Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

[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
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

[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.

[prozac]

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.

The whole idea of a carbon tax is just that, TAX. Been watching the Olympics? What, hard to see some events? Australians paying a carbon tax is not going to stop countries like China choking the begesus out of the world. Maybe a tax on the raw material we export to China would have a more direct result.

I will tell you one thing for certain, if your kids can't afford a house now then they certainly won't be able to once the carbon tax comes in.

The Carbon Tax will increase the cost of building materials, and this will be the catalyst for the next real estate boom. Cost of building a new house goes up so the cost of buying an existing house skyrockets. Don't believe me? Mark it in your diaries then and come back to me a year or two into the tax.

prozac

ps: Labour would do more good if it encouraged us to install environmentally useful enrgy systems such as solar hot water, PVcells on the roof etc. Remember the stuff the Libs brought in and Labour is shutting down.

[Waldo]

too.

[Ashore]

ps: Labour would do more good if it encouraged us to install environmentally useful enrgy systems such as solar hot water, PVcells on the roof etc. Remember the stuff the Libs brought in and Labour is shutting down.

Mate whats the point I already mentioned this and rattrap ignored it and went into a rant on phone batteries , mabye he should look at VRB battery technology that has been assisted by the last gov as well , bottom line is when you get someone who referes to "howard and his cronies " for the libs but " Mr Rudd" for the labor Pm you realize where their mindset is and don't bother

[GekoMan]

Too true. Except that CO2 is not pollution.
Also there is no valid reason for reducing ones carbon footprint.

The world isn't going to run out of coal or natural gas for a long time yet. Hence there is no need to reduce consumption of those fossil fuels.

Chinese coal power stations use very old technology which put lots of soot and other crap like Sulphur into the atmosphere. Modern technology coal power stations are very clean and they only really produce steam and CO2 which are not pollutants.

Oil on the other hand will peak at some point and any way it is exported from countries that don't like us much. Hence we should move away from a dependence on oil at least for transport fuel. Not due to CO2 but because it is risky.

[Greg Q]

.

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

As you know it was rhetorical. Sarcasm is just one of the many services that I offer.

Originally Posted by 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.

I tend to agree that less consumption would be a good thing on many levels, economic not the least of them. My point is that since the average family is going to get an income tax break to offset the carbon credits that there will be no disincentive. The heaviest emitters will be compensated for carbon credit costs-no encouragement there either.

The labor party has to come to grips with the fact that they can't change people's behaviour while at the same frigging time shelter them from all consequences of their own actions. It's the kind of muddled thinking that leads to phonics and political correctness. Dwarfs, all of them.