Hunter valley for a start , then question where your millions had gone ; Then test the Validity of your theory ; You will find that it is indeed what Brief words I used are FACT.
It is real, observable and destroyed. Unless you wish to argue that is an optical elusion?
But that is only one region in N S W , Go the Queensland- Western Australia – N T and do the same
Care to see any others?

No PaulL, I'm suggesting we use less oil so our grandchildren can afford plastic and nylon.
And peak oil is pretty well established; in the past decade oil usage exceeded new oil discoveries, and the oil discovered is (mostly) harder to get, with the arguable exception of the new Mongolian wells.
Keep in mind "Peak Oil" doesn't refer to total oil reserves; rather the rate of extraction versus usage.
Extraction rates are dropping, usage (globally) is increasing.
AGW is also pretty well established, by the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions; so called 'sceptics' can always trot out a few dissenters, but they are very much a minority, and often have about as much credibility as the 'scientists' who insisted tobacco had no relationship to lung cancer. In fact, they are quite often paid by the same general mob...

I think it reasonable to assume that you have accepted The vicissitudes of the Colloquies of Global warmers or Climate Change, but it is utterly exploded if the actual scientific methodology of ratiocination is applied; it will with all certainty provide the apodictic truth of the matter and has done so .
The Penelope of State Funded minions gregariously lurking under the guise of Intellectuals will all be exposed as the utter frauds and contemptible criminals complicit in the act of fraud never seen in mankind’s history.

A new year begins

But science and emotion

Remain enemies

All,

You said “if you actually have a look at every single Mine executed by State Government, I can assure you that there has never been any attempt to return any sight to any form of normality , let alone to resemble any form of environmentalism other than total vandalism.
This is an BLATANT lie.

Flying over the area and seeing holes, does not make your outrageous claims true. Funnily enough, working mines need the holes.

I can tell you for an absolute FACT, that the half dozen open cut coal mines that I’ve visited ALL spent significant sums resculpting the land and planting trees and vegetation

I don’t think that you had rationally thought that out Paul; Just think about what you have said?
I trust you are a Geo physicist of reputable credentials.
I do not argue against mining of any form , it is the short cuts and the methodology used; Considering Government and their mates are out to make the most wealth with the least expenditure , The facts remain in full stead ;
And when an open cut mine is the end product Paul, Just a few hundred million cubic meters of land scaped cannons and lake side tree line Utopia I suppose?

My point is that there had never been any engineering notion to compensate for the changed Physics of the abandoned mine sight. Where if it were in the interest of and in control of REAL Private enterprise, it would be automatic to do so, for the consequences in litigation and future consequences would be sufficient for a reasonable profession to do so. Not so Government;

Asbestos mining is my Point and case in recent history;
Government and their minions were never convicted or forced to pay compensation but compelled industry to use the product;
even armed with the knowledge of it deadly nature and harmful effect on Humans; You only heard the Private Company “Hardy” as the culprit;

In Fact this is incorrect; so by that, the coercion to evade any sanction or charges of a crime is the realm of Government only; The State.

Mine Subsidence signs in your region Paul helps dispel your notion.
How about the south coast mining Paul, heard the latest disaster of a Geo physical nature? How to wipe out a regions water table and aquifers because reports are ignored.
Who can do this without sanction?

And back to the main point ; Carbon Tax . Fairdinkum.

Move along you blokes we've gone past if climate change is here or not.

Pollution Levy;

$ 50 license required for tv's in excess of one.
Vehicles 2 ton or more classified as trucks and rego; as such [min $650]
Extra 10% levy on fuel in excess of 12,000 km's / yr for private use.
40% levy on power usage in excess of 10 kwh's / day
15% levy on gas in excess of ?
20% levy on air travel.
20% out of home entertainment levy.
3% levy on GST.

All,

Sorry mate but I'm not letting you get away with that.

You said, You said “if you actually have a look at every single Mine executed by State Government, I can assure you that there has never been any attempt to return any sight to any form of normality , let alone to resemble any form of environmentalism other than total vandalism

And you're evidence for this could be found by " hir(ing) an aircraft and fly(ing) over the Hunter valley for a start " You have seen holes in the ground, therefore there has never been any work done. Well constructed argument mate.

Now you want to claim that what you really meant was that the rescuplting that mining companies do isn't to an acceptable environmental standard. I see you must have remarkable powers of investigation if you, a lay person, can tell this by flying over in a plane.

You say they don't restore the "PHYSICS" of the land? Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? Physics is the study of the physical laws of the universe. The Space Time continuumn, energy, force etc.

The geologists, environmental engineers and surveyors I worked with were all university graduates and were in charge of the resculpting work. http://www.xstrata.com/sustainability/environment/biodiversity/landmanagementsiteclosureandrehabilitation/.

