Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

[rod@plasterbrok]

Here are some questions I would like to see the Media ask Rudd.
<o></o>
1. If the world has stopped warming, why have ascheme at all?
2. If world emissions will keep soaring whatever we do, why have a scheme at all?
3. If the biggest emitters - and our competitors - have no intention of cutting their own gases, why have a scheme at all?
4. If the price of coping with any warming is much less than the price of trying to stop it, why have a scheme at all?

There will be a lot of finacial pain for the average Joe in a Carbon Tax:((. It would be nice to have the benefit quantified with a cost benefit analyisis.
<o></o>
<o>Some how I dont think we will get that.:( </o>
<o></o>
<o>What do you guys think?</o>

[Elbow]

Just another example of rushing in to be the good guy regardless. The bigger polluters will continue on and not worry. Meanwhile our costs go up and can't compete with the evil doers.
Rant off

Allan

[Big Shed]

I see absolutely no point in it unless the 3 biggest economies, (US, China, India) do the same, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. So why put ourselves at an economic disadvantage for no environmental gain?

[damian]

Well, I hate to perpetuate stuff like this but here goes anyway:

Man made global warming is a con. If you stand on the equator of the moon at noon when it is on earth's orbit line you are near as dammit the same distance to the sun. The reason there is a difference in temperature is that the earths atmosphere insulates us. Solar radiation comes in during the day and heats up the earth and atmosphere and leaks off during the night. The GW evangelists claim CO2 is 30% of this effect, but they say 30% of the GASS'S effect. The reason they always say gas is because water vapour isn't a gas, it's a suspended aerosol. It's also 95% of the insulation in our atmosphere. So CO2 is 30% of 5%. Even if you assume some signifigant proportion of the methane or CO2 is manmade directly or indirectly it would still be irrelevant in the scheme of things.

No doubt there are some true believers here who will jump on me. I'd like to point out in advance that I'm telling 1% of the story here. I don't have time to write a book.

The media are pathological liars. They couldn't tell the truth if you handed them a story on the second comming. Geenpeace are not an enviromental organisation. They are a fund raising organisation who use similar tactics as women's magazines to get you to fork out. The so called scientists who stick their heads in front of TV cameras are furthering their careers and lining their pockets. I'd call them prostitutes but that is an insult to the working girls, who are a good deal more honest than those kind.

/rant....

[echnidna]

hmmm, an enlightened summary :cool:

[ss_11000]

......

I like it:2tsup:

So, if i was to look into this any further - is there a website that has this infromation:?:)

[petersemple]

I like it:2tsup:

So, if i was to look into this any further - is there a website that has this infromation:?:)

Yep, there are plenty of websites that have this info.... and plenty that do a very convincing job of presenting exactly the opposite too. You can't believe everything you read on the 'net. Problem is when a good deal of it is contradictory it's hard to know which one to not believe.

Peter

[Rattrap]

WOW.
Such blind, ignorant, 'head in the sand' thinking.
I had half a page of ranting but then i realised that if you haven't seen the writing on the wall then theres very little point in me trying to convince u any further.
A lot of people are scared & looking for somebody to tell them that 'everything is gonna be alright, nothing needs to change or at least not much'. Sadly there are also plenty of people who will tell them just what they want to hear, ignoring real hard science, or worse, twist & distort it along the way.
Come on people, open your eyes for real. I'm sure you're all seen the future population predictions so u don't need me to look them up. Add to it major population countries like china & India are jumping into the 21st century with both feet & making all the same mistakes the western world has been making for years. This planet is turning into a tip. If somebody doesn't start doing things the right way nobody will!
Don't give me that lame 'hes not doing it so why should i?' I stopped whining like that when i was 12 years old.

Yes its gonna cost & damn right its gonna hurt like hell but the simple fact is the sooner we start the cheaper & easier it will be. If people hadn't used the very same excuses that u are sprouting right now 20 years ago then we wouldn't have the crisis we have now on our hands.
& we DO have a crisis. Don't doubt that for a moment.

OK so it turned into a min rant. If i offended anybody, well good. It means at least some of my rant got thru.

PS, In 20 years i hope like hell that all of u will be able to point at me & laugh & say 'see, told u you were wrong fool'.

[chrisp]

Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

Absolutely. It is a sad fact is that society as a whole dosen't seem to change or react until each individual has to bear the cost.

We all hear that oil is running out, and that carbon (CO2) is damaging the environment and most of us, me included, just go on our merry way.

So, let's implement a carbon tax and tip the economics in favour of alternative technologies. It's only when we are all hit with the extra cost of a carbon tax that we'll make the renewable energy sector viable - and the world a better place :)

[Big Shed]

But chrisp, we already have a carbon tax, oil has increased by 50-75% in the last 12 months or so, far more (I hope) than a carbon tax will do.

Has that made renewable energy more viable? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I repeat my point, and no it is not the whine of a 12 year old, there is no point in a country like Australia acting alone. Whether we like it or not Australia's economy is but a flyspot on the world's economic wall paper. We need the major economies, yes US, China, India etc to be part of this, otherwise we will be penalising ourselves and hurting our economy for the long term.

Our children and grandchildren will not look kindly on our kneejerk reactions.

Ranting and raving with religious fervour will do nothing to solve the problem. How many of the people that rant and rave about global warming have wall to wall plasma screens? Read what those gasses are doing to our environment, measured how much energy they use?

Do as I do, not do as I say (did you hear that Mr Al Gore?)

[ss_11000]

Yep, there are plenty of websites that have this info.... and plenty that do a very convincing job of presenting exactly the opposite too. You can't believe everything you read on the 'net. Problem is when a good deal of it is contradictory it's hard to know which one to not believe.

Peter

yeah, i know:) but what damian said is more to my liking than the rest of the BS people go on with:rolleyes::cool:

although, i do tend to believe the person that has the scientific and mathematic evidence to back up their entire arugment - its a pity that people make 'evidence' up!

[Gingermick]

statistically speaking, 99.9999% of all statistics can be misinterpreted.:D

[dazzler]

Well, I hate to perpetuate stuff like this but here goes anyway:

Man made global warming is a con. If you stand on the equator of the moon at noon when it is on earth's orbit line you are near as dammit the same distance to the sun. The reason there is a difference in temperature is that the earths atmosphere insulates us. Solar radiation comes in during the day and heats up the earth and atmosphere and leaks off during the night. The GW evangelists claim CO2 is 30% of this effect, but they say 30% of the GASS'S effect. The reason they always say gas is because water vapour isn't a gas, it's a suspended aerosol. It's also 95% of the insulation in our atmosphere. So CO2 is 30% of 5%. Even if you assume some signifigant proportion of the methane or CO2 is manmade directly or indirectly it would still be irrelevant in the scheme of things.

....

Hi damien

Global warming is not a con. There is a lot of conning going on and rod points to some of it, stupid little measures that will do nothing as it needs to be a global thing not a local thing.

It is simple physics that man is effecting the atmosphere by releasing carbon into it. Remember, you cannot destroy anything, just change its composition. The coal/oil/gas that we are burning and releasing into the atmosphere all comes from a period of the earth where the CO2 % in the atmosphere was much much higher than today. It was sequestered into the earths surface when it decayed and was covered by silt etc and hidden away.

As we burn it, and we are burning it at rates beyond imagining, the carbon molecules are released and enter the atmosphere. The problem is that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less heat can leave and so the atmosphere heats up.

I believe what we are doing is changing the atmosphere simply because it makes sense. If I light up a cigarette in my house I can see the resultant contaminants floating around (smoke). The earth is just a big house, pump carbon into it and it changes.

So I believe that man is changing the atmosphere through the unregulated burning of fossil fuels.

But I disagree with the way us earthlings are going about reducing it. Without all countries coming on board, reducing or at least stopping overpopulation and reafforesting the worlds forest, its all just feel good crap. :rolleyes:

[rhancock]

But surely, (whether you agree that human created global warming is real or not) if the point of an emissions trading scheme is to persuade people to use less (carbon emitting) energy, then

Current amount of monthly budget I spend on petrol = $400
Current distance driven per month = 1000km
Emissions trading increases energy cost by 50%
New distance driven per month = 666km
New amount of monthly budget I spend on petrol = $400

How much has carbon trading cost me?.....

Of course, I've simplified things, although for me this will work (Every month I drive about 25km to pick up takeaways!).

The difficulty is those people who are not able to reduce their mileage - tradies are top of that list, and some of the mileage I save will be by changing from a trade job to an office job, but still everyone has the ability to make some changes, many tradies for instance will restrict the area they are prepared to service.

And there's always this... (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Bike-Bicycle-Tricycle-Utility-NEW_W0QQitemZ140245873300QQihZ004QQcategoryZ2904QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

[Big Shed]

But petrol has already increased by 50%, by how much has that reduced your driving?

Nice theoretical exercise, but the real world is different..............

[rhancock]

But petrol has already increased by 50%, by how much has that reduced your driving?

Nice theoretical exercise, but the real world is different..............

Maybe I'm not your average guy, but I take my kids to the shops on the bus these days, I cycle to work and uni 4 days a week instead of 2 days a week, the kids complain that we can't go to the big park we have to drive to, they can only go to the park around the corner. And, yes, I'm giving up trade work, and working in an office, but I did seriously consider buying a bike like that and filling it with tools and materials!

When it came down to spending an extra $20 on petrol or getting an indian take away on Sunday night, I made a choice - that is the point of an emissions trading scheme - getting people to change the choices they make.

[chrisp]

But petrol has already increased by 50%, by how much has that reduced your driving?

Nice theoretical exercise, but the real world is different..............

Big Shed,

Probably not much for me, but it seems to be having an impact in Melbourne. Have you heard about the over crowded public transport system?

I use about 30~40 litres per month in petrol so the cost of fuel doesn't really impact on me too much. I know others who travel further and they have switched to using public transport. I suspect we are at the point were more people will move to public transport as the cost of petrol rises.

[bsrlee]

Interestingly, in the last week I have seen a 'report' from a group of 'scientists' backed up by some pretty good 'facts' and 'statistics' that calls for the wholesale removal of trees from the arctic regions are they are a 'major' contribution to global warming & have caused the Arctic to warm at twice the 'global average'. Seems the evil trees are both reducing the amount of snow, increasing the amount of snow during summer, reducing the reflection of heat & increasing the soil temperature causing bacteria to thrive & release CO2.

Yes, it seems you can have it both ways.

[Big Shed]

I actually asked by how much the 50% increase in petrol cost had reduced your weekly driving.

