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 > The cost of inaction on carbon emissions > Comments

The cost of inaction on carbon emissions : Comments

By David Leigh, published 19/7/2011

Australia needs to get on with the job of bilaterally tackling climate change and leave the politics out of the discussions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Hi David - firstly, my comment about saving trees was not sarcastic and I encourage you to continue. Because I am a so-called climate sceptic does not automatically make me a philistine; far from it. Although I do hold shares in Gunns ... (joke).

I did not see any charts in your article but after a closer look, I see two red crosses – my browser has obviously failed me and I apologise to all if I have duplicated data.

However, irrespective of the charts displayed, you wrote "Australia is the largest exporter of coal on Earth. More than half the world’s metallurgical(coking) coal is mined in and exported from Australia. That would make Australia responsible directly and indirectly for a much larger percentage of global emissions than any other country."

As per my prior post, the first statement is correct and the second and third are incorrect. Moreover, these statements mislead the reader into thinking that the coal mined in Australia makes a significant contribution to the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is quite false - whether it's 1.6% or 4% (the latter implied simplistically by the Aussie share of global coal production), it is insignificant.

If you tell lies and make stuff up (even if it is inadvertent), you will have no credibility and people will not take you seriously. That is why most of the comments have been negative. If you want to serve your AGW cause better, please improve your research and report facts correctly.

Please also draw logical conclusions in your arguments. To say (in your last comment) that the reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe during the GFC is proof that climate change is man-made is ridiculous. All it proves is that less human industrial activity produced less CO2, which is hardly in dispute.

Anyway, good luck with all that. I must sign off now and do some paid work so I can afford to pay for the cost of "action" on carbon emissions.
Posted by Peter Mac, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:49:42 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
Oh, one more thing.

You said that 90% of the electricity generated in Australia comes from fossil fuels - without checking the figures, that sound about right to me. Living in Tasmania, you would know that the bulk of the electricity in that state (over 70%) is sourced from hydro.

Isn't it a funny thing that the people that protested over hydro schemes 20-30 years ago now want power generated by means other than burning coal and hydrocarbons?

Loy Yang vs Gordon-Franklin? It's an interesting moral dilemma for those mature enough to appreciate the practicalities. I think we got it right.
Posted by Peter Mac, Thursday, 21 July 2011 11:09:37 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
Col Rouge, it is that same human inventiveness that carbon tax was designed to tap into. The human trait to overcome obstacles (especially in business) and do things better, cleaner and more efficiently. Every single comment against my article in this thread has based argument on the past and the current without any thought to the ingenuity of man.

Peter Mac I also have work to do and do not have time to wage pointless arguments against people who refuse to accept the science of climate change and its impacts on our economy. Despite the majority of scientists, governments and economists globally, acting on what is happening to our weather patterns, the majority of commenters in this column refuse to be convinced... And that's democracy at work. I wish you luck also with your beliefs.
Posted by David Leigh, Friday, 22 July 2011 10:03:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Leigh " The human trait to overcome obstacles (especially in business) and do things better, cleaner and more efficiently."

Fine, do it

but do not ask for me to subsidise it.

if something is a good idea it, will prevail without public subsidy.

In short, "let the market decide"

Do not pretend any government is capable of making viable, economic decisions simply because they are a government and supposedly "well-meaning" and "green leaning" and employ lots of "experts" who are sensitive to the demands of "activists".

I find the superior option is for those who believe in the benefits of an invention or opportunity to take the risk and develop the market for themselves. For instance, I do recall the UK company EMI risking their entire business future on developing whole body scanning (not sure which system off hand), back in the 1980s because they "believed in the potential of the investment".

(and actually that is something the Green philosophy likes to ignore... demanding to send the national economy back 300 years - do the greens therefore gnore modern benefits, like MRI scans and other inventions resulting from "capitalist innovation")

I digress.. the public monies spent on subsidies for failures is saved and left in the pockets of private individuals to spend on the beneficial innovations, increasing the reward of the successful inventors.

That is the best way to encourage the focus on successful benefits and to stop wasting resources on the useless "fluffy duck" non-investments plus the successful inventor also gets a more appropriate reward for their efforts and we save on the cost associated with pointless bureaucratic "experts" feeding from the public trough.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 10:29:23 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
useless "fluffy duck" non-investments? Hmmm! If big business (the major polluters in Australia were allowed to only invest in what they considered worthwhile investments there would be no Australian jobs (many have already gone offshore) no new inventions (unless it is a new, cheaper way of mining coal, using less labour) and our climate would suffer even more. A carbon tax is there to force a change in direction... Surely even you can understand that?
Posted by David Leigh, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Leigh “If big business (the major polluters in Australia were allowed to only invest in what they considered worthwhile investments there would be no Australian jobs”

Doubtless you have a cynical view of the complex “why” people choose to invest.

No point in trying to explain it to you

“(many have already gone offshore)”

Dumb-arsed, non-competitive tax and regulatory imposts on Australian manufacturing - like a Carbon Tax and maternity leave– is what makes Australia less competitive and what pushes jobs off shore

“ no new inventions (unless it is a new, cheaper way of mining coal, using less labour)”

The last time I looked, every “invention” has only been adopted because
1 it generates new opportunities and new markets

- Fast Food outlets

- home computers and internet services

2 it reduces the cost of production over existing practices….

- the spinning jenny being an early target of the luddites

- coal power electricity generation

- Internal combustion engine versus steam

- Motor cars replacing horses and carts

- Fords mass produced “ model T “over its more expensive “coach built” competitors

- Boeing jets being superior to Concord (not so fast) but a lower cost per passenger mile than either Concord or

- Boeing jets versus Steam Ships (and at a significantly more expeditious speed)

I have no problem with “clean coal” or nuclear energy but Carbon Taxes is dumb and lets face it

Whilst USA, as icon of capitalism, had 3 mile island

Chernobyl, and the Aral Sea are the disasters of strong collectivist government, the sort the Greens want to regulate when and how much gas people (and cattle) are allowed to pass

“A carbon tax is there to force a change in direction... Surely even you can understand that?”

A carbon tax is a pointless intrusion into the liberty of private individuals

And it will be repealed immediately following the next general election

Because Gillard, the labor party and the independents are all dead-people-walking

And the Greens are marked for political obliteration

So stop trying to mess with what you clearly do not understand
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 12:02:00 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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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