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 > General Discussion > Result of Carbon tax, emissions increase by 13% over 2000 levels.

Result of Carbon tax, emissions increase by 13% over 2000 levels.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Lexi, it has been said that our contribution to the global co2 is about one single hair on the gateway bridge.

Also, it is suggested that if we achieve our target, then what we save in a full year, china and India will omit in about 2 days as they are tipped to increase outputs by 500&350%respectfully

What is it with this governments obsession with wanting trophies?
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 12 July 2011 9:52:30 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
How any clown out there can think we can cut emissions, while at the same time meet the demands from developing countries simply defies lodgic.

With china and India tipped to increase emissions by 500&350% the demands for raw materials must increase to feed that growth.

So, we have two choices.

1. We sit back and watch someone else provide their needs, or
2. They simply fail to develop.

Now considering the latter is unlikely to happen, what do you clowns who support this 'go it alone' emissions reduction plan suggest we do to sustain our way of life, or, do you suggest we ruin the prospects for our future generations?
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 7:03:36 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
Cutting pollution is not a left-wing issue:

"The Ross Garnaut-commissioned CSIRO’s report Australians’ views of climate change last year polled 3096 Australians and found that the biggest single predictor of whether Australians believe that global warming is caused by humans is their voting intentions. The CSIRO found that 82 per cent of Greens voters and 63 per cent of Labor voters believed climate change is occurring largely due to human activity, while 59 per cent of Liberal/National voters think it is a normal fluctuation in the Earth's climate. Voting intention would seem to be a strange thing to correlate with an issue that is essentially scientific.

Does that make climate change a left wing issue? Not if we go back a bit into history. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first world leaders to take the threat of climate change seriously. In 1990 she committed to reversing the rising trend of greenhouse gas emissions and bring emissions back to 1990 levels by 2005. Back in Australia in 1990 Andrew Peacock faced off against Bob Hawke in a general election. The Coalition under Peacock committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2000 if they won office. Peacock lost the election but the commitment was kept under the new Coalition Leader John Hewson who took it to the 1993 election.

Early commitments to reducing emissions came from the conservative side of politics. John Howard promised to introduce an ETS to cut emissions. Brendan Nelson, who followed Howard as Liberal leader also thought that an ETS was the best way to deliver emissions cuts. Next was Malcolm Turnbull, who also thought that an ETS was the best way to go. Even Tony Abbott has previously said the best way to cut emissions is an ETS, as well as supporting a carbon tax."

https://www.tai.org.au/?q=node/336
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 9:49:52 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
Australia will be left behind if it does not get on board with sustainable technologies.

At the same time China and India are becoming industrialised, they are also working on sustainable technologies. What this means for Australia is that relying on coal exports as an economic driver is as short term as it is exporting pollution.

"4. Both sides agree that the relationship between India and China, the two biggest developing countries in the world, is of global and strategic significance. Both countries are seeking to avail themselves of historic opportunities for development. Each side welcomes and takes a positive view of the development of the other, and considers the development of either side as a positive contribution to peace, stability and prosperity of Asia and the world. Both sides hold the view that there exist bright prospects for their common development, that they are not rivals or competitors but are partners for mutual benefit. They agree that there is enough space for them to grow together, achieve a higher scale of development, and play their respective roles in the region and beyond, while remaining sensitive to each other’s concerns and aspirations. Strategic partnership between the two countries with a similar worldview is consistent with their roles as two major developing countries. With the growing participation and role of the two countries in all key issues in today’s globalising world, their partnership is vital for international efforts to deal with global challenges and threats. As two major countries in the emerging multi-polar global order, the simultaneous development of India and China will have a positive influence on the future international system.

5. In order to promote the sustainable socio-economic development of India and China, to fully realise the substantial potential for their cooperation in a wide range of areas, to upgrade India-China relations to a qualitatively new level, and to further substantiate and reinforce their Strategic and Cooperative Partnership, the leaders of the two countries have committed themselves to pursuing the following “ten-pronged strategy”:I. Ensuring Comprehensive Development of Bilateral Relations:

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=22168
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 9:56:07 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
Hasbeen

Increasing levels of CO2 explained:

"Would it surprise you to know that the scientific community has been investigating the link between CO2 and global warming for more than 175 years? Scientists are born skeptics, and by no means accepted the theory as fact the first time it was proposed.

The idea that gases in the atmosphere could trap heat and warm the earth was first proposed in 1827, in an essay by French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier. He was trying to explain why the earth was warmer than physics would predict based just on distance from the sun.

The topic came up again 30 years later when Irish naturalist John Tyndall found clear evidence that glaciers once covered the Alps. The Earth had experienced ice ages. But how could the climate have changed that much? Tyndall was familiar with Fourier's essay, and in 1859 did some experiments that showed water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) could both trap heat.

Nearly 40 more years passed before another scientist fascinated with ice ages did some investigating. In 1896, Swedish Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius computed that halving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would lower the temperature by 7°F or more – ice age temperature. But he didn't see how CO2 concentrations could change this much.

It was a colleague of Arrhenius, Arvid Högom, who discovered that burning fossil fuels could add significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere – as much as natural geochemical processes. But both he and Arrhenius saw this as something that could only cause warming over thousands of years – at first.

In 1908, when coal-burning was more widespread, Arrhenius published a book where he theorized that global warming might take centuries rather than millennia, but no one paid this much mind. It wasn't the main point of the book, and no one believed it anyway.

For the next three decades, most scientists dismissed these ideas. The theories were often flawed or oversimplified, and in any case they thought that excess CO2 would be harmlessly absorbed by the ocean.

Cont'd
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 10:02:11 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
Cont'd

"Then in 1938, an English engineer named Guy Stewart Callendar took another look. People had been talking about a warming trend, so he checked the record and found that CO2 concentrations had increased 10 percent over the last hundred years. His observation spurred further research.

Finally, in the 1950s, thanks to increased government funding for research after World War II, experiments confirmed the suspicions. There was an unmistakable connection between CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and global warming....

...So you see, the greenhouse effect is not something scientists cooked up a few years ago, or even a few decades ago. We have been studying it for almost two centuries! After painstaking measurements and calculations by generations of scientists, the scientific community has reached a consensus: Global warming is caused by human activities. In the next posts in this series, I'll tell you how the measurements and calculations lead us to that conclusion."

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/14/human_cause-1/
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 10:03:40 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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