Good to see you making those sort of choices, although they are probably not all driven by a concern for the environment.
For instance, I choose to drive a car powered by LPG and therefore have less of a carbon impact than if I drove a petrol or diesel powered car. However that choice is as much driven by economic factors as it is by environmental factors.

Now, surely you are not suggesting that all tradies should give up trades work to reduce emissions and go work in an office? Likewise, whilst city people can choose to go on their bike to work or uni, country people cannot. Any carbon/emissions tax will, of necessity affect country people more. Country people also do not, in the main, have access to public transport, but still pay their taxes to subsidise city office workers to travel to work.

The point I, and others, are trying to make, is that we should be careful not to jump the gun and act too soon. If we do that we put ourselves at a disadvantage economically and we all still have to pay the bills, even people that work in an office.

[m2c1Iw]

But I disagree with the way us earthlings are going about reducing it. Without all countries coming on board, reducing or at least stopping overpopulation and reafforesting the worlds forest, its all just feel good crap. :rolleyes:

Can anyone please explain how our government intends spending the carbon tax. The announcements talk about carbon trading however as I see it this title is simply code for tax so where will it go.

Sure increased prices will force behavioural change no doubt about that but why does little old Oz need to be the pace setter at the expense of our standard of living. Yes self interest exposed.

But look at how successful our leading the charge on free trade has been in all but removing manufacturing from Australia. A slightly different debate but I can't help draw the parallel.

So I'm all ears or should I say eyes, how will it work:?

Mike

[rhancock]

I actually asked by how much the 50% increase in petrol cost had reduced your weekly driving.

Didn't I answer that? Or do you want to see my log book?

Good to see you making those sort of choices, although they are probably not all driven by a concern for the environment.
For instance, I choose to drive a car powered by LPG and therefore have less of a carbon impact than if I drove a petrol or diesel powered car. However that choice is as much driven by economic factors as it is by environmental factors.

I didn't ever say my choices were driven by a concern for the environment. Some are, some aren't, most are a bit of environment with some economics thrown in.

Now, surely you are not suggesting that all tradies should give up trades work to reduce emissions and go work in an office? Likewise, whilst city people can choose to go on their bike to work or uni, country people cannot. Any carbon/emissions tax will, of necessity affect country people more. Country people also do not, in the main, have access to public transport, but still pay their taxes to subsidise city office workers to travel to work.

No, I didn't suggest that either. I don't want it to turn into a country vs city argument either. I thought about listing all the people who will be impacted by higher energy costs more than the average, but the list is long and is topped by anyone living outside of metro Australia, so I agree with you that country people will be affected more. As well as tradies. And anyone with a disability, or caring for a someone with a disability. Or pregnant women. Or anyone with a heavy load to move. and trucking companies. and... and...

Its a long list but it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make (see below).

The point I, and others, are trying to make, is that we should be careful not to jump the gun and act too soon. If we do that we put ourselves at a disadvantage economically and we all still have to pay the bills, even people that work in an office.

Over 20 years ago I started reading reports about global warming and the impacts it was likely to have. Is waiting 20 years jumping the gun?

The point I am tryig to make is that each of us has a certain amount of choice in how we do what we do. Since LPG is very fuel efficient for lots of short distance trips, most tradies would be able to justify the choice when they buy the next vehicle. People living in the country might be able to car pool for some journeys. Or buy some products online. Or drive to the train. Or something else...

We all make choices. Emissions trading is about influencing some of those choices.

Editors Note: Bold text removed

[rhancock]

Can anyone please explain how our government intends spending the carbon tax. The announcements talk about carbon trading however as I see it this title is simply code for tax so where will it go.

Sure increased prices will force behavioural change no doubt about that but why does little old Oz need to be the pace setter at the expense of our standard of living. Yes self interest exposed.

But look at how successful our leading the charge on free trade has been in all but removing manufacturing from Australia. A slightly different debate but I can't help draw the parallel.

So I'm all ears or should I say eyes, how will it work:?

Mike

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm) for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

[echnidna]

<-- How Far To The Edge Of The World ? --> :p

[chrisp]

I actually asked by how much the 50% increase in petrol cost had reduced your weekly driving.

I think costs have to go up way beyond a 50% increase to have a significant impact, but it will happen - it's just a question of when.

Part of the problem, I think, as that we have all become a bit spoilt with the relatively low cost of energy. It doesn't really matter if you talk petrol, gas or electricity - they are all dirt cheap!

Let me repeat that - dirt cheap - do you believe it?

If I asked a average person to work for the equivalent cost of the energy they produce, I'd be charged with exploitation.

For example, a 80kg person running (i.e. hard work) for 8 hours consumes:
30 kJ/kg/hr x 80kg x 8 hr = 19200 kJ
Their useful work output would be far less, but we'll use input figures for this exercise (pun :rolleyes: ).

Electricity costs the average household about $0.14/kWh
1 kWh = 60 x 60 kJ = 3600 kJ (=$0.14)
The cost in electricity per kJ:
$0.14 / 3600 = $0.0000389
Cost of energy used by a 80kg person running for 8 hours:
19200kJ x $0.0000389/kJ = $0.75
If that person was paid at the going rate for the work they do at the same rate we typically pay for electricity, they'd earn less than:
$0.10 per hour
I suspect most of us produce far less output (=energy) in a typical day. Would you be willing to work hard for 8 hours to be paid less than $0.10 per hour?

I'm sure the energy cost per unit for petrol is higher, but I'm an electrical engineer, not a chemical engineer:rolleyes:

The point I'm trying to make is that we have under valued the true worth of our energy supply. We are using energy sources that took millions of years to produce and burning it up like it costs nothing.

[Big Shed]

Over 20 years ago I started reading reports about global warming and the impacts it was likely to have. Is waiting 20 years jumping the gun?

The point I am tryig to make is that each of us has a certain amount of choice in how we do what we do. Since LPG is very fuel efficient for lots of short distance trips, most tradies would be able to justify the choice when they buy the next vehicle. People living in the country might be able to car pool for some journeys. Or buy some products online. Or drive to the train. Or something else...

We all make choices. Emissions trading is about influencing some of those choices.

Editors Note: Bold text removed

I wasn't having a go at your personal choices, merely pointing out that we all make choices, some out of necessity, others as real choices. If you decide to convert an Indian takeaway in to a petrol purchase, that is your choice (and perhaps better for the environment as Indian takeaways have been known to produce the odd bit of emissions:D)

When I talk about people in the country having fewer options, I do that from the point of view of someone who lives in the country, just as you obviously do as a person who lives in the city. Point here is that it is not a case of "one size fits all".

When I talk about "jumping the gun", I am not saying that we should not do anything, far from it. What I am saying is that we should not throw out the baby with bath water and disadvantage the country as a whole economically.

When you say that the government collecting 20 billion for emissions permit is not a tax, that is what most people would call "spin". Of course it is a tax, it money collected by government by compulsion, if that isn't a tax, then the GST is a "surcharge".

[Big Shed]

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm) for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

As it happens I am just reading a report in today's Age, which quotes Ross Garnaut as saying "the government will eventually collect $20b A YEAR". This is confirmed by modelling by the Climate Institute. Wayne Swan has said that "every penny will be spent on households". Remember that when the GST was introduced the states would get rid of taxes such as stamp duty, yeah right!

[m2c1Iw]

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm) for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

OK I get that much but what happens when a goal burning generator cannot find someone to buy permits from. Do the government keep issuing as per the start up or do they shut down.

Second point as I asked in my previous post what will happen to the $20 billion its OK to say we'll compensate low income families but how, when and how much. What is the level of cap that they talk about. There is way to much hand on heart trust me in this one, at least with the GST we knew the amount despite the fact the State governments reneged on many of the tax offsets.

I just hope we don't see more of hand outs to companies like we have seen in the Toyota case. One off grants do not ensure viablility to an industry and don't get me started on why we gave $35 mil out of the green inovation fund to Toyota. Yes it is a small amount in the scheme of things just window dressing really but the technology is old hardly inovative and studies prove it is not as environmentaly friendly as it is promoted.

So I am still doutful, unconvinced and lacking enough information to understand how it will not harm our economy.

Mike

[rhancock]

It isn't collected by the government. In fact they haven't actually decided to auction the permits yet, they're still thinking about giving them away. In which case there would be no money going to government at all.

Still the most likely case is that in the year the trading starts, the government will auction the permits and get a windfall of $20 billion, which is a lot of money. And yes you can see that as a tax if you insist, but it is a one off tax, never to be repeated, and there will be an enormous compensation package to pay for - maybe it'll be as big as the windfall and maybe it won't, but it will be one off. After that the government gets no income and so is unlikely to pay any more compensation.

[Big Shed]

I think costs have to go up way beyond a 50% increase to have a significant impact, but it will happen - it's just a question of when.

Part of the problem, I think, as that we have all become a bit spoilt with the relatively low cost of energy. It doesn't really matter if you talk petrol, gas or electricity - they are all dirt cheap!

Let me repeat that - dirt cheap - do you believe it?

If I asked a average person to work for the equivalent cost of the energy they produce, I'd be charged with exploitation.

For example, a 80kg person running (i.e. hard work) for 8 hours consumes:
30 kJ/kg/hr x 80kg x 8 hr = 19200 kJ
Their useful work output would be far less, but we'll use input figures for this exercise (pun :rolleyes: ).

Electricity costs the average household about $0.14/kWh
1 kWh = 60 x 60 kJ = 3600 kJ (=$0.14)
The cost in electricity per kJ:
$0.14 / 3600 = $0.0000389
Cost of energy used by a 80kg person running for 8 hours:
19200kJ x $0.0000389/kJ = $0.75
If that person was paid at the going rate for the work they do at the same rate we typically pay for electricity, they'd earn less than:
$0.10 per hour
I suspect most of us produce far less output (=energy) in a typical day. Would you be willing to work hard for 8 hours to be paid less than $0.10 per hour?

I'm sure the energy cost per unit for petrol is higher, but I'm an electrical engineer, not a chemical engineer:rolleyes:

The point I'm trying to make is that we have under valued the true worth of our energy supply. We are using energy sources that took millions of years to produce and burning it up like it costs nothing.

Thank you, that is an interesting way to put in perspective the real cost of electricity. So a labourer, say, should there fore be paid more than an office worker?:rolleyes:

[Big Shed]

It isn't collected by the government. In fact they haven't actually decided to auction the permits yet, they're still thinking about giving them away. In which case there would be no money going to government at all.