There is simply no basis to claim that there has not been any attempt, by any mining company, to rehabilitate these areas.

Ummm , ok Paul , I think that just about nailed it .Physics is the study of the Universe and not the elements , OK I see.
Sculpturing the land scapes, OK thousands of little Mt Rushmore’s , Yes Paul , I think you have a point , I did not see the faces carved into the landscape , at 500 hundred feet It was much too far away, so I will take your word for that . And satellite scans are totally irrelevant , I understand now.

A few Million dollars Paul in the big picture would not even pay for the Oligarchs lunches. Let alone anything else. Carbon taxes will ensure their Lunch is paid for , and for it to produce more Money to pay for their tea, and maybe have their faces sculptured into the LANDSCAPE .
I don’t think that I am going to convince you.

You lot do carry on.

Look on the positive side. We now have the biggest land fill sights the world has ever known.

We have the railway lines from mine to port. All we have to do is reverse those trains, charge the world to dump their rubbish, use these mine holes for land fill.

Hell, cover the fill, stick some pipes into it to extract the gas, build a few power houses,& we have low carbon power. Does nothing ever make the greenie happy.

To complete the job, we should run the shipping ourselves, with back loading of garbage those coal & iron ore ships will be much more profitable. Down the track, as the process builds, we can probably make our fortune selling the worlds garbage back to them as gas.

If ever there was a win win situation, this is it.

Lets corner the market now, & then lets start taking nuclear waste, ASAP, before those other twits realise how valuable it will be in a power starved world, in 100 years or so time.

Of course we may have to slip the United Nations bag men a few billion a year to stop the development of the new power system that human ingenuity will develop in the next 100 years, but if they have been able to convince 40% of the world that CO2 is bad, & windmills are the answer, they can do anything.

Come to thing of it, if windmills are the answer, what on earth was the question?

A jolly good notion Hasbeen. We have some of the worst political garbage on the face of the earth , and have had for many many years;- Replace it with real garbage and turn it into power stations is a marvellous theory ; and to berry and reuse our political garbage to produce more power than Nuclear reactors ever could .

I don't agree with the paying the parasites though, that only encourage more Parasites to jump on the gravy train as we already know.
Ephemeral Parasitism will be severed. And the Political Mafia to be consigned as fuel.
Brilliant.

Good point Hasbeen, and guess what.
Back in 1978 I worked on the final stages of construction of Woodlawn Mine, Tarago NSW. We knew from the outset the mine only had a working life of around 15 years, but with 86% copper assays (compared to 2% at Queenstown, Tas.) It was thought well worth it.
Google Woodlawn mine, and see what it's being used for now.

I think you’re onto something Hasbeen – just a minor fix required. There is a difference between this:

http://tinyurl.com/24r4nkv

and this:

http://tinyurl.com/2ewcqg9

Although imo, the latter is not really the answer as you suggest.

Happy New Year

Got to agree there bonmot, the first one is a thing of beauty, the second is just a thing.

Saw about 60 of those things slowly turning in the distant landscape to the left of Lake George heading south into Canberra last week - do you know if they help power Queanbeyan/ACT, or does it all go into the national grid?

Got to give it to the old world charm of windmills though, helping mill grain and (some) at the same time pumping water away from a sinking country.

Hasbeen,

I love it. But I've got a better idea.

We could all retire from productive work and live off the gov't. They print the money after all. Why do we need private enterprise anyway? Only to steal it from us of course!!

The first step would be to tear out the cities to allow the natural streams and rivers to run. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11390
This would also avoid any disruption to the migrating black ant. And birds would not need to be offended by the sight of our cities.

And technology? We could bin all that useless nonsense. We could go back to the 17th century windmills, and grow our own food.

Eventually we could, by superior moral endeavour, regress as a species to hunter gatherers. From there, it would be simple enough, for humans to become extinct, and allow the earth to go back to its NATURAL, and morally superior, state.

Or on the other hand, we could cause the future extinction by robbing future generations of valuable -irreplaceable- resources, and degrading their future environment to the point where once again survival becomes ugly, brutish and short.

PaulL, nah, I don't like that idea. I lived pretty close to some in PNG who's life style was about 30% hunter gatherers, & it is really great for the blokes, as the women do all the gardening, that provides much of the food for gathering. I doubt we'd get our ladies interested in a hurry.

I also got to know some who had lived in the days before head hunting was eradicated. Some of them said that "long pig" {human} meat was very tender.

So mate, although I could handle the 17Th century stuff, I have some worry about the hunter gather bit. The main problem would be when you became the hunted, rather than the gatherer.