Dear Sophie, getting harder and harder isn’t it?

Throw in a “title” that appears self critical, spread a little blame on your own side for their ineptitude then extend your displeasure to the opposition and the media.

You start off with your conclusion; that we need a “carbon dioxide tax”, then you have to reverse engineer your article to support that conclusion. Not very convincing is it?

It’s interesting that the 45,000 people out on the streets shouting tax me, tax me, represent 0.2% of Australians. I get this sneaky feeling that you actually see this as significant.

As for the rest of your article, it’s the same old proselytizing. Faith, ideology, dogma and self imposed ignorance.

It really is time you started thinking for yourself.

What is it about Arts/Law, [our Julia did it] that makes people incapable of smelling BS, or doing the math & science themselves to understand this rubbish.

Could it be that the ideology is so deep in these schools that they all come out so far left that any BS will do, as long as it promotes the left.

Come to think of it, why is global warming so strongly supported by the left. Surely falling for the rubbish should have nothing to do with ones political ideology.

I have finally heard a few lefties who don't want a carbon dioxide tax, but I am still to hear of even one who doesn't believe in global warming. Are the high priests of AGW that good, or the congregation that easily lead.

Oh dear.....Here comes the conspiracy agents.

LEA

When is the commentariat going to realise that we are all polluters and if we are going to have an effective tax, then we should all be paying. Giving compensation to pensioners and the low paid defeats the purpose of the whole exercise and does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

David

Yes, David, but its not about 'pollution' its about creating a new source of funds and a new economic system. Global Warming is just the vehicle to manipulate people through fear and fear is one of the only ways to get money out of people these days. Its similar to a protection racket. Hand over your money and we'll stop bad things happening to you.

If it were about 'pollution' then no-one would be recompensed for 'polluting' like pensioners will be.

Interesting point Hasbeen. Support for AGW is 80% from the Greens, 60% from the ALP and 30% from the Lib/Nats.

Perhaps we could invite Quantumleap to explain this

Sorry Spindoc.....you always do a better job:) Iam but a poor humble servant. Yawn..Could someone please change the record:)

LEA

"..... it’s the same old proselytizing. Faith, ideology, dogma and self imposed ignorance"

Interesting words from spindoc but they apply to comments from spindoc, Hasbeen and Atman rather than the writer of the article. The concern over man made climate change is based on massive amounts of research, evidence and facts, not faith or ideology. "Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change." For details check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"Giving compensation to pensioners and the low paid defeats the purpose of the whole exercise and does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions."

David - I disagree. As your electricity bill goes up and the Government gives you say $500 as compensation you are free to spend the $500 how you wish. Why not turn off unused lights and applicances and pocket as much of the $500 compensation as you can to spend on something else?

However the carbon tax will work primarily because of its impact on the behaviours of the polluters who are paying it directly. If a power generator can spend $100,000 on an efficiency project to reduce emissions by 5,000 tons then that is an abatement cost of $20 per ton. With a carbon tax of $25 per ton then the company has just saved $25,000.

The carbon tax has therefore made a project to reduce carbon emissions worthwhile. As the carbon tax increases and the cost of renewable energy falls the power generator will find there is a financial return to be made in closing down coal fired and carbon emitting power generation, and replacing it with solar powered carbon free electricity generation with zero carbon tax payable. Grid parity is expected by many to be sometime from 2017 to 2020 - not far away. When that point is reached why would anyone invest in coal fired power generation?

Quantum, Rich, "hide the decline". Explain that one, then we might listen.

Hasbeen,

What do you mean?

Compared to coal, solar and wind are very expensive. A carbon tax is designed to make coal artifically as expensive as a solar so there is no incentive to invest in coal. Its bad economics, has dubious scientific merit and according to many experts, won't have much of an effect on overall CO2 levels for a long time.

Carbon tax is about economic equity and wealth transfer as dictated by the UN not 'pollution' which is why many developing countries are let off the hook with their emission targets. Their CO2 apparently is less offensive to the environment than Western CO2.