Still the most likely case is that in the year the trading starts, the government will auction the permits and get a windfall of $20 billion, which is a lot of money. And yes you can see that as a tax if you insist, but it is a one off tax, never to be repeated, and there will be an enormous compensation package to pay for - maybe it'll be as big as the windfall and maybe it won't, but it will be one off. After that the government gets no income and so is unlikely to pay any more compensation.

All you need to know about Garnaut (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/all-you-need-to-know-about-garnaut-20080702-30s1.html), see under "the Government must be making a lot of money.........." about 2/3 down

[chrisp]

So a labourer, say, should there fore be paid more than an office worker?:rolleyes:

I thought they were :rolleyes:

[Big Shed]

I thought they were :rolleyes:

Touche...:D:2tsup:

[rhancock]

I'd like to keep discussing this all night but I have to go to work tomorrow (on my bike).

I'm researching the issue of how much the government will make each year, and I'll post tomorrow when I have more information.

Big Shed, that's the article I"m working from, but I can't find where the Climate Institute says that, or Garnaut for that matter.

Watch out for Ross Garnauts draft report tomorrow - it'll have more recomendations, although the government is starting to suggest they might not listen to Garnaut...

[Big Shed]

I'd like to keep discussing this all night but I have to go to work tomorrow (on my bike).

I'm researching the issue of how much the government will make each year, and I'll post tomorrow when I have more information.

Big Shed, that's the article I"m working from, but I can't find where the Climate Institute says that, or Garnaut for that matter.

Watch out for Ross Garnauts draft report tomorrow - it'll have more recomendations, although the government is starting to suggest they might not listen to Garnaut...

this bit.......

The Government must be making a lot of money. What should they do with it all?
Modelling by the Climate Institute says the Government could eventually reap as much as $20 billion a year from emissions trading. What Garnaut says on how this should be spent seems a moot point - Treasurer Wayne Swan has already committed to spending every cent on households.
But the Garnaut Review has suggested it should be divided between a larger number of groups. Candidates for help include: poor households needing help coping with price rises; communities built around the coal industry, such as Gippsland's Latrobe Valley and the Hunter Valley in NSW; research and development in clean energy technology; energy infrastructure to connect new developments to the main grid; public transport; helping cut emissions offshore; and heavy-polluting, trade-exposed industries.

(Editor: Bolding by The Age, wasn't me your honour, honest!:D)

[damian]

Yep, there are plenty of websites that have this info.... and plenty that do a very convincing job of presenting exactly the opposite too. You can't believe everything you read on the 'net. Problem is when a good deal of it is contradictory it's hard to know which one to not believe.

Peter

It's easy for me because I'm a mechanical/research engineer. I know a lot about climate physics, and I know the few people in Australia who know more than I do. Thermodynamics is my best subject.

"Climateology" isn't a discreet field. It encompasses climate physics, palentology, oceanography and even some biology. If you want to analyise how heat flows around the planet the examination is complex. If you consider the planet as a whole system it is easier to grasp. I've done a lot of reading, and was doing so long before this hippy panic ensued, on long term weather patterns. I didn't read the conculsions I studied the data sets, and having spent most of my life in research, even in areas not my specialty, I can still reduce data as well as anyone.

If you filter out the vested interests on both sides you'll find that:

The climate is moving, always has.

The recent changes are well within the noise.

It is extremely unlikely that man made pollution is making a signifigant contribution.

It is almost certian that even if we're causing it we can't change it.

Note I am in no way advocating pollution. Quite the opposite, I argue that we don't need science to know we shouldn't pollute. It is intuitive. What I object to is damaging people's lives to sate fear and panic based on propoganda.

[damian]

WOW.
snip...

Yes its gonna cost & damn right its gonna hurt like hell but the simple fact is the sooner we start the cheaper & easier it will be. If people hadn't used the very same excuses that u are sprouting right now 20 years ago then we wouldn't have the crisis we have now on our hands.
& we DO have a crisis. Don't doubt that for a moment.

OK so it turned into a min rant. If i offended anybody, well good. It means at least some of my rant got thru.

PS, In 20 years i hope like hell that all of u will be able to point at me & laugh & say 'see, told u you were wrong fool'.

Actually your absolutely wrong. Sorry.

30 years ago we had acid rain, our cities were covered with a thick brown haze and people were collpasing in the streets of some cities from respiritory problems. The fact is we have been addressing pollution for decades, centuries in fact.

The difference between your approach and mine is I believe we should make a consistent considered effort to modify our behaviour over time, giving people time to adjust. You are suggesting a panicked response to bad data.

[dazzler]

And you were doing so well till this little pearler;



It is almost certian that even if we're causing it we can't change it.



Mmmmmmmmmm.....maybe if we slowed up on the use of it then it may lessen the effect :rolleyes:

[m2c1Iw]

And you were doing so well till this little pearler;



Mmmmmmmmmm.....maybe if we slowed up on the use of it then it may lessen the effect :rolleyes:

Well that's the end of the forum then we are wasting electricity running our puters:D

[Big Shed]

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm) for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

According to Prof Garnaut the $20billion, or whatever the yearly figure will be, is definitely not a once off windfall to the government. It will be on an on going basis.

Also, only 50% of this windfall will be used to compensate households, 30% to compensate some industry and the remaining 20% to fund R&D in to alternative energy supplies.

So your assertion above is not correct.

[rhancock]

Still researching, but getting ready to stand corrected!

So far, I can find a report in which Garnaut says that $20 billion could be generated by an initial auction, and a reference to "multi billion dolllar" income for government after that. Still reading though...

I don't see anything terribly wrong in allocating some money to households directly, and some to industries who will be unfairly impacted, and some to stimulating R&D in new technologies.

[Big Shed]

From an article by Tim Colebatch in today's The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/national/all-spin-aside-heres-the-inconvenient-truth-20080704-31xb.html?page=2):

Garnaut proposes that of the $20 billion or more to be raised every year from emission permits, 50% be directed at households, through a combination of tax cuts, higher welfare benefits and energy-efficient renovations of battlers' homes. The bulk of this would go to low-income households, where fuel bills take up twice the share of spending as in well-off homes.
Another 30% of emissions trading revenue would go to business, mainly to emission-intensive industries competing with developing countries. And 20% should be invested to research, develop and commercialise technology — such as the solar power station at Robinvale, and the demonstration "clean coal" plant announced this week for Loy Yang.


Ergo, your statement that the $20b was a once off was patently wrong.

[ptc]

Damian.
I agree with you.
I remember the Ice Age coming in the 50,s

[damian]

And you were doing so well till this little pearler;



Mmmmmmmmmm.....maybe if we slowed up on the use of it then it may lessen the effect :rolleyes:

It's rather more complicated than that. First of all there isn't any really good data on how much CO2 is produced in any given timeframe (lets say per year), the data on how much we create is worse. Then there isn't any really good data on how self perpetuating the effect is of the existing raised levels. Finally what is known is that to have a really dramatic effect, say a measurable reduction in atmospheric CO2 over the next 100 years the reduction in human CO2 production would have to be dramatic. REALLY dramatic. When I say CO2 BTW I'm referring by inference to all the other so called greenhouse gases like methane.

Forget what I said before about water vapor being 95% of the insulating effect of the atmosphere, that's just an inconvenient truth. Lets jump the next mile high hurdle. I said above that the data is pretty ordinary, but what there is shows pretty clearly that the human contribution to CO2 etc is only a few percent of the total production. Most CO2 is actually produced by nature. We don't make 70%, or 30%, more like 5% of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere is human derived. The number is argued over endlessly these days depending on which faith system your promoting, but I invite you to find a credible source that suggests it's a BIG percentage of total CO2.

So for human CO2 reductions to change the direction of climate change, stall it or even slow the trend, the reduction in CO2 emissions by humans has to be utterly tremendous.

Now let me offer the essence of my objection to all this.

Suppose we decide to switch off all the carbon producing electricity generation tomorrow. Switch to carbon neutral generation. The number varies tremendously because of the specific replacement technology you employ, your distance from the generation source etc. but for a convenient rule of thumb lets assume everyone's power bill doubles.

I'm comfortable, so if my bill goes from $250/qtr to $500 it's a mild inconvenience. Maybe it's trivial for you also. But answer me this: are you prepared to do that to single income families ? to people who can only just make ends meet ? Are you prepared to uproot the main job source of whole communities ?

You might be surprised to know I am prepared to back that course. BUT! But only if I see a compelling case to damage those lives, to see my taxes and bills increase dramatically, to watch whole communities uprooted.

This is one example. If this is allowed to run out of control there will be multitude ramifications. Change is constant, inevitable, and people's lives get damaged all the time, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help that process when the catalyst is politics, vested interests and pressure to accept the "common belief" off the masses. The majority once believed the world is flat, doesn't mean they were right.

I'll say it again. I am not on any level advocating pollution, nor a contempt for our environment. The case for nursing our planet should be obvious, intuitive and need no scientific justification. The devil is in the details of how we administer that care.

2c.

Oh wait, I'm not finished yet.

Do you think solar cells are green ? In fact it takes more energy to create them than they can produce in their working lives. Trains ? Rubbery number but for a rule of thumb if there are less than 50 people per carriage on an EMU your making more CO2 than 1.4 people per car to transport them per mile/km whatever. Hydroelectricity ? a holistic analysis I read years ago revealed more greenhouse gases released by damming and tapping the river than a coal fired plant. Hybrid cars ? The total pollution load of a car incorporate the pollution in manufacture as well as disposal, not just running costs. Amusingly you can build a model that shows a Bentley produces a smaller environmental footprint than a Prius.

And finally (no really this time) it never ceases to amaze me that most of my hippie greenie friends live as far away from the environment as they can. Inner city suburbs. I live on Brisbane's rural outskirts and am confronted my the reality of nature every time I step outside. It astounds me that these people can believe we "rednecks" want to destroy the very natural environment we choose to live in and that people who only see it on the occasional holiday clearly know better than us how it should be managed.

:) Life....

[dazzler]

HI Damien

My little stir is that frequently we like to make statements bout the other side being wrong and post something just as wrong. :wink:

It is not an us and them arguement. I dont sit in either camp, they being man made climate change will destroy us all OR keep on burning baby and she'll be right. What concerns me with regard to carbon is the fact that carbon has an atmospheric life of a minimum 50 years to a max 200years. Our use of fossil fuels is accelerating and will continue given the expected increase in population. The carbon % in the atmosphere is also growing. You are correct that man made carbon is a small percentage of the total released into the atmoshphere, some suggest about 4% of the total at the moment. Here is the prob. If thats correct, and we continue to add to this percentage, then it becomes 5%, 6% 7% ETC and that is not natural.

