The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Why The Rudd Govt Needs 'Carbon Pollution'

Why The Rudd Govt Needs 'Carbon Pollution'

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Even in the face of mounting evidence showing that CO2 is not the pariah we once thought it was,the Rudd juggernaut rolls on with adds justifying new taxes on carbon.Back in 2000 all the evidence pointed to CO2 being the devil with lots of catagory class 5 cyclones to use as evidence.Most of us were convinced including myself.Since 1990 Govts around the planet have given $50 billion to the scientific community and that buys a lot of belief.

Since 2003 the evidence is pointing away from CO2 and further more it seems that AGW may not be happening.AGW now has too much momentum to change it's course now.There is too much money and too many reputations at stake for belief to falter.Well meaning scientists can quite easily justify their precautionary stance against CO2 by claiming that they are tackling pollution thus saving the planet.

The Rudd Govt has backed AGW to the hilt.The other reason why they now need "carbon Pollution" is this: as the economic pain worsens, they can easily deflect attention away from their own economic ineptitude,by telling the ignorant masses that more suffering is inevitable to save the planet.Kevin Rudd is already using AGW as a distraction from the real issues of economics.This recession is shaping up to be far worse than Keating's "Recession we had to have" and they don't have anywhere near the talent or experience of that Govt.Our new economy is now based on discretionary spending service industries,and more collapses like Starbucks will become common place.If China goes under,we're in big trouble.

Kevin and his team will have to soon start addressing the real economic issues or come the next election,they will be known as the "One Term Wonders".
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 8:02:38 PM
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
Oh what hope have we got?

Whether or not CO2 is going to have the enormous impact that it is touted to have is of secondary importance. The primary concern is the almightily massive and ever-increasing impact that humanity is having on the planet.

And yet practically no effort is going into stabilising population, or into tempering the massive growth rate in resource consumption, in China and India in particular. We are just pandering to this increase in human impact on the planet all the way.

We have the ultimate absurdity in Australia with KRudd pushing hard for GHG emission reductions while at the same time facilitating a steady increase in the number of polluters at by far the greatest rate that this country has ever seen.

Arjay, IMO we should not be pushing for KRudd to address the “real economic issues” instead of putting so much effort in AGW, we should be pushing for both….and most importantly, for an immediate massive reduction in immigration followed by a steady further decline so that our population can be stabilised and we can just maybe achieve a sustainable economy and society before it is too late.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 31 July 2008 8:53:21 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
Arjay “One Term Wonders".

Arjay I agree, I have already used a similar term on a couple of posts.

The carbon tax issue is about justifying

greater governmental control over our personal discretionary income

= less discretion from less income due to more taxes.

Socialism by Stealth

The Liberals need to get their act together and present a viable alternative.

Ludwig agree, the issue of carbon emissions is to simply address one of the symptoms, not the cause.

Global problems demand global solutions.

Pretending Australia can influence the world on this is hubris. It is simple, we are 20 million among 6+ billion. Despite our large geographic footprint, the consumption of resources remains a mouth on mouth matter.

Get the 6 billion in agreement and we can jump on board, until they do, we are going to deprive all Australians of opportunity because of a stupid political dogma.

I recall in the 1970s the traditional fishing grounds of the UK were being depleted, the fisheries administration decided to quota catches to help stocks recover. When they did more Spanish and Portuguese trawlers entered the fishing grounds and ensured an increased rate of depletion. I further recall royal navy ships involved in violent conflict with Icelandic fishing trawlers

Moral: when universal suffrage is respected, you cannot impose global policy unilaterally
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 31 July 2008 11:11:01 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
I am an climate change agnostic. I can't help noticing those graphs we keep seeing where the current climate change fits neatly into the usual 1000 year cycle but I am not in a position to know if that is correct. I am not informed enough to hold a firm opinion.

However, while there is absolutely any controversy I think Rudd should hold off and instead make urgent contingency plans without actually implementing anything. Isn't there a saying that no Prime Minister who introduces a new tax ever gets reelected?

My concern is that when the full force of the carbon tax on petrol kicks in it will really strain the economic situation. Petrol drives everything. With increased petrol prices comes increased spending on fuel, food, products, etc etc thus driving up inflation and in consequence interest rates. My understanding is that depressions cause a lot of human suffering and should be avoided. There was an economist on the ABC who basically argued that people like Garnaut and Al Gore drive us toward depressions.

Personally I'd like to see more work on alternative energy sources that don't create a global food crisis but do reduce emissions. If comparably priced alternatives could be provided I believe it would be more effective on reducing petrol consumption than just charging more for petrol. Prices have doubled since about 2002. Are we using less petrol? I doubt it.

I also heard on the radio an opinion that Rudd's carbon taxes are a cynical excuse to appear to do something with no expectation of meeting emission reduction goals because meeting the emissions reduction goals will become impossible unless imigration is curbed. Ludwig your comments reminded me of that. Rudd wasn't singled out as far as making disingenous promises about the issue were concerned. Previous Prime Ministers were also cited.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 31 July 2008 11:34:25 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
Kevin Rudd reminds me of the Man on the Back of the Tiger.

He is hot to trot on global warming, err sorry "Climate Change".
or is it Carbon Reduction, this week.

The government seems to be determined to bring in the ETS come hell
or high water.
The opposition keeps on saying they will bring it in by 2012 but seem
to consider modifying it depending on what the rest of the world does.
I suspect they would drop it all together if there was no
international support, except Europe.
They, the opposition appear to be worried that Australia could cause
itself a lot of damage all to no purpose if our little bit of CO2 is considered.

Which do you think is the common sense position ?
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 31 July 2008 2:54:10 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
I agree mjpb. Carbon reduction/ETS does seem to be hitting a fly with a sledgehammer approach given that our CO2 emissions make up about 1-1.5% of global emissions. What is the point of it if we don't invest in renewable technologies that can be exported without continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industries with subsidies and exemptions or increasing coal exports.

Surely (regardless of climate change) the key is to reduce polluting activity and encourage alternative forms of energy in partnership with programs like zero population growth.

Means testing the solar rebate would seem to be in contradiction to the climate change and ETS stance of the current government. Is it just pure revenue raising opportunism with no thought to real long term environmental strategies.

Other very real environmental issues continue to be ignored - logging of old growth forests, Gunn's pulp mill, pollution of our waterways, use of plastics etc. And still no credence paid to population as an issue which does not only affect the environment but with it, the wellbeing of people of all nations.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 31 July 2008 3:13:55 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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