Buying and selling carbon credits is just transferring the problem. The companies should be working/researching how they can reduce the carbon footprint, rather than transferring it elsewhere.
A few years ago I submitted comments on a document put out by the Victorian government on its water strategy, under its so-called community consultation.
I was critical of the quality of the report and its accuracy. I considered a first year high school student could have presented a better document. The figures used were inaccurate.
However, rather than just being critical I provided alternative options for consideration. The response I receive was to thank me for my submission and then tell me my document was too technical and that the technology was not available.
Nonsence! I spoke of existing available technology and it was certainly not a technical document.
If it was too technical then I must conclude the government was employing the wrong engineers.
As a result I can only conclude was that the whole process was a PR exercise, (spin doctoring) to calm public concerns while they went ahead with their own agenda.
That was the real reason for a community consultation. The decisions had already been made and I can only believe was that the government was looking at how it could raise revenue through additional charges/taxes on the public and justify them as necessary to cover costs.
This government is a captive of the objectives of the major power group in the party and private sector vested interests. It is not about governing for all people but for a selected few.

regards
professori_au

The silliness and vanity of the belief that we're all going to boil to death from global warming just defies belief.

Whether the globe is warming or not itself depends on picking arbitrary time-frames. But even if it is ... so what? Isn't anything natural allowed to change any more without pious hysterics calling for a lurch to totalitarian government?

But if it is desirable to cut down on our use of resources, how come it's always by way of an *increase* in government. Government currently snorts 50% of the economy up its snout - why don't we massively reduce government? I'd like to see that! Why don't we cut out the use of electricity and petrol for all politicians and government departments who believe in man-made global warming?

Copernicus
Who's "we"?

"The only kind of compound growth needed is in the numbers of those awakening to reality and demanding a planned and quite rapid reduction in the physical scale of our economy."

Just stop consuming stuff yourself. Obviously the fact that it will cause human disutility or death is irrelevant to the grand cause of saving "the planet". But if you're not willing to do it voluntarily, why should others who don't even agree with you be forced to do it under compulsion?

Why don't you, and everyone else who agrees with you, simply stop using electricity, petrol, and anything made with them? There's no law requiring you to use them. What possible excuse can you have for sitting there in your comfortable home, made and warmed with fossil fuels, typing your opinions onto the internet, powered by fossil fuels.?How can you possibly reconcile that with your values about reducing consumption?

What a collection of wild ideas! It is surprising that Mark does not suggest real climate action for those who take him seriously. If he were serious, then he should set the example by downsizing his living quarters; growing more trees; disconnecting all external electricity supply; disposing of all oil-derived lighting; disposing of all refrigeration; cutting out all animal-derived foods; becoming a vegan; disposing of his motor vehicles; pedal-cycling or walking everywhere; avoiding all air travel and public transport; making his own clothes; cutting out all manufactured foods and drinks. Then he should get all his climate action mates to follow suit. Just think of the reduction in their carbon footprints and the enormous satisfaction they would all enjoy. Such satisfaction undoubtedly would become infectious, and his movement would grow exponentially.

What I would like Mark to expand on is why global climate change is bad.
In a geological time frame sea level has gone up and down like a yo-yo.
It is well known that Sydney Harbour is a drowned river valley, drowned when the ice sheets that covered the northern hemisphere melted approx 18k years ago and sea levels rose 60 plus meters.
Also research at Sydney Uni is indicating that native vegetation is most efficient in putting on maximum mass for the least amount of water when CO2 is around the 700ppmv level
Is that just a fortuitous occurrence or has Australian Flora evolved to be quite happy with higher levels of carbon dioxide.
I find the climate change alarmists the most conservative of all people.
They will not accept any change climate when it is plain to all that climate has changed constantly, hot and cold, since life started on earth.
This is not to deny that we all have a responsibility to use resources in the most efficent manner and that includes the tax payers dollar.

There’s nothing like a bit of socio-political radicalization to stir the emotions. Mark Diesendorf is probably more a dangerous symptom of our emotionally driven society than silly.

All protest movements are part of a continuum, a one on the scale is social comment and discussion, a ten on the scale is terrorism. In between we have peaceful protests, group formation, disruptive protests, political activism, violent protests, socio-economic destructive activism, threats to property and commerce, threats to life and limb and finally, the obsession cannot be stopped and ideology claims its first victims. I’m sure Mark has this all under control and can stop this at any point.

Sounds familiar to me

there are a few maxims...accepted as true
business loves making money
better to get direct tax from the people[or govt]..than to work for it...especially if your doing buisness for proffit

rerstriction of supply creates scarcity
scare-city...allows bigger price..bigger price means more proffit for business....talk of peak oil creates scarcity prenium..despite we being no where near peak oil

global warming means you need to prove its warming
claiming climate cooling likewise needs its proof
but the proof is climate changes..yes agreed...but it allways has changed..winter to summer...we have hot spot;'s and cold spots..climate change is undeniable

now to lik govt gifts to change we can be decieved into believing..cast blame as one poisen...the basis for all life..then collect the tax on a reducing..[capped]..limit of credits...and increase the value of credits to all..the tax serfs /wage slaves..con/sumers ..cash cow..will bear /...

its great this global tax subsidy to rebuild for proffit busines..via the lie of carbon deficite[credit where credit is due...they sold the dream to many fools

i didnt use less power at all,..other poluters simply pumped in more power....when they shut down the conveyer belt..in fact no change was recorded...but

the cooling of the effective burning temp ...means the wastefull burning cycle..needed to be passed..through again..to get it back up to efficient speed...nothing at all was achieved by these vandels acts

wake up its all deceit to increase what we pay...havnt you noticed prices doubled allready...councils used to do this stuff locally...were cleaning up their acts..till big business started taking it all over...with enron deceptions...this has the clear smell of enron to it