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 > What carbon price is right to bite into, not bark at, climate change? > Comments

What carbon price is right to bite into, not bark at, climate change? : Comments

By Ted Christie, published 3/2/2012

Twenty-one dollars a tonne is too timid a carbon price to make any impact

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Tombee - look, go back and look at your earlier post with both eyes, then you'll realise why I dismiss what you said. The price you've give for carbon is very low. Go and look at it. You also can't praise Nordhause and then push the lunatics behind the ExternE Project, as they seem to be saying different things. Unless of course, ExternE also found that they couldn't make out a case for emissions control on climate change alone, so they added in assumed costs for pollution. Hence the low figure.

Sorry but you do have the wrong end of the stick - either that or you simply do not want to admit that there's no case for emissions control, at least not based on climate.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Sunday, 5 February 2012 9:29:45 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
RObert,
hopefully the boffins will show up and contradict your "Mail" article. I don't set-up to be a scientist but found this retort: http://tinyurl.com/88f43hl

Apropos your comment, "I'm quite confident that portions of the warming case are creations of an anti-progress extremist element (as are parts of the anti-warming case are tied to extremists in other directions)".
I can provide a link for the latter kind of extremist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2kMAfJggU but can you provide evidence for the former kind of "extremist element"?

I'm not advocating extremism, unless it's thought extremist and anti-progressive to want to address the real disease (Monckton's free market ideology and "economy-based-solutions" generally) rather than the symptoms. The symptoms are more than just AGW btw, and it would make no difference to me if the greenhouse gases we cause to be released were shown to be geologically benign, since we have a range of symptomatic evidence that is unequivocal: pollution of land and sea as well as air, habitat destruction, species extinction, resource depletion etc. etc. And this is all driven by economic growth.
I'm not "anti-progress", just anti the notion that so-called "progress" (an ever more commodified life) can be sustainably extended ad infinitum.

"Even if one accepts the inflated [sic] climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically".

I actually agree with this; a carbon tax is delusional and cannot be levied successfully without simultaneously increasing emissions. The economics of creative destruction is the problem and cannot be the cure.
All I'm essentially saying is that cutting consumption is the best and most immediate and effective way to address our environmental problems. But governments can't advocate that because economic prosperity (and maintaining wealthy elites) depends on ever-increasing consumption (including entropic loss and pollution) within a closed and fragile system.
Since our means are not infinite, we need an economic system based on husbandry, not excess.
It's the very "progressive" model you're defending that is the villain. Since when is a desire for thrift and moderation extremist?
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 6 February 2012 8:51:34 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
Co2 in the atmosphere is at an all time high. Correct.
Renewable energy is a one off carbon making venture.
The worlds oceans are warming, and releasing co2 and methane.
Weather patterns like never before.
Extreme heat, extreme cold.
Man made omissions are to blame.
we must get off oil and coal.
We must do something to start the process.
Hence the carbon price.
We can not talk about it for the next 20 years without any implication.
Posted by 579, Monday, 6 February 2012 9:45:18 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
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-only-a-good-start-report-20120205-1qzw1.html

What is clear is that the strategy of the government cannot achieve the objectives of a stable power supply with 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 using renewables. This target can only be achieved by enabling base load carbon capture, or base load nuclear.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 6 February 2012 10:33:57 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
<"You need to worry more about being dead from World War 3 because it could start much sooner and kill you much faster than global warming."

Because of the direct threats to food, water and energy security as a consequence of a warmer and wetter world, and the very real risks that imposes, Cherful ... you knew that, eh Cherful, your a realist after all.>

Indeed I did know that all wars are between two tribes or multiple allied tribes over territory or (control of countries and resouces). I have posted many times on that subject.

The mega populations and the unsolveable territorial dog fight between the Jews and the Arabs could set off world war 3 tomorrow no global warming needed.

World War 2 started because of the economic collapse in Germany in the Great depression

It was the Great Depression in 1931 that bankrupted Germany and threw 6million Germans out of work. Suddenly no money to buy resources like food, shelter and all the rest. That's when the Germans began to throw all the Jews out of jobs and stand outside their shops so that people could only enter German Shops.
A couple of years later they voted for military rule in the form of Hitler who enshrined all the actions against the Jews into law. So WW2 started over territory and resources.
So did WW1 but I don't want to write a book about it here at the moment.

You don't need Global Warming to kick off WW3. The mega populations who don't have enough resources for their families already are capable of kicking off a war at any time. The big territorial dog fight between Israel and the Arabs backed up by various allies could plunge the World into War tomorrow. As could the bankrupting of countries in Europe because that's what sent Germany to war in World War 2.

The United Nations has put Global warming on their list to try and get money off rich countries to supposedly pay for it. Let them implement moves to bring down their populations instead.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 6 February 2012 1:07:21 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
Cheer up a little, who is going to fight this world war 3. Not China, they just built the place and don't want it destroyed. Not russia, they know they are far outgunned by America. India won't be going to a war anytime soon. If Pakistan caused any trouble, India would love to quieten them down. Which leaves the world fearing Iran, and its battleships full of rhetoric.
Posted by 579, Monday, 6 February 2012 1:32:56 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. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All

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