Shipping accounts for 90% of the world movement of goods.The world's 90,000 ships produce 260 times more sulphur dioxide than do the world's 760 million cars. see http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526

Shipping uses 7.5% of the world's oil supply and produces far more pollutants than cars.It uses low grade bunker oil that is high in toxins and pollutants.We are told by the environmental scare mongers that ocean acidification is the next big threat to the ecology.

SO2 disolves in water to produce sulphurous acid H2SO3 which is far more acidic than carbonic acid, ie CO2 dissolved in water.The real culprit of ocean acidification is sulphur not CO2.

The question is,why are the environmentalists so silent on this reality and the neo-cons so in favour of free trade when they want a carbon tax to reduce pollution? Why is there not also a tax on sulphur pollution?

The answer is that free trade is all about power to the Global Corporate interests who want low wages and power at any cost.

Global Corporate interests who want low wages..
Arjay,
They in turn only exist because of the mindless consumers of frivolous commodities. So where do we start to reduce this pollution ?

Much of this pollution can be reduced by manufacturing goods here within Aust.Also insist that the fuel used by the shipping idustry is much cleaner.We have one rule for large corps and another for the consumer.It will make goods more expensive but keep more jobs here.

A kiwi fruit flown here uses far more than its own weight in fuel.This is unnecessary cost,waste and pollution.Why are they putting a tax on carbon and not on sulphur?

I do not believe that CO2 is the prime cause of AGW.They call it climate change now hedging their bets that it might be cooling.Gillard is pushing ahead with a tax that will cripple us.Electricity prices have already doubled.They have us in enough debt.

Carbon is the basis of all life .You breathe out CO2 and expel methane CH4.Your cells are based on carbon.Our energy is based on carbon.Tax carbon and you tax life itself and our source of energy.It will be total enslavement.

Gillard is acting at the behest of corporate interests.When she made her pronouncements from the Lowy Institute,I knew she was their puppet.They want the tax and the derivative market.

Arjay “The question is,why are the environmentalists so silent on this reality and the neo-cons so in favour of free trade when they want a carbon tax to reduce pollution? Why is there not also a tax on sulphur pollution?

The answer is that free trade is all about power to the Global Corporate interests who want low wages and power at any cost.”

Ah Arjay – I love it when you answer your own questions

My question for you is

is why bother to post when you know the answer?

To the matter of any pollution – I suppose you could say the environmental Nazis have a very limited intellect and can only handle one element at a time… two elements just confuses them and offer them a molecule … they go into total meltdown.

But keep up the good work… it is all most amusing

Footnote, with world population being the biggest real danger in the world

I believe the best thing any environmentalist could possibly do is -

Commit suicide in a convenient paddock (easier recycling) before they sire children but -

after they have invented a new conspiracy theory to amuse the rest of us

Global Corporate interests who want low wages..
Arjay,
perhaps therein lies the solution. If they don't get paid much then they couldn't afford all the unnecessary crap they buy & that in turn would curb pollution.
As the origin of pollution stems from stupidity then wouldn't we be better off not making people more stupid ? Stop sending smart kids to colleges & you'll see an immediate decline of senselessness & an improvement all round. Once they get to adulthood with the benefit of no brainwashing they'll then make the decisions we so badly need for a sustainable future. What ? Nonsense I hear you say ? Well, the present tactics have failed us & we have prove of that all around.

Stern ,you have a short memory.Remember in Cophenhagen a few months ago,when the new carbon taxes were going to be implemented and people like Christopher Monckton and our own Janet Albrechtsen warned that the secret agenda was a one world Govt that would be financed by a tax on carbon.( A world Govt was mentioned in that agreement.)Haven't you heard of "The New Wold Order"? It was not conspiracy theory,but fact.

Currently they are crashing the Euro and next will be the US $ After creating this crisis the Global Reserve banks will offer the solution of a one world currency owned and controlled by them.This means through the fractional reserve system of banking,they can create as much currency as they like and steal wealth as never before.Would you like to debate how the monetary system works? Why have they not brough in a proper Glass Stegal Act they evolved out of the Great Depression?

I had to chuckle at this one, Arjay.

>>Much of this pollution can be reduced by manufacturing goods here within Aust<<

Here's an exercise for you. You will need a sharp pencil and a calculator.