So if what we put up there lasts for a min of 50 years then by the middle of this century all the oil/coal/gas we burn around the world goes up there and stays there. As of 2005 we were using 83,000,000 barrells of oil a day. So all thats going up there and that accounts for less than 30% of the fossil fuels we use. Which means, if I have my maths right, that yearly we are using over 30billion barrells. So between now and 2058, even if we stayed at 2005 levels, we would have put the carbon from 1,500 billion barrels of oil into the atmosphere a year. And thats just a third of what we are putting up there.

I am no scientist but have a reasonable IQ. I can think for myself and I dont think it can be helpful to do that to our one and only living place. Add in the fact that carbon has ppm% have greatly increased since the industrial revolution I begin to worry a little more.

This is where I sit. Man is effecting the world in ways that we (or our children) may very well pay harshly for. The problems are far worse than climate change.

My view is a holistic one. The world is a bubble. We are a small part of life in the bubble but impact it in ways that have never occurred before. We are overpopulating, over using the worlds resources and damaging the balance. The earths population is dependant on fertilizer from petrochemicals to provide enough food to feed us. What happens when this is no longer available, mass starvation?

And this is why we ARE being conned by our govts. They will make small changes to shut up the GREENIES at the expense of the world making the serious and very hard decision to move the world to a sustainable footing.

What to do and how that could occur is beyond me. :(

[Durdge39]

Here's my thoughts.

Since the creation of the Earth, the volcanic activity on the planet has changed the climate from an acidic blend of gases into a relatively balanced system that can support life, if I'm right, then that's quite a climate change right there.

I think we can all agree that there has been dramatic changes in the earth's surface/ambient/whatever temperature in the past (namely the ice ages). So, we can safely assume that the climate changes whether or not we have our lean mean polluting machine butts on the planet or not.

Now, we have been screwing around with forests, the environment and the atmosphere since we got past the stone age. But in the last, 100 years or so, we've really pumped out the nasty crap. HOWEVER, in 100 years of sending this gunk skywards, without even including before it, the temperature has changed what? A couple of degrees.

Now let's think, that means we need to pump out the same amount of stuff for the next 100 years to keep this oh so horrid disaster from happening.
Ever stop to think that fossil fuels are only estimated to last a lot less than that, and once it's gone, it's gone. And people aren't going to start foresting wood to make electricity.

Also, because of this depletion of raw materials, costs will inevitably rise, and either force people to rely more on people power, or find an alternative.

And that alternative will come in long before fuels run out. Less than 20 years ago, computers could barely handle graphics to a screen, now, I have something on my desk that can do 9.6 billion processes in a second.

Things like hydrogen fuel cells are already moving out of their infancy, and my bet is that the economy will drive these technologies to blossom, and they will essentially take over, even if it's 20 years away, we might devastate our environment by what? 0.1 of a degree?

And for all those who see this as a CRISIS, have you walked outside and honestly thought "my gosh, it is most certainly 2 degrees hotter on average today than it was 30 years ago"?

We are not ready to drastically reduce emissions, and make peoples pocket and life standards suffer, but we will get there, and the apocalypse isn't going to come in that time.

[damian]

Our consumption of fossil fuels have peaked, a couple of years ago, can't remember exactly when. The ONLY reason we use oil to run cars and coal to make electricity is they have been the cheapest option. Also we are NEVER going to run out. What will and is happening is they are getting relatively expensive and so consumption goes elsewhere. You know Indonesia runs power plants on fuel oil ? Simply because they produce a heap of oil in government controlled operations and it's cheap than running them on coal, for them anyway.

The other issue is that CO2 production and methane isn't a 1 way street. As we produce more plants and other processes absorb and convert it to other things. In fact it has been documented that forests and crops grow measurably faster in CO2 rich environments. Note I am not saying producing CO2 is a good thing.

In fact I support people being concerned about the environment. That is a good thing. There are certainly cases where it is appropriate to step in and demand strong short term action. We should continue to pressure government and industry to improve on an ongoing basis and we ourselves should modify behavior as appropriate. What I object to is the evangelism and misinformation that so often drives these headline issues.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out some other stuff. No one ever listens to me and when this stuff comes to pass everyone will accuse me of being wise in hindsight:

1. The 20th century was abnormally calm both in terms of geological and extreme weather events. It is therefore more likely than not that this century will have more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, droughts, floods etc than last. Even so it'll probably be below the long term average.

2. The tectonic plate we are on is moving. It started a bit before the boxing day tidal wave. Actually that's wrong. It's always been moving but there is a shunt going on. This is why there have been earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc more so in recent years from SE Asia to NZ. There will be more until the plate settles again.

3. We are 3000 years overdue for a minor ice age.

The point is when the news is screaming doom and disaster because of the latest series of eruptions or hurricanes and historical highs of this and that just keep in mind in geological terms it's all waay down in the noise.

[Dion N]

Forget geo-sequestration! The answer is bio-sequestration, specifically xylo-sequestration. Since trees are locking up carbon in their wood, we should actually be encouraging increased consupmtion of managed forest products and building timber framed, timber clad houses. In fact we should be concentrating of banning banning timber substitues such as plastic and MDF in cabinetry and furniture and legislating for solid timber! :D

[rod@plasterbrok]

Hi I have been away for 4 days since putting up this post and have now caught up with the comments.

I put up this post to see just how people would react to having to reduce their living standards an cause the reduction in the future living standards of their children, all purely based on a theory that has scared the pants off people all over the world but is far from proven correct, as Damian has well pointed out in comments over this thread.

There is no doubt that the world has cooled since the peak temperatures of 1998 despite increaced CO2 emissions. It is anybody's guess as to where it will go in the future. Also despite many scientists disputing the theory for which there are many dedicated web sites.

Despite the urgency advocated by the greens and pollies, surely the empirical evidence together with scientists arguing against AGW is enough for us to hang back a little before selling the farm.

This is even more pertinent given the fraction of a fraction differnce Australia can make without the big emitters following suit. This is crazy illogical stuff and in my view will go down in history as the biggest blunder by any government of Australia.

[Ron Dunn]

I want to know what liability there is around man-influenced global warming.

In 20 years time, when it is found to be nonsense and all the loonies have moved on to new campaigns, will we be able to sue them to recover the losses incurred through this stupidity?

ie, will those who promoted these concepts and "solutions" be held responsible for the damage caused by their actions?

After all, someone who shouted "FIRE" in a crowded room where a person died in the resulting stampede would be held accountable for manslaughter. There isn't much difference here.

[dazzler]

So just that I am not missing anything, just what effect do you think burning One and half thousand billion barrels of oil (thats 82 500 billion gallons) will have on our little barrell.

I have no idea, other than an increase in PPM of carbon in the atmosphere, but it cant be good.

Hell, if you spat in my beer I dont think I would drink, even though it aint toxic :-

[Ron Dunn]

dazzler, what worries me is that these things have, in the past, been fads.

Forty years ago we were going to die from overpopulation. Food was going to run out by the turn of the last century. It didn't.

Thirty years ago it was all acid rain. All the forests in the world were going to be dead from pollution. They're not.

Twenty years ago it was a coming ice age. The amount of particulate matter we were pumping into the atmosphere was going to block the sun, and we'd all freeze to death. We didn't.

Ten years ago was an aberration - Y2K. The consultants got rich, the computers didn't destroy the Earth, and the loonies and doomsdayers turned back to the environment.

Now it is Global Warming. Or is it Climate Change? Whatever. Apparently we're all going to be under water because of melting ice caps within the next few years, as evidenced by the sudden loss of ice at the North Pole.

Hey! Wait! The North Pole has melted!! Why aren't we at least paddling by now?

I just want to know who I'm going to sue to get back the ridiculous amounts I'm going to end up paying for stupid carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, and other schemes to extract money from my pocket to squander on bureaucrats and loonies.

[rhancock]

dazzler, what worries me is that these things have, in the past, been fads.

Forty years ago we were going to die from overpopulation. Food was going to run out by the turn of the last century. It didn't.

But it is running out. Look at the rises in food prices around the world.

Thirty years ago it was all acid rain. All the forests in the world were going to be dead from pollution. They're not.

Yes they are. Use google images to find pictures of acid rain affected forests in Eastern Europe and you'll see what acid rain does. (Here's one to get you started). (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Acid_rain_woods1.JPG)

Twenty years ago it was a coming ice age. The amount of particulate matter we were pumping into the atmosphere was going to block the sun, and we'd all freeze to death. We didn't.

Yeah, ok, I'll give you that one!

Ten years ago was an aberration - Y2K. The consultants got rich, the computers didn't destroy the Earth, and the loonies and doomsdayers turned back to the environment.

No the world didn't fall apart, because someone got off their asres and did something about it.

Now it is Global Warming. Or is it Climate Change? Whatever. Apparently we're all going to be under water because of melting ice caps within the next few years, as evidenced by the sudden loss of ice at the North Pole.

Hey! Wait! The North Pole has melted!! Why aren't we at least paddling by now?

I just want to know who I'm going to sue to get back the ridiculous amounts I'm going to end up paying for stupid carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, and other schemes to extract money from my pocket to squander on bureaucrats and loonies.

Have a read of the fable about the ant and the cricket....

[Big Shed]

So Mr Hancock, are you ready yet to concede that you were wrong on the once of $20b, or won't your pride let you do that?

[rhancock]

I'm glad you asked that! Here's the link (http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=41)to the research about how much money could be generated by the auction of permits. The research was done by Monash University and funded by The Climate Institute. The reason the amount increases is that the scheme gets tougher as time goes on, ie the permits become more expensive, at the same time as the amount of carbon emitted decreases.

I"ll concede that there will be repeated income, but it will not be $20 billion every year as the guy in the Age says. It may be $20 billion in 2020, but equally it may be $7 billion in 2020. In the years until then it will be less. If the great Australian public applies its muscle to reducing carbon emissions, after 2020 it would be much less again.

I still say its not a tax! But then I still say we should be doing something about the way we are abusing the resources which sustain and develop our lifestyle, which most of the contributors to this thread will not agree to.

My original point is still that you have some level of control of your exposure to increases in prices. It will be harder for some (my wife drives daily as part of her job, so we'll have to deal with that too), but we all make choices.

The whole point of the emissions trading scheme is to encourage each of us to make choices which don't generate carbon emissions. If we do that, we don't pay to emit carbon. Everyone wins. The hard part is making it fair. That is Kevin Rudd's challenge in the next few years. We'll all get a chance to tell him whether he's doing it right in a couple of years.

