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 > Effects of a carbon price - debunking four myths > Comments

Effects of a carbon price - debunking four myths : Comments

By Ben Rose, published 28/4/2011

Dealt with properly industry can pay a carbon tax and have higher profits at the same time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
It is easy enough to oblige Amicus, whose sneering request for references suggests that he hasn’t been paying attention to the subject.

Firstly, a copy of the letter sent by the Royal Society to Esso (UK), requesting that ExxonMobil desist from funding organisations which promulgate information contrary to the scientific evidence. Secondly, a scholarly piece about US conservative efforts to defeat the intentions of the Kyoto Accord. And thirdly, the celebrated New Yorker essay on the Koch brothers. Just a sampler of the well-documented information available.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/Defeating%20Kyoto.pdf

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
Posted by nicco, Friday, 29 April 2011 12:51:57 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
The debate of mankind's contribution or not to global warming just drives me crazy!

Makes me want to close my eyes to all of this and just live out my life which, either way, will hardly be affected by whichever group is right! But what of the children of today, do we use them as our stake in the bet that the science is wrong? One fact is that nobody can be absolutely sure whether global warming hysteria IS hysteria or not, but why worry, not my problem!

I wonder had Captain Smith been told "there's an iceberg up front” Would it have mattered if he had changed course though believing such advice if not from just one, but a majority many of his educated crew would prove to be wrong?

So too here. Moreover we have to find another energy source regardless! So why not go for it now?

Affordability, need for new taxes, I don’t think so.

Just take 30% of the defense budget (i.e. $6b of the current $20b! – are we for real? China $80b – US $600b) invest it in clean alternatives and demand co-operation from the exploiters and profiteers of our “limitless” resources to build their own clean power generators, renewable water resources which they plunder and fund their own townships phasing out FIFO one day to be left behind forever.

Unless such steps are taken, regardless of climate change, our resources will be depleted leaving little to attest to the wealth we once owned as an asset in the ground.

While taking these major steps time will allow better appreciation, either way, of what is happening and at least, move public opinion towards a more equitable sharing of the planets resources with those who we with OUR multinationals ravage into starvation, disease and poverty, regardless of the reality or otherwise of mankind’s contribution to climate change

Would that be so bad? Would that really hurt our lifestyle and that of our children? Shall we just go on and on arguing or shall we actually take some positive and realistic steps forward?
Posted by Teddy Bear, Friday, 29 April 2011 3:02:43 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
"It is easy enough to oblige Amicus, whose sneering request for references suggests that he hasn’t been paying attention to the subject. "

nicco, yep US$20M from Exxon, who also fund conservation project s, or do you ignore those, compared to Billions spent on trying to convince everyone global warming is the fault of CO2

try harder .. instead of referencing known hysteric sites, guardian, conservationist funded documents try to get something harder.

the koch brotehrs are funding all the skeptics in the world are they?

give it a break

the funding is trivial and does not have any impact on half of Australia now not believing in AGW

I know you feel better having a scapegoat, but it simply doesn't exist

and .. you deserve to be sneered at, you haven't obliged me at all, you underline the thin evidence of a conspiracy
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 29 April 2011 3:09:33 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
Amicus, please concentrate. I gave you just three examples, from a wealth of documentation, because you implied that so-called sceptical organisations are not being funded. What you call "hysteric sites" include the Royal Society, a fully-referenced academic paper, and the New Yorker, which I chose to show the range of sources of information. I suggest you actually read the material which is available there before sounding off again. If you can refute any of the allegations made in the three items, please let us all know.
Posted by nicco, Friday, 29 April 2011 3:41:05 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. Page 4
  6. All

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