Given that, as you point out, "Shipping accounts for 90% of the world movement of goods.The world's 90,000 ships produce 260 times more sulphur dioxide than do the world's 760 million cars", could you please work out for us - roughly - how much "of this pollution can be reduced by manufacturing goods here within Aust"?

Once you have done that exercise, you might like to jot down on the back of another envelope - roughly - how much Australians would need to invest in the businesses that produce the replacement goods - i.e., the ones that we will be manufacturing here instead of importing..

That will give you a pretty neat, and quite useful equation, that you could state as "in order to reduce sulphur dioxide pollution by x%, we would need $y billion of investment".

You might then turn your mind to the problem of actually raising this amount of money, without recourse to the Banking system that you despise so much.

In the course of these exercises, if you are diligent and true, you will learn much that is useful to you, grasshopper.

Don't panic Arjay;
Globalisation is coming to an end anyway.
Already because of shipping costs manufacturing is moving out of China and back to the USA and Europe.
It will not happen in a rush but gradually for goods dependant on their cost of shipping vs value and volume.
It is caused by increasing fuel costs.
One of the drivers of fuel costs is the large increase in diesel use.
The refineries to produce more diesel then have to produce less bunker fuel and so ships are forced to purchase
a mixture of diesel and bunker oil which is a more expensive mix.
Ultimately as oil gets very much higher in price and the airlines move
out of the freight business manufacturing will become local again.
This is the basis of the localisation movement that is now gathering momentum around the world.

Chuckle all you want Pericles.Much of the pollution created by shipping we use can be reduced.I was not talking about world wide pollution created by all countries.Our pop makes up only 3% of the world's pop.If there was less needless trade,there would be far less toxic pollution.

You have lost many debates on the Global Reserve Banksters who steal money via stealth.President Woodrow Wilson of the USA lamented that he'd sold out his own country when he let the likes of Rothschilds Rockerfellers,amd Morgans own and produce the US currency.

It is the banks via the fractional reserve banking system who create inflation.Inflation dilutes the value of our currencies hence our savings and purchasing power.Banks create money in their computers.Yo cannot deny this Pericles since who creates all the money for pop increases,GDP increases,and inflation.You cannot do it since it is considered counterfeiting.The Global Reserve banks are the chief culprits.

We here in Aust should be producing all our own currency needs.Instead we borrow form OS to cover wealth and pop increases.This means we are letting the foreign banksters own our GDP and loan it back to us with interest.This is why we are in so much debt.Keating should never have sold off the Commonwealth bank since it was creating currency for its people.He in my book was a traitor.A perepetraitor of bankster theft.

My analogy is thus;it is like letting your neighbour steal from you and then loaning your hard earned money back to you at interest.

Your facist mates Pericles,have set in train the seeds of their own destruction.The really big fear is that they will take all humanity with them.

My chuckle was not about pollution, Arjay, but your blinkered and simplistic "solution".

>>Chuckle all you want Pericles.Much of the pollution created by shipping we use can be reduced<<

Of course it can.

The only teensy fly of reality in the ointment of idealism is its cost. If you care to do the simple exercise in arithmetic that I suggested, you will see this.

>>If there was less needless trade,there would be far less toxic pollution.<<

Also true.

Unfortunately, someone has to decide which part of trade is "needless". We presently allow our own people to determine this, through their demand for the specific goods that require importation. It would be interesting to see a political party selling the alternative - "your government will decide which imports are 'needless'".

And again, whatever they decide, there will be either the cost of local production to consider, or their absence from the shelves.

If you'd like to ponder how this might work - because it can, of course - take a look at Castro's post-1959 Cuba. The only remaining question would be whether you feel this is a great way to live.

>>You have lost many debates on the Global Reserve Banksters who steal money via stealth.<<

Your powers of recall must be better than mine, Arjay.

I can't remember a single one where the discussion didn't end with you baling out. But please feel free to refresh my memory.

The issue is not debatable anyway, in any real sense of people arguing a point. You have so little grasp of the mechanics of finance that you are only able to employ slogans.

As indeed, you do here.

>>We here in Aust should be producing all our own currency needs.<<

Another concept - or slogan, in fact - that cannot bear a moment's scrutiny. You wouldn't, for example, even be able to articulate what "producing all our own currency needs" actually involves.

It's no bad thing to keep asking the questions, Arjay.

But you might also benefit occasionally if you were to listen to the answers, and to try to understand them.