[Big Shed]

I'm glad you asked that! Here's the link (http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=41)to the research about how much money could be generated by the auction of permits. The research was done by Monash University and funded by The Climate Institute. The reason the amount increases is that the scheme gets tougher as time goes on, ie the permits become more expensive, at the same time as the amount of carbon emitted decreases.

I"ll concede that there will be repeated income, but it will not be $20 billion every year as the guy in the Age says. It may be $20 billion in 2020, but equally it may be $7 billion in 2020. In the years until then it will be less. If the great Australian public applies its muscle to reducing carbon emissions, after 2020 it would be much less again.

I still say its not a tax! But then I still say we should be doing something about the way we are abusing the resources which sustain and develop our lifestyle, which most of the contributors to this thread will not agree to.

My original point is still that you have some level of control of your exposure to increases in prices. It will be harder for some (my wife drives daily as part of her job, so we'll have to deal with that too), but we all make choices.

The whole point of the emissions trading scheme is to encourage each of us to make choices which don't generate carbon emissions. If we do that, we don't pay to emit carbon. Everyone wins. The hard part is making it fair. That is Kevin Rudd's challenge in the next few years. We'll all get a chance to tell him whether he's doing it right in a couple of years.

Thank you for admitting that you can be wrong, it is sometimes not obvious from the way you jump on people's opinions!

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" valign="top">




</td> <td valign="top"> Climate News

<!-- JW "Simple RSS Feed Reader" Module (v1.2) starts here --> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- var embedSRFRCSS = '<' + 'style type="text/css" media="screen">' + '@import "modules/mod_jw_srfr/mod_jw_srfr.css";' + '</' + 'style>'; document.write(embedSRFRCSS); --></script><noscript></noscript><!-- JW "Simple RSS Feed Reader" Module (v1.2) ends here -->
<table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td class="contentheading" width="100%"> Policy Brief (March 2008) - THE EMISSIONS TRADING DIVIDEND </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%">
(http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=41) </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%">
(http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=164&itemid=41) </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td colspan="2" valign="top"> The introduction of emissions trading in Australia is likely to see the Commonwealth Government generating significant amounts of new revenue through the sale of emission permits. Indicatively, in Climate Institute commissioned economic modelling this “emissions trading dividend” was worth between $7-20 billion in 2020 (Figure 1) assuming auctioning of all permits.

</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

I have taken the liberty to post this extract from your link. Please note the use by your source of the words "Emissions Trading Dividend" and "generating significant amounts of new revenue". If these do not refer to a "tax", ie money collected by a government to do with as it likes, then I don't know what constitutes a tax. You are engaging in semantics Sir!

Yes I agree, we all have to make "choices". It is just that some "choices" are more voluntary than others. I just happen to believe that Mr Rudd is going to jump the gun for no discernible benefit for this nation, other than allowing him to strut the world stage and say "look at me, look at me", to paraphrase you know who.

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what he is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

[rhancock]

Well, yes, semantics involves defining terms and using them correctly. A tax is charged to pay for services provided by the government. The government is not setting up a new tax, as they did for the GST, for the purpose of generating money to pay for services. They are trying to influence the market to persuade people to change their behaviour. They will, in the process, end up collecting money. Garnaut (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf)discusses giving away the permits for free, which could have the same results, but is much more complicated to set up and much more likely to be unfair than auctioning the permits. If the government decides to give away the permits, there will be no money to try to smooth out the unfairness. Would you be happy then?

Garnaut also discusses why it is important that Australia takes a lead on a push towards a global emissions trading scheme - in short, we emit a bucket load of carbon per capita (2nd in the OECD) and we have most to lose (Barrier Reef, coastal cities, etc).

My belief is that I have a responsibility for the results of my actions. That's it in a nutshell. I have to clear up my own mess. I don't care if its 1% of everyone else's mess or not, its still mess I made.

Oh, and a debate is one person setting out their opinions, and someone else setting out opposing opinions. No 'jumping on' involved. I have strong opinions on this, and so I am prepared to stand up for my point of view, but I am also happy to admit the validity of others' opinions, especially where I don't agree with them.

[rod@plasterbrok]

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.



Says it all

Like the way you think Bid Shed

[Sebastiaan56]

Personally I see it as the Rudd equivalent of the GST. Another tax windfall that will be returned in middle class welfare to buy a couple of future elections. There are trading schemes extant (EU, NZ is about to start etc) but they all suffer from the problem of pandering to special interest groups such as refiners, coal miners, auto manufacturers etc. Basically the worlds pollies dont have the balls to do what is needed. They are not capable of implementing a scheme that will solve the problem as they are beholden to their financial backers.

Oil aint going down, this will have much more of an effect than any carbon tax. Maybe market economics will offer something worthwhile after all.

[Big Shed]

I found some of the points made in this article in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23979327-2702,00.html) quite interesting, not least because they support what I have been saying above:B

[Waldo]

Yes I agree, we all have to make "choices". It is just that some "choices" are more voluntary than others. I just happen to believe that Mr Rudd is going to jump the gun for no discernible benefit for this nation, other than allowing him to strut the world stage and say "look at me, look at me", to paraphrase you know who.

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what he is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

[/SIZE]

:whs: I fully and 110% (excluding carbon tax) agree with Big Shed, it's nothing but pure carp and nothing more than a tax. When this new carbon tax is released, watch the next quarter for inflation, which it will and can only do, we'll pay higher interest rates because Rudd (taking a leaf from Sir Idiot Keating "The recession we had to have"), will have put extra burden and jacked up the cost of living because we had to have a Carbon Tax.

It will put immense pressures on the cost of living, everything will have to go up, because we somehow have to find a way of paying for what is pure carp. Carbon Tax will achieve nothing - how do you cut your "carbon footprint" (please!) when you can do nothing more to cut your energy consumption? Stop breathing? ::

But wait, Kev07 won't be paying for his electricity, gas, water or petrol, as he said in the Sunday papers, words to the effect, "previous PMs didn't pay so why should he?" ::

Especially when he said earlier that we all had to share the burden.

Not so good is he, when you take off the rose coloured glasses?

Economic conservative? More like how do Mr. Swan and I make more taxes. Both of whom were Goss' men - who farked up in Qld. So no, they have no economic credibility. :rant2:

[damian]

Have a read of the fable about the ant and the cricket....

I have read the one about the boy who cried wolf..:)

Ron Dunn: Your point about who to sue is well taken, and precisely part of my point. The Bureaucrats and politicians are to some extent held responsible for their decisions and thus have an incentive to make them responsibly. Doesn't always work, in fact often doesn't work, but it's more incentive than Greenpeace et al who's only motivation is to get your money in their pockets.

rhancock:

Ironically food prices are not being driven up by shortages, but in fact by global warming panic :) Unfortunately it's become fashionable to make fuel out of food and that has driven up staples like wheat, corn and even indirectly rice.

We don't have acid rain on the scale we had it in the late 70's.

Big Shed:

Our emissions aren't actually the point. The reason it's important to get us in on the scheme is to put pressure on China to limit it's emissions beyond their commitments to date. In fact China has committed to greater cuts in it's rate of growth than anyone but they were made against extraordinary growth so won't be enough (4% PA as I recall).

I'll say it again, just in case anyone's forgotten. I don't advocate pollution, I do advocate reduced pollution. I don't advocate bad policy based on poor data, evangelism, special interest groups and media hype. I do advocate good research and appropriate sustained strategies to reduce our environmental footprint.

And sequestration is BS. Won't work. Nil.

You know when Jimmy Carter was president the US lead the world in renewable energy research. When cowboy Ron got in he shut it all down virtually overnight. So many missed opportunities.

[rod@plasterbrok]

For any of you who may think us trashing our economy might encourage India and China to reduce their emissions might want to take a look at the links from this http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/draft/

Without Inda China and the US nothing the rest of the world much less Australia will mean jack S. Even if AGW were true (which there is absolutely no basis for truth) there is nothing we can do without China and India.

The claim is that there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Inda and China will continue to increase CO2 even if they try to reduce it. If we stop producing CO2 right now just the increase in CO2 from China will replace ours in 27 days.

Now is Rudds plan in the best interest of Australians?

In the slimmest of slim chances that AGW is a fact, for the sake of argument, (and I am loath to even give it that much credibility), we would be far better off preparing to adapt rather than destroy the economy by attempting the impossible mitigation.

Most people of Australia don't have a clue about Climate Change, only what rubbish the media feed them. Now that some real costs are being put forward more and more people are starting to take note. Some sections of media have started to look at the cost/benefit of an ETS and they dont like what they see if China and India are not a part of it, (assuming most still believe in AGW) As the avereage Australian is starting to realise the risks involved they are starting to doubt this folly of Rudds ego.

As I get arround I hear more and more people starting to see this for the scam it is and they dont like it.

This will rightfully destroy Rudd as his ego will not let him back off, he has dug in too deep.

[Gingermick]

Let's just hope that AGW is happening as we are overdue for an iceage.:p:D:oo:

[Koala-Man]

I'm about a quarter of the way through the Garnaut Report released this week and I've been trying to work my way through the 4th report of the International Panel on Climate Change.

They are both very heavy going.

There is a lot of information there. Even, for example, chapter 6 of the IPCC report, on very long-term changes in the earth's climate, cites about 400 scientific papers. (I'm totally bemused by opeople who say "there's just no evidence.")

There is simply too much information to enable people like us to claim the experts are wrong.

My own view is, like Garnaut's, that the sensible thing to do is to work on the basis that the great weight of opinion of people who work in this field is probably about right, subject to further research being done.

I've also tried to follow, where references are given, the "sceptic" arguments that crop up from time to time, for example, the 31,000 "experts" who are supposed to have signed a petition saying global warming isn't happening, or the idea that there is some evidence that the world is actually cooling down, or that we are on the brink of another ice age.

My experience with these and other "climate chance sceptic" arguments is that they just don't stack up as soon as they're looked at closely, which is something people promoting these arguments tend not to do, unfortunately.

On that topic, I'd also agree with Garnaut that "climate chance sceptic" is a misnomer. People in this category, apart from experts with specific doubts about some aspects of the research, are typically not sceptical at all but have made up their minds. They simply believe it isn't happening. Any evidence in favour of global warming is discounted as the result of a conspiracy of some sort and any to the contrary is accepted uncritically. It's hard, and probably pointless, to argue against such aposition.