Sophie,

some points need correcting.

Firstly it is not maths but arithmatic you and the other economists are doing. With your inaccuracy yoy cheapen not only the efforts of our many qualified mathematicians but also the great western tradition of mathematics. It's a large part of the basis of western civilisation and not just in it's influence over it's growth and development. It's a much more precise science than many of the pseudo sciences around today. It has a greater attachment to our past than what is taught in our universities today as Law/Arts and other humanities.

I'd gladly pit the intellect of Mathematics graduates against the intellect of Law/Arts graduates and indeed against the intellect of economists and graduates of many of the pseudo sciences of today.

Secondly, this really does need challenging.

'the Opposition's bad habit of just being plain old wrong when it comes to climate change.'

The Oppositions policy position on climate change is exactly the same as Gillards policy on climate change. So logic dictates if you think the opposition's wrong then you must also think so is the government. Unless of course you can use the same logic as Gillard that allows no to mean yes.

Where the opposition and the government differ is in how to deal with carbon dioxide emissions.

Why aren't you more precise? Is precision beyond you Law/Arts graduates?

Now finally can you tell me why in the depths of global warming how Australia, last Thursday, had it's coldest day since 1916?

Can you tell me why in the depths of global warming we are experiencing the earliest winter snows since 1986?

Can you tell me why in the depths of global warming the northern hemisphere experienced dreadful cold and extremely heavy blizzards this year?

Can you tell me why the time period available to complete a NorthWest Passage is sadly again shrinking?

Can you tell me why the oceans haven't risen, islands haven't sunk and why many coastal properties in Australia are still rising in price? (Including the one bought recently by the Rudds.)

thanks

Atman - lets have a look at your comments.

"Compared to coal, solar and wind are very expensive."

Define expensive. Given that burning coal and other fossil fuels will cause climate chaos (as per the science) that makes them unbelievably expensive. And I think we can see how much it costs to clear up after extreme weather events (ref Queensland).

"A carbon tax ...... has dubious scientific merit".

No it doesn't - the reverse is true - as per my previous post "no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."

".... and according to many experts, won't have much of an effect on overall CO2 levels for a long time."

The short term goal is to reduce the increase in CO2 levels, then stablilise, and ultimately reduce. The speed at which this will occur will depend on the carbon price which depends on political will. The mechanism though is fine. Why would you think it wouldn't work?

"Carbon tax is about economic equity and wealth transfer as dictated by the UN not 'pollution' which is why many developing countries are let off the hook with their emission targets. Their CO2 apparently is less offensive to the environment than Western CO2."

You are ignoring the science again but I agree that compensating the lower paid and pensioners in Australia but not others is a mild form of wealth transfer. A bit like the Queensland flood levy being paid only by those above a certain income threshold.

If there is to be any wealth transfer between rich and poor nations (a big if) to me it would be justified by the fact that the developed countries have largely caused the problem that now affects every nation. There is underlying justice in that every citizen should be allowed the same level of CO2 emissions - accepting this developed nations need to reduce dramatically whereas developing nations may still have some room to grow emissions.

Atman.....The problem with the fossil fuel junkies, its like any other addiction......its easier to go back for another hit, while knowing full well the consequences of their actions:) We can see who backs the BIG BOYS and the reasons why. Hasbeen........What does equal opportunity mean to all concerned?

Is it the environment?

Is it just for the rich?

is it for the future generations?

or is it just, that your set in your ways:)
6 to 7 billion people Hasbeen, all chewing in and around the planets surface with second and third world people all wanting to join in on the feast:) Coal, uranium, oil......yes the magic bullet to save all on the earth...lol.....The evidence is well against you.

But you know what they say, you cant teach an old dog new tricks!

However I think we can:)

LE

Quantumleap, since you have declined the invitation and suggested I always do a better job anyway, I’ll take up that invitation.

We are trying to explain why the support for AGW comes 80% from Greens, 60% from the ALP and 30% from the Lib/Nats.

Let’s kick a few words around just to start the ball rolling.

