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 > Carbon tax compensation: too complex, too costly, or both? > Comments

Carbon tax compensation: too complex, too costly, or both? : Comments

By Geoff Carmody, published 27/4/2011

One way to ensure a carbon tax had a neutral effect would be to use it to change the rate of GST.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I would like to know how much the scheme will cost the population as a whole.
I would also like to know by how much will it reduce the global
temperature in say 50 years, 100 years or a thousand years ?

To make the calculation simpler just the effect of Australia will do.

If that question cannot be answered, then what is the point of it all ?
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 28 April 2011 7:54:30 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
Bazz
A sensible first question for which there is and will be, much debate.

Your second? I wrongly assumed you were aware of the radiative properties of long-lived green-house gases.

Andrew Bolt deliberately misrepresented the science to make the point you are now making.

If it makes it simpler: the aim is to limit average global temperature rise due to AGW to 2 degrees centigrade.

In other words Bazz, it's a global problem - not just an Australian problem.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 28 April 2011 9:42:51 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
Geoff, both this article and your article in today’s The Australian seem like fence sitting.

You make much sense when you address the goals a CO2 tax is trying to achieve and you offer many economic variables and permutations that might come into play to achieve those goals. What you do not offer and perhaps cannot, is which of these many and complex permutations might work against which goals.

There is a simpler way. Tell us how this has all worked out in Europe? That way we could follow their successful example, or not as the case might be.

Many in Australia find it difficult and frustrating to listen to the endless stream of eco-babble knowing we are at least fifteen years behind Europe. If they have not made it work, why should we try?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 28 April 2011 11:28:29 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
Bonmot,
I know it is a world wide function, but I am asking how much will our
efforts affect the result.
I realise others will have their effect, but what proportion of the
effect could we claim as our own ?

You see there is a problem that has not been taken into account.
The data for fossil fuels input to the computer models that project
the temperature rise are erroneous.
Our effect may not change much but the world wide effect could be large.

The realistic data compiled by the Uppsala Universities Global Energy
Group for available fossil fuels is a lot less than the IPCC figures.
That being so, how can anyone specify how much CO2 should be reduced ?

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/

Since this paper was published last year I have not seen any report
that the IPCC has run its computer model against the new data.
It seems to be useless to discuss the matter until the computer models
are reun with the new data.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 28 April 2011 2:45:11 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
Bonmot,
Did you see Catalyst last night ?
I find it hard to believe that we can cope with oil depletion and a carbon tax all at the same time.

As depletion takes hold all spare cash will disappear into higher fuel
and food costs and will simply not be available to pay a carbon tax.
In the US in 2008 it was high fuel and food costs that triggered the
so called Great Financial Crash when mortgages could not be paid.

We have the same senario to repeat, but we are adding a carbon tax on top !
Suicide, would not be too strong a word for it.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 29 April 2011 11:27:09 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
Hello Bazz, been busy. No, I did not see Catalyst. However, I believe I understand where you are coming from and don't entirely disagree - although I would dispute "it was high fuel and food costs that triggered the so called Great Financial Crash when mortgages could not be paid" - but that's another story altogether.

The way I see it, our 'developed' societies have been using and abusing our energy resources for the last 200 years without fully realising the unintended consequences of our collective action/inaction. It is not sustainable in a future world, for a variety of reasons.

You would have seen me bang-on about GHG's and their impact on climate - all of which I fervently hold true. Nevertheless, whether anyone believes in AGW or not really is not at issue - I think you would agree. It seems to me that politicians, economists and captains of industry want to maintain 'business as usual' when clearly we (humanity) can not - we only have one world to play with and it has to do us (hopefully) for a long time yet. In other words, the planet doesn't end in 2100.

You raise the issue of peak-oil and carbon taxes. Bazz, the cost of energy is going to rise, period - whether we like it or not (and I defy any politician from whatever colour to say it won't, or it should be capped, or it is 'crap'. We have to find a way of funding alternative sources of energy to our hydrocarbons and slowly wean ourslves off coal, oil and gas. Ok, it won't/can't happen over night but we have to make a start. To be sure, we have to be proactive about it - not negative or hypercritical.

Btw, I'm sure we will see some more detail in the next IPCC report. It won't be pretty and those with their head firmly stuck in the sand will again decry foul. As for suicide? Perhaps we as a species really do have a death wish.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 29 April 2011 5:10:45 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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