Other points:

There is a price to pay for mitigation efforts but there is no reason to believe it will "destroy the economy".

The cost of doing nothing in the hope that the scientists are wrong, then having to play catch-up later on when it turns out they're right, will be much greater than paying for mitigation now and finding it wasn't necessary.

IN view of that, and given that the weight of evidence is that climate change is happening, and will have dire consequences, paying the price now is the obvious choice.

It's clear climate change mitigation won't be successful if China, India and other late developers do not join in, but they probably won't unless the developed countries do, so we should.

We'll all be forced by circumstances to join in sooner or later and costs will just grow, and the benefits of being a technology leader will diminish, the longer we leave it.

Gaz.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Koala Man,

There is mounting evidence that AGW is not and can not happen this can not be ignored.

There needs to be a complete stocktake of the "evidence" of both sides by an independent scientific forum (if one can be found). Many of the claims supporting AGW are purely a therory that 10 years ago had some impirical support, eg. temeratures were rising. Then taken up as a cause by greens and politicians to gain popularity. They are now painted so far into a corner they cannot escape. Read this if you dare http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277.

Since then temeratures have not continued to rise as predicted by the models yet GHG's have. To the contrary new evidence has appeared that contradicts the AGW therory, yet this evidence is shouted down by the AGW crowed. You claim you can't find any! you obviously did not look very hard or you were looking through green coloured glasses.

It beggars belief that you think that we can have any influence over China and India where they have come out disputing the effects or existence of AGW in a similar report as that prepared by Garnaut's.

We produce 1.5% of manmade GHG in the world which is an even smaller % of all GHG Cant you see that attempt to reduce this is ONLY symbolic and will have NO effect whatsoever. A sybollic gesture that can only cause us harm while doing nothing PERIOD for the environment.

If you truly believed AGW exists then the most prudent course of action would be to have a CTS mapped out ready to go Then take it to the big emitters and convince them that they need to adopt a similar plan and that upon doing so we will bring into effect our plan. For the benefit of the world, for without them on board nothing, zilch, nadder, will stop GHG's from rising.

Putting our economy at risk just to prove a point is just about the most damaging and stupid thing any leader of a country could do. If this goes ahead (and I seriously doubt it will), it will go down as the most shameful mistake by an Australian Politician.

Nelson has got it right. He will never have to introduce an CTS because he knows dam well the other big emittes will not. If by the slender chance they do, all is good, because it will be a level playing field. This is the wedge that will see the end of the Rudd Government simply because it is the most logical course of action. We will see an advertising campaign to rival the Union workchoices campaign that makes sure it does. That is if the media don't start to see sense and start reporting it first.

I don't know anyone who is not a died in the wool green that can't see the logic of this course of action once it is explained to them correctly.

The longer we leave it the less likely it will be needed. Lets see who gets egg on our face.

[dazzler]

So just that I am not missing anything, just what effect do you think burning One and half thousand billion barrels of oil (thats 82 500 billion gallons) will have on our little barrell.

I have no idea, other than an increase in PPM of carbon in the atmosphere, but it cant be good.

Hell, if you spat in my beer I dont think I would drink, even though it aint toxic :-


Well.....nothing, heaps,.........dunno :)

[Ashore]

:ranton:Melbourne university in 1986 had students for an exam / paper show that tomatoes are not fit for human consumption for the following reasons
1 Every convicted child molester had eaten tomatoes
2 If you took a goldfish and put it in a tank of tomato juice the fish would die
etc I can't remember all the stuff now but it followed the same line , you can make a case for anything by interperating the facts to suit your arguement and not using facts that dispute your arguement, both sides of the climate change arguement are guilty of this , only last week penny wong minister for whatever showed pictures of the murry river and implied that is was the result of climate change ... people get real talk to the aged in this country , those in their 90's who are still with their facilities and ask them if where now hotter than we have ever been ask them what the weather was like 60 or 70 years ago you may be surprised

As for our Carbon tax , what is it in reality a jesture by rudd to try and make him look taller so make no mistake this tax will make more people unemployed we will price ourselves out in any form of manufacturing and haveing more poeple unemployed many will lose their homes , family breakdowns will be a direct result and for what

Rudd got in on green preferences pure and simple and now he has to pay the piper, we have 0.3 % of the worlds population but rudd is trying to be a big figure on the world stage, why ego..small man syndrome , who knows, what I do know is its putting my children and their childrens quality of life in jepody, oh the pro GW lobby will say there will be no future for anyones kids or grandkids if we don't have this carbon trading tax because if Australia doesn't have it and reduce their citizens to a lower standard of living then no one else will and the polar caps will melt sea levels will rise and etc etc about time you woke up smelt the roses and took of your rose coloured glasses looked at the real world where there is a need to survive and to survive means feeding your kids tonight and tomorow and next week , providing shelter for them , education and a future and does not mean that you take the high moral ground and destroy our economy on the basis of unproven and disputed theories where we will be the only participents in this unthout out new tax ( bit like the alcopop tax that they didn't think through and now may have to returne but to who ) :rantoff:

[Gingermick]

Ashore your whole argument is specious. :D
Families are breaking down now and people are losing there houses and teenagers are running amok.:D I sound like my grandmother now :2tsup:

[damian]

You know if you read newspapers from the turn of the 20th centruy there were stories about teh widespread concern in the community over the gangs of youths getting about with pistols committing violent crimes.

Point is there have always been teens running amok, families breaking down etc. If anything young people these days are a good deal more conservative than when I was young.

I'm always telling my freind's kids to experiment with drugs and sleep around more, buy faster cars....

The parents love it, but not as much as my friend who always slips the kiddies red cordial just before they leave...

[chrisp]

people get real talk to the aged in this country , those in their 90's who are still with their facilities and ask them if where now hotter than we have ever been ask them what the weather was like 60 or 70 years ago you may be surprised

Hmm, good idea! I wonder if grandma was calibrated? Gee it'd save the cost of doing all those tricky scientific measurements. Hell, why didn't we think of it sooner?

But come to think of it, it was rather cold in Melbourne yesterday, and I do remember it was warmer a few months ago. Yep, the global warming theory must be wrong!

:)

[Koala-Man]

Read this if you dare http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277.



I dare, I dare!

OK I've readit and as an exercise have followed up a couple of the links. Not impressed so far. Will follow up with some comments tomorrow.

Gaz.

PS I am ignoring the fact that the guy who wrote the article is a Republican party PR hack who works for a creationist senator from Oklahoma. I'll blot that out of my mind altogether and just stick to the scientific arguments and any supporting evidence.

[Gingermick]

Republican party PR hack who works for a creationist senator

An eminently reasonable and sophisticated intellectual position to take. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Koala-Man]

OK Here goes.

Some first impression of the article cited by Rod.

Part 1:<O:p

As I said in my previous post, my first impression is not good. The "climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference" turns out to have been signed by "scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders".


How many of each? I can't find any reference to that, but the misleading reference to the people who signed it hardly put me on side. Having said that, perhaps there is something worth looking into so, in eager anticipation, I browse the article. I find an Aussie cited. That's a good place to start.
<O:p

'Also last week, Geologist William F. McClenney, a California Licensed Professional Geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia, announced that he had reversed his views about man-made global warming. McClenney now says he has done the math and realized that you just can’t get to global warming with CO2.

Very impressive, I thought, and you can always trust an Aussie. But, I wonder, just what is a "certified environmental auditor in Victoria"?
<O:p

Surely you'd need a PhD or something, five years of rigorous study, right?


Well, no, actually, you can get this qualification in just five days, as it turns out.

Oh well, I won't be sidetracked by his credentials, I'll just focus on the work he's done. He's "done the math", but unfortunately the article's link to it is broken. Oh Dear.
<O:p

Not to worry, I hunt around and find his views in a multi-part article on the icecap.us site.<O:p


I'm looking forward to this because I'm sure his skill as a professional expert witness and contaminated soil consultant ( see the environcorp.com site ) for corporate USA, including Chevron, mean he really knows what he is talking about, even if his expertise is not really in the field of climatology.
<O:p

OK, so I wade through the first part and so far it's just a longwinded and pompous (read it, you'll see what I mean) version of the old "climate used to change before humans were around so humans can't be having any effect now". No more logical than usual.

The section ends with the observation that the glacial/ interglacial changes of the past 400,000 years or so can’t have been caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs) because there's no source of GHGs on that scale. Not only that, but the rise and fall of GHGs followed the change in temperature, not the other way around!! Amazing!!
<O:p
Now to the casual reader this might seem an impressive refutation of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but it isn’t.

As I said in my earlier post, I'd just waded through chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC report, which dealt with paleoclimatology, so I know that the glacial/interglacial cycles are generally thought (without much dissent as far as I can tell) to be the result of "orbital forcing".
<O:p

That is, predictable changes in the earth's orbit and axis result in more or less solar radiation hitting the earth, causing changes in average temperatures and associated variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations related to the marine carbon cycle.
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O<?xml /><O<?xml:namespace ns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" prefix="v"></O<?xml:namespace><?xml:namespace prefix = v /><v:shapetype class=inlineimg id=_x0000_t75 title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<>Now the way this guy presents his argument suggests the orthodox global warming theory says GHGs caused the previous ice ages. But it doesn’t. He's arguing against an idea that no-one supports in the first place.</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<>(continued in part 2)</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<><O:p</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<>Gaz</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<><O:p
<O:p></O:p>
</v:shapetype>

[Koala-Man]

Part 2

If you weren't familiar with what the IPCC report said, you'd think the guy was a great genius, tearing down the orthodoxy with a rapier thrust of logic. But he's just set up a straw man that no-one believes in anyway.

He writes as if he just discovered orbital forcing and its effect, through the glaciation/interglaciation cycle, on atmospheric carbon dioxide. It's ridiculous.

It's this sort of pathetic sophistry that annoys me when I'm trying to gather real knowledge and plain nonsense keeps popping up.

Maybe the other 4 parts of the series will make more sense, but please don’t blame me if I sound unenthusiastic.

(Stop press: I just read part 2. More of the same. Confronted with the well-known fact - only just now discovered by himself, apparently - that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise and fall in response to global temperature changes through the glacial cycle, he asks the question "Could it be that C02 changes were reflecting temperature driven equilibrium concentrations between the ocean and the atmosphere?" Well, yes, William F., and you'd know this if you'd read chapter 6 of the IPCC report. There is a discussion on page 446 which goes into this and the various hypotheses in great detail. It's no great secret.)