Logic Ideology
Skepticism Faith
Cynicism Belief
Independent Group think
Reality Dreaming
Open Closed
Rationality Irrational
Ambivalent Belligerent
Passive Hostile
Cautious Polarized
Inclusive Divisive
Means Ends
Factual Exaggerated
Strategic Tactical
Questions Answers
Listening Judgmental
Asking Telling
Knowledge Information
Challenging Abusive
Spontaneous Structured
Leaders Followers
Explanation Justification
Broad Narrow
Direct Obtuse
Critiques Defensive
Multiple possibilities Single orthodoxy

All you have to do LEA, (and perhaps you might wish to get some assistance from Rich 2 and Sophie Trevitt with the hard bits) is to assign one set of attributes, as you see fit, to either one block or the other. You will of course have to explain your choices but other than that it is very simple. So simple in fact that most on OLO will have already done it for you. But we would love to hear your results rather that taking your wickets home

Quantum how can we have equal opportunity when some want to send everyone to the poor house, & some don't want to go? I will give you the opportunity to live 100% as you like, but you will have to turn your power off for 50% of peak hour.

Come back in a year & tell us if you still believe. Perhaps you are one of the elites who believe that any restrictions won't apply to you. Mate have we got news for you.

Rich if you don't know what "hide the decline" is you definitely aren't qualified to speak on climate change. Google it, & climate gate, & learn how you have been conned.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Oh look! Somethings made spindoc angry...lol...calm down:) No your right...its far too hard for me:)

There!...your ego's still intact.

Now when was the last time I when for last psychiatric evaluation:)

Spindoc...please....

LEA

Deja vu, all over again, everyone?

At least other authors on this weather-worn subject were not so obviously endeavouring "to teach their grandmothers how to suck eggs". I wish not to be hurtful, but why is it some young (or younger) people (and almost invariably Arts students) seem to think they have all the answers, and that older heads are just "recalcitrant", or some other such explanation for them not being immediately convinced by an endless repetition of slanted logic and misrepresented data. We are all supposed to understand our limitations, and to have respect for the possibility that others may have an equally or more accurate and credible point of view. It is somewhat disrespectful I feel, when some think all they have to do is repeat a piece of rubbish often enough for people to believe it. Phooey.

Good on Sophie anyway, for having a go for what she believes in.

Unfortunately Sophie neglects to mention the 68% who rejected the idea of a carbon tax in a survey conducted almost immediately after the cast of 45,000 (approx) did their duty by the environment - misguided as the chosen "vehicle" may have been. Sophie has also obviously either not read any of the negative responses to a C tax already posted endlessly elsewhere on this forum, or has chosen to ignore them. Should we be thankful for yet another opportunity to put our case against? Maybe/not.

Once again we have the AGW deniers (of course), in spite of everything, and we are just going to have to leave that aside - no good flogging a dead and decayed horse, is there. In any event, the question at hand is "carbon tax or what"?

CO2 emissions are real, by the credible science (which excludes a mass of neo-scepto-quasi-scientifico-commentorati in sheep's clothing), and levels dictate that current and future emissions have to be reduced - or ecosystems are going to be thrown into imbalance, with direct consequences for global food production!

Other options = zero.
TBC>

( Carbon Tax - or Not? - Continued:)

Garnaut's arguments have an Achilles Heel. No-one is going to reduce consumption if they are subsidised; no industry is going to invest in alternatives if they can simply pass on the full cost of doing business under a C tax; a C tax will increase CPI and put upward pressure on wages; a C tax will make some businesses less viable; Will reduce investment in mining; Will increase prices generally; Will cost jobs - at least in near term; Will make Oz less competitive; Will NOT reduces CO2!; Will Not bolster investment in alternatives!

Pig in a "red" poke!

Give us some credit, give us some better "facts", or for heaven's sake give us a new government.

"35 European countries have had a price on carbon since 2005..."

You really don't want to hold up Europe (and especially Germany and the UK) as brilliant examples of green-led prosperity, do you? Or are you thinking of Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece?

