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.