The implication of the argument is that because global forcing causes temperature variations, which in turn cause CO2 concentration changes, then we must assume there is no other cause of CO2 concentration changes. We must also, the argument implies, conclude there is no feedback between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Neither conclusion is logical, of course, but you hear them again and again.

You see my problem? I've started reading the thing, tried to follow up the arguments in good faith, haven't found anything of value, and wasted a lot of time in the process.

I'll keep plugging away though and keep an open mind.

In the meantime, still just getting first impressions, I'm not impressed by the use of this sort of quote:

"The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models." (See my next post for the rest of this.)

That's a quote from Dr Joanna Simpson, PhD in meteorology and former NASA scientist, so she probably knows what she's talking about. And the way her views are presented by Marano makes it fairly clear she believes anthropogenic global warming (AGW) isn't happening.

Let's look at what she really believes in a minute but first let's look at this whole issue of models.

A model is just a mathematical representation of a scientific theory. Without models there is no climate science or much of any other sort of science for that matter.

So what Simpson says is not a criticism of climate science as such, just a recognition that models of complex systems can never be perfectly accurate, because they can't include all relevant variables, can never be as complex as the real world, and use data which can never be perfectly accurate.

These limitations of climate science are repeatedly and explicitly acknowledged by such reports as Garnaut's and the IPCC reports. And that's why Garnaut spends a lot of time discussing the appropriate policy response to information which is known with a limited degree of certainty.

More in part 3

Gaz

[Koala-Man]

Part 3 from Gaz

My observation of climate change "sceptics" is that they often in one breath deride climate models, for the above reasons, then in the next come out with assertions which implicitly embody another (unspecified) model, usually with fewer (implied) explanatory variables, often only one. They don’t even seem to realise they are doing it either. You know how it goes - climate models are nonsense, they say, global warming's actually caused by sunspots or whatever. But that's just another model. Sigh.

Anyway, back to Dr Simpson, who actually doesn't appear to be in that camp.

Here is what I think is the illuminating bit in the full blog entry of hers, from which the selective quotes in Marano's article were taken.

'What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

Well she should be sceptical, as we all should. That's what science is all about, and we should deplore institutional bias in favour of whatever orthodoxy rules at any time. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Simpson shows some good honest scientific scepticism, but to include her in an article in a way that implies she's rejected all the evidence on global warming is misleading to say the least.

Her whole blog entry is worth reading. It's on the climatesci.org site.

And now I have to chose - should I continue investigating the content of this very polemical article by Marano when the two threads I have chased up have not been useful to say the least?

I will, but my patience is wearing thin.

Gaz. :)

[rhancock]

Thanks Gaz, I think you're doing a great job. To be honest I don't have the time to spend reading the sort of stuff you've been trawling through.

Its obvious that no one participating in this forum is likely to change their views (me included!).

I enjoyed the discussion. I learnt something new. But I'll stick to lurking on this thread from now on.

[Koala-Man]

Thanks Gaz, I think you're doing a great job. To be honest I don't have the time to spend reading the sort of stuff you've been trawling through.

Its obvious that no one participating in this forum is likely to change their views (me included!).

I enjoyed the discussion. I learnt something new. But I'll stick to lurking on this thread from now on.

You're right, I think, it seems the climate's much more likely to change than anyone's mind. Anyway I really engaged in that exercise to test my own prejudices. An ongoing process.

Gaz.

[Chris Parks]

And for all those who see this as a CRISIS, have you walked outside and honestly thought "my gosh, it is most certainly 2 degrees hotter on average today than it was 30 years ago"?

It is not feeling the two degrees it is what effect those two degrees have on an environment in which we live. I can see over my life how the weather systems have change our weather locally, now that was caused by the two degrees or if not entirely at least they had a huge influence. I also recall when people and cigarette companies said smoking had no effect on our health, the majority of those people kept smoking and are now dead. Do you smoke?

[damian]

Couple of points. Note I've only skimmed your posts, because from what I read it sounds a lot like stuff I've read many times before.

1. Regarding the grandmother comments, I am constantly amazed people can try to apply human timescales to geological events. The fact is we don't deal with timeframes over a year well, and over a century is virtually inconcievable for people. Many of the cycles that influence our enviroment strech over 100's, 1000's and 1000000's of years.

2. I realise the comments are not directed at me personally, but I want to once again make my postion clear. I've read an awful lot of the propaganda on both sides, I've also made a passable study of the data, the raw data, and the analysis. Many of the arguments on both sides are utterly flawed. From the data: is change happening ? yes. IS there are clear direction ? No. Is there very much that's conclusive ? No.

3. So once again the pro GW comes down to "can we afford to take the risk ?" and the anti GW argument comes down to "can we afford the cost of acting?"

4. In an intelligent debate you argue the point not the person. It absolutely does not matter if the argument is put by Professor Bigtrousers of Very Prestigeous University or Joe Bloggs down the road. Unfortunately title impress the ignorant (and there is no one more ignorant than a journalist) and attacking the person is an easy refuge for a failing argument. If the point is valid you MUST address the point. Also just because something is misrepresented by the media doesn't make it the origionators fault. People on both sides have been tarnished with accusations of lies and misleading information when in fact it was misreporting by the barely literate pathological liars that dominate the media.

5. I have no problem with the ongoing rational scientific argument, and that is going on in the background. If they can offer something that compells me to accept radical action is necessary I'll buy in. What I do object to is drowning that debate and investigation in BS. Virtually everything that has been in the media has been BS.

6. As I said I've had an interest in climateology for about 18 years. I'm a mechanical engineer not a climate physicist, nor a meteorologist, nor a paleontologist, but I have read extensively on all those subjects. Thermodynamics was my best subject so perhaps my whole of system view is a result of that bias, but I do know something about energy, light, heat and heat flows. As I said earlier if you do a whole of system analysis the gasses in the atmosphere have a trivial effect on temperature, at least directly, so humans bumping up the content of CO2 or methane won't do anything much in itself. Infact if you do increase CO2 enough to matter the climate change is somewhat outweighed by the inconvenience of suffocating to death virtually every animal on the planet. Now if you argue a secondary effect that increased CO2 will yield a vast increase in water vapour in the atmosphere that is another story, but I am yet to see that demonstrated. Nearly all the secondary evidence both ways is nonsense. Ice sheets, glaciers, short term weather patterns, all rubbish. Also the statistical dances they perform.

6. I'll say it again, I don't advocate pollution, not one little bit.

[rod@plasterbrok]

:2tsup: I agree with you Damian.

Show me some conclusive proof and I will change my position no problem.

Show me lies and discredit/stifle debate, hype up false claims of things cause by GW and I will call it down as BS and question the underlying intention.

[Big Shed]

Should we all become vegetarians and stop wearing wool?

It would certainly help our emissions (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-missing-link-in-the-garnaut-report-20080709-3cjh.html), or would it?

[dazzler]

So just that I am not missing anything, just what effect do you think burning One and half thousand billion barrels of oil (thats 82 500 billion gallons) will have on our little barrell.

I have no idea, other than an increase in PPM of carbon in the atmosphere, but it cant be good.

Hell, if you spat in my beer I dont think I would drink, even though it aint toxic :-


And still nada.....:rolleyes:

blah blah blah, study this, review that.....still dont have an anwer for the elephant in the room :p

[Dingo Dog]

The world is flat, there is NO ozone hole in the atmosphere, god lives in heaven, the north west passage is still iced up, there is an abundance of fish in the oceans. Time is coming to park up you gas guzzling V8, to put away your electrical tools and remember how things used to be.

Then again its all B*##$hit isn't, nothing wrong with the planet, lets just keep going and see what happens, I mean were right arn't we, stuff them other buggers that come after us. So get out your gear men, rip that timber into shape, run the lathe flat stick and turn some steel or wood, stoke up that V8 and lets leave our mark on the planet. It isn't going to matter as Carl Sager said the Earth is drifting towards the Sun and will be consumed by it in a Zillion years time. BAH HUMBUG:(

D D

[Gingermick]

This (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html) is an interesting, if slightly off topic vid.

[GekoMan]

Firstly I'd like to say that I am impressed with Koala-Man. Very few people bother to read the literature and as a result the vast majority of the people seem to be misinformed. The mass media seem to be the least literate of all.

Koala-Man I have been on the same journey as you. I certainly does take a lot of reading from many sources simply to separate the fact from fiction. Here is a very useful resource for you:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28

Personally I didn't start off being neutral. I started off believing in AGW (man made global warming). It was only after a huge amount of reading and research that I had to conclude that significant man made global warming by CO2 production is next to impossible. It certainly hasn't happened so far.

If you want to have a rational discussion about it. I'll be happy to do that.

Personally I have moved on a bit and am looking at the vast damage that is likely to occur by what I call the "Flat Earth Society" - i.e. those creating policies to limit CO2 production.

[mega]

Of all the stuff I've read on this www.climatechangeanddyou.com (http://www.climatechangeanddyou.com) is the best. Written by someone who doesn't want to be named and who seems to have a phd in chemistry. I made a blog called http://climatechangeandyou.blogspot.com where I quote some of this stuff. I also added David Attenborough on climate change in the video bar.
While many of us are unsure about a cabon tax, and carbon credits, many are negative about it,
Even so, WE ALL need to take personal responsibility and cut our footprint. for free practical info you can go to http://www.megamoneybox.com/cutcarbonimpacts300707.html
Each person should plant 18-20 trees (or large green plants) to absorb "our" carbon impact.
I look at the atmosphere in China and I shudder. in fact, the Chinese are doing some great things to reduce pollution.
The task seems more difficult for them .. especially since it is estimated that there will be 140 million cars in China by 2020

Let's just do something! ..LET'S DO OUR OWN LITTLE BIT.
I've planted over 18 trees on my 1/4 acre block. plus many other plants and ground cover. Green mesh shelters 2/3 down on glass windows, plants shelter other areas, vines grow up trees for extra shade, compost (neighbours grass clippings and food scrap compost) enriches and protects soil, ground cover reduces mowing, water is used off the roof, etc etc.
Big business will gain a lot from the carbon credit system and will be able to trade these.. Big business will find other ways to benefit (research and tax incentives come to mind) , and there's no way to stop the inevitable.

Let's cut our footprint anyway, reduce our use, reuse, recycle, repair, and redesign, and Grow green.
if I die today, I can say 'I did my bit". (If I don't die today, I will continue to do more than my bit).
kind regards, Mega

[GekoMan]

The post from Mega is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue I was talking about. At no point does mega provide a justification for his assertions.