Trust me on this: European exemplars are not a good idea right now. Oh, and stay well clear of California too.

"Rich if you don't know what "hide the decline" is you definitely aren't qualified to speak on climate change. Google it, & climate gate, & learn how you have been conned. Posted by Hasbeen"

Hasbeen - your condescending tone doesn't reflect well on you. I had a feeling that you might be referring to "climategate" but thought I would give you the chance to add some detail to your concern. In fact I have previously on this forum posted about the various independent reviews into "Climategate" and their conclusions which are that the science is unchanged by Climategate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html has the full story.

The fact that not one scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change would be conclusive for any non scientist able to put to one side their own prejudices and ideology.

Yes Rich, & I believe in the tooth fairy.

Rich2 your response that:

"There is underlying justice in that every citizen should be allowed the same level of CO2 emissions"

proves my point that the idea of taxing 'carbon emissions' is a misguided exercise in social equity and not a serious attempt at decreasing CO2 levels. If it were really about CO2 or climate, then allowing hundreds of millions of people in the developing world a chance to "pollute equally" with western counterparts is simply ludicrous. After all their CO2 affects climate as much as ours!

So are your climate scientists OK with Africas millions being given a chance to put their C02 up into the atmosphere?

Why can’t we tax CO2‘s component parts separately?

2 x parts oxygen and 1 x part carbon.

It would be much more sellable as a tax at say $60 per ton if we rebated $40 per ton for the oxygen.

We would then be paying only $20 per ton. The government can then legitimately claim this oxygen rebate as an offset back to householders at $40 per ton for the oxygen.

The cumulative amount at $40 per ton is paid at the end of June each year which then increases your income by this amount and is taxed at the marginal rate (or reduces your pension or other Centrelink grants).

The tax collected is then given to polluters in the following tax year and increases their company earnings. We then apply the mining tax to miners and the CO2 tax to all other businesses. The Electricity Generators are charged the full carbon and oxygen tax (because we cannot separate the trace gas into its component parts). They pay the carbon component to the government as a carbon pollution tax but claim a rebate on the oxygen.

We retain 10% of the carbon pollution income so that our government can meet its obligations to the UN so that they in turn can pay the Indonesians to stop destroying their forests to grow the Palm Oil that Australia currently subsidizes them to produce.

They then become dependent on us for their food and we can increase the margins on food exports to cover the cost of oxygen rebates to Australians.

This all seems so simple compared with the complex system currently under review.

Any other suggestions

When Australians saw 45,000 people (not all at one event) we all knew since there was no carbon price yet, that this was another politically stage managed anti-conservative event.

Getup, the major organiser is a well know ALP sidekick, used as the arm's length "independent" stirrer. Gosh, so clever!

Those people had no idea what the price is, what a tax will do, who gets what, but they turned up to protest against "them", and we all saw it as that.

Not as Australians wanting to be taxed, or wanting "something done", we're not that stupid, but that's the problem Sophie is starting to latch on to, we don't believe you.

Hence, "reframing" the "protest", by trying to use the evil Australian Newspaper's own words, you know, connect with the morons through their own media. (ABC? Fairfax? they are no longer trusted to be objective)

Just on the note about how business operates .. it's so simple to people who haven't a clue isn't it "That makes common sense – send clear cost signals to businesses and they will respond. Easy."

Have you read the Companies Act? Go look at the ASIC site, they seem to think a Company Director's duty is to firstly look after shareholders and return them a profit. Not throw money away and reduce the profit.

Sophie, business is not easy, and your condescending attitude to it reflects your ignorance.

Companies will pass on whatever they get charged and retain profitability, or go out of business, it's as simple as that. Easy.

When do you go from Youth to Adult in the children's crusade?

It's going to be soon, because you're losing the gushy belief in the club and starting to realize, there may be more to this whole politics thing, that everyone is stupid except you.

I always wonder why there is not one big eco group, is it because there are so many eco group leaders, who all want to be important?

You and your cohorts have misunderstood the public, treated them as malleable fools, get out now, before it becomes a rout.