[Ashore]

The post from Mega is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue I was talking about. At no point does mega provide a justification for his assertions.
her assertions :doh:

[GekoMan]

her assertions :doh:

Sorry - no offence intended!!

[Rattrap]

The post from Mega is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue I was talking about. At no point does mega provide a justification for his assertions.

The post from GekoMan is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue that Howard & his cronies have been spouting for years, the same reason why so little has been done to clean up the mess we're all making of our home, earth.

[AlexS]

The post from Mega is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue I was talking about. At no point does mega provide a justification for his assertions.
There is so much undeniable evidence that people like Gecko ignore, that the fun goes out of beating your head against a brick wall after a while. So go ahead, fellers, keep your head in the sand, for all the good it will do you.

[Ashore]

The post from GekoMan is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue that Howard & his cronies have been spouting for years, the same reason why so little has been done to clean up the mess we're all making of our home, earth.
So your saying that nothing has been done in Australia in the past 12 years in the way of ...lets say alternative power , lets see wasn't it the libs who encouraged people to install and use solar power and rudd has just canned that, humm
But howard is somehow responsable for polution from china, india, usa etc etc :doh:
Rudd's been in for 8 months now he signed the kyoto protocall so why isn't everything better , I know,.. it's Howards fault , I should have seen that before


There is so much undeniable evidence that people like Gecko ignore, that the fun goes out of beating your head against a brick wall after a while. So go ahead, fellers, keep your head in the sand, for all the good it will do you.
Alex do you honestly believe that a new tax on the australian public that has the potential to lower our standard of living and cause hardship to people will reduce the worlds polution problem overall.
You say undeniable evidence then why do so many deny it , there is evidence to prove both cases , it depends on the time frame used of how the stats are gathered how they are interpertated where the figures come from , how they are collected , which figures are used and which are ignored , the mind set of the person reading them , mate my head isn't in the sand I actually look at the arguements from both sides and make a judgement from there , because someones opinion is diffrent from yours does not mean they are wrong or there head is in the sand :no:

[Rattrap]

The whole idea of the carbon tax is to gently 'encourage' us all to move to a life with a smaller carbon footprint. The simple fact is that people don't like major change. I'm sure that most of us would be quite happy if we could keep on burning cheap fossil fuels all our lives & the lives of generations to come if we could.
But we can't.
We MUST break our dependance on fossil fuels, embrace alternative energys & STOP PIGGING UP THE PLANET. Anybody who refutes this simple fact is frankly a waste of space. Fortunately those of us with a little forward vision now outnumber the narrow minded neanterthals.
& for goodness sake these carbon taxes will be relatively easy to negate for the most part. Solar panels for your home have been available for years & getting cheaper & more efficant every day. Electric cars are now on the market - admitantly currently high cost with range limitations but once again there is new designs & technologys that are pulling the price down increasing their range & charge times dramatically. Can u even imagine the sort of technologies that will hit the market once alternative energies become the norm rather than only for 'fringe greenies'?????
Yes these changes are going to hurt, change always hurts but the sooner we embrace the new world thats comming the less the pain will be. I don't understand why some people can't see that.
Thats not even metioning the ablsolute fortune thats just waiting to be made in the field of alternative energys. Take battery technology. Batterys are the single biggest stumbling block for the electric car. The reason for this is simple. For the last 20-30 yrs battery technology has been driven by mobile phones & laptop computers. Up until a very short time ago is u wanted to build an electric car u either had to install a veratable mountain of little tiny laptop batterys of a pack of antiquated led acid batterys that weighed well over 500kg. But in only a few years we now have Lithium ion batterys that weigh 1/3 of the lead acid equilivants, 5 times the range per charge & can fully charge at home in a few short hours. & even these new battery technologies are being supersceded by bigger capacity, smaller size & faster charging batteries. By 2010-2012 there are already at least 3 major car companies that have announced that they plan to release all electric cars for public purchase as well has a whole swathe of 'boutque' electric car manfacturers.

Do you honestly think that Mr Rudd & the Labor party is going to bring in a heart stopping, economy crashing, carbon tax all in 1 fell swoop? Of course not. For 1 thing they are not that stupid - even for polititions, 2ndly they are polititions & they'll be wanting to get elected again next term.
No, the carbon tax will be brought in slowly & gently - not gently enough for some to be sure.

My wife & i are simple pensioners, i am my wifes full time carer, we are in the low economic bracket that will feel the carbon tax first & hardest & you can bet i'm scared how this tax will effect us but i can also see just how completely necessary it is that we break our dependance on oil ASAP. So we will embrace & adapt to the new changes to come rather than kick & squeal our way into the future.

[GekoMan]

Rattrap - I agree 100% that we need to move away from fossil fuels. For starters fossil fuels are a finite resource. I have learnt over the last year that there are a lot more of those resources than I used to think but they are still finite.

What I object to is the lies being used to justify polices and hence our standard of living. In other words if there were taxes on non-renewable resources I wouldn't object. But what we are getting is tax on carbon on the basis this will prevent climate change.

The main reason I object to this is because it is a falicy. It goes against scientific principals. In other words it is an underhanded way to put through socialist polices. to make matters worse it will in the long term harm our environment. I'll explain this in future posts.

[GekoMan]

undeniable evidence


Notice that AlexS never provides any evidence. He attacks the messanger not the message.

I am yet to read any undeniable evidence that proves man made carbon dioxide causes global warming. I would be very interested if any one can show me some. Surely that would be a simple thing to do if what AlexS says is true.

[GekoMan]

1. Climate changes. It always has and it always will.
2. The current rate of climate change is not unprecedented as far as has been able to be measured. (It is a very complex thing to measure).
3. Anthropogenic Global Warming by Carbon Dioxide is a theory that man made activities which release Carbon from solid form to gaseous form as Carbon Dioxide causes rapid global warming due to the green house effect.
4. In order to deliberately prevent rational discussion of this theory it has recently been called "climate change". This pretty much shuts down rational discussion because the climate has been changing since the Earth was formed.
5. A basic scientific line of inquiry is to propose a rational theory and then test that theory against the evidence. That is the foundation of our whole modern education system. It is the whole basis of our technological and scientific progress since the Dark Ages.
6. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming due to Carbon Dioxide fails on at least 6 tests.
7. It is not at all clear that Global temperatures are actually increasing right now. Over the lat 8 years global temperatures appeared to have decreased. I only mention this because in the same time frame man has realsed lots more Carbon Dioxide. However the idea of measuring global climate change over a few years or a few decades is silly. The climate changes so much and so frequently you need to look at climate change over a much longer period.

[GekoMan]

Before I go on with the evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming due to Carbon Dioxide fails the test of evidence, I'd like someone to explain what the objective of this carbon tax is.

How are we going to measure our progress against this objective?

Imagine if I came to you and asiked for many billions of dollars to prevent something. but I never actually definted what i was going to prevent. I also never told you how I was going to measure progress. Would you give me those billions of dollars? If not, why would you give it to the Australian Government? Do you think you'll be able to sue the Australian Government for fraud?

Why aren't the pro-carbin tax people asking these simple and basic questions?

I have a much better proposal - give me billions of dollars and I will personally prevent climate change. Guaranteed. Of course I'll be dead by the time your are able to collect on your guarantee but hey that's not my problem.

[Greg Q]

There are a few things that I am confused about:

1: If carbon dioxide output is the signature of a robust economy, what kind of economy will reduced output give? A smaller economy, right? Is that good?

2: Can we go somewhere with all this money and buy a better atmosphere? No?


3: If we are going to force behaviour change in people, why then shelter most of them from the force? I have to confess some narrow self-interest here: I earn an above average income. (Mr Rudd's fellow travellers hate people like me, so they have fashioned yet one more economic bitch slap.) More than half of the households in this country will have zero disincentive, while other will have extra. Sigh.

(I really would not want to be the person to add to the burden of low income families, but there is a human behaviour disconnect here.)

4: Riddle me this: If we think less carbon is a good thing, but we can't get our trading partners to share the love, why oh why do we still have ships lined up to the horizon waiting to cart away coal? We export more carbon than we burn. The people who buy it aren't having a bar of carbon trading. If we were really serious we'd enforce a little carbon limits of our own.

Oh! I get it! Its money! Not your money, or mine, but money. Money that talks louder than you or I do.

I believe that the entire carbon trading scheme is worse than useless. Its not a solution to anything, but it creates the illusion of action. To be effective it has to be economically damaging-but even if we stopped our economy in its tracks the net effect on the atmosphere would be...zero.

Note to moralists: I understand the argument that just because the major emitters are doing nothing shouldn't change what we do. Since there are no absolutes in life, and that all of existence is (sadly) relativistic, the argument is flawed.

[GekoMan]

1. Limiting CO2 in today's technology will indeed have massive and wide ranging economic costs. These will be felt both directly and indirectly. As a result the environment will suffer in several ways.

In 2 or 3 generations into the future, conceivably it may be theoretically possible to produce less CO2 and have a strong service based economy.

My question is why reduce CO2? CO2 is necessary and beneficial for life. CO2 is a good thing.


2: Can we go somewhere with all this money and buy a better atmosphere? No?

What is wrong with the atmosphere we have?
When you say buy a better atmosphere - what specifically would make it "better"?

Do you mean buy an atmosphere with less CO2 in it?
Personally I think that would be a lower quality atmosphere. However if that is what you wanted then it doesn't matter how much money you have. We just don't have the technology to make a significant difference to the amount of CO2 in the world. If you killed all the humans on the planet it would still make such a tiny difference to CO2 levels I am not sure it could be measured.



3: If we are going to force behaviour change in people, why then shelter most of them from the force?

Well quite frankly they wont be. Policies that attempt to get wealthier people to pay more of the cost in the long run simply hurt poorer people more. History has proved this over and over.

Since you and I earn more than the average Joe there are all kinds of way you can get rich off a carbon trading scheme. You and I can make money out of it. I already have a scheme lined up. These poor less informed people that believe in it will pay dearly. This is one of the things that is immoral about it.


I believe that the entire carbon trading scheme is worse than useless. Its not a solution to anything, but it creates the illusion of action.

I agree with you 100%. but you don't have to take it on faith you can prove that what you say is true. Hence it is not just your belief but a verifiable fact.

[Waldo]

I believe that the entire carbon trading scheme is worse than useless. Its not a solution to anything, but it creates the illusion of action. To be effective it has to be economically damaging-but even if we stopped our economy in its tracks the net effect on the atmosphere would be...zero.

:whs: :2tsup: