I can change your mind about climate

Worst?

Howard was way worse.

This tax is a sharing of the wealth tax. Are you against that?

How can this country be free if we have people with a 52 room mansions yet there people with nothing.

 

You bet your backside i am against this.

What are we the fairy god mother of the world to give, what about the Australian people FFS.

First we look after our own and if we have spare then we might give to other nations.

Mate what the heck are you talking about, what do other countries give us?

 

We are the strongest economy in the world. Why shouldn't we give?

What do you mean what about the Australian people?? They will be compensated and at least they still have the welfare safety net and Medicare, Which the Liberal's have already said numerous times they will get rid of.

Gillard isn't perfect and it's pretty easy to sway public opinion against her when the Murdoch media is against her. The same media who fooled people into thinking GST was good.

 

Fist of all lets get one thing straight i'm a labor man at heart have been all my life, the only reason i'm voting liberal at the next federal elections is so we can get rid of this ponzy scheme called the carbon tax which is based on a lie and will commit all of us including you to financial slavery.

I didn't like Howard, i was against the GST and especially workchoices.

But the difference with the GST is that all monies paid are going to our government so then in turn they can build new roads, schools, better health care, public transport etc etc.

The carbon tax come ETS will send billions of australian tax payer dollars to foreign intitutions in other words our dollars will be going to bankers and wall street.

Now i dont know if you know about these people but they have more than enough, they dont need more money thats for sure, if you want to distribute the worlds wealth to poorer countries then go ask these *******s because its coming out of their ears.

We are not the strongest economy in the world, if you took away our mining sector we are no better of than the countries in the European Union.

Have you heard the news lately companies are closing and people are unemployement, just go down to your local shops and have a look at how mnay shops are becoming vacant.

If it wasn't for mining the IMF would be calling on our doorstep and telling our government to impose austerity measures on us all, just like Europe the UK and the US.

Compensated? why do you think the tax free threshold has been increased so much and why all these hand outs because the carbon tax will impact everything and will be passed on to Australian households, no amount of compensation will be enough, meaning our standard of living will drop.

Gillard and the greens will be remember for a very long time, but for all the wrong reasons.

 

We are the envy of the world.

I am not for the CT either but I would rather have Labor in power than Abbott. Look at the current Vic and WA governments.
Now Greiner is calling for Costello to tell Newman to sell off QLD Power.

What next? Our schools? Our Prisons? Our Roads? Liberals are annexed to America.

We don't know how CT will affect our economy.

If we do please link me as I have not read it.

 

Well consider some of these from the red headed bafoon, Ross the climate (I haven't got a clue) change expert and the little dyke.

 

You win this debate.


Doesn't matter who you vote both are gonna screw us.

 

All i can say is i hope your wrong.

If Abbott recinders the carbon tax which will not be an easy thing to do then my vote for the liberals will be worth it.

 

All we can do is wait and see.

 

Did you actually read my post? No, that's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm not going to explain, yet again, how an ETS works. If you don't know by now you never will. I'll just point at that you are also supporting a scheme that allows the biggest polluters in the world to pollute more with Tony Abbott, and it's still funded by the tax payer. It just relies on bio sequestration which is highly experimental, certainly no garauntee that it will be able to reach Abbotts own emissions targets, is not supported by farmers and creates issues of food security, efficiency and crop yeilds, and is a short term scheme that very clearly hasn't been properly funded. Not to mention the ridiculously idiotic plan to hire a "green army" of 10k public servants to plant trees and what not when Hockey can't go 2 seconds without blathering how he's going to drastically reduce the public service. It is a MORONIC policy and anyone in their right mind knows it. Where as, a fixed priced ETS is supported by economists, was a policy of Howard and Costello and Turnbull, and is OBVIOUSLY a FAR SUPERIOR economic policy that the ridiculous crap put up by Abbott.

 

Awwww!!!!!

So, Australian Millionaires are too poor to spare anything for some poor woman in Nigeria who has no job no money and no hope for the future

This is American self-centredness spreading throughout the world

We have the best living standards in the world - we have the some of the highest incomes but for some it will never be enough because they are not happy with what they have and would be grizzling if it were raining $100 notes because all they had to catch it in would he a large truck and not a supertanker

 

Bowergirl

Nigeria is the biggest exporter of oil and gas in the world, is it our fault that their government will not share the countries wealth with its people?

They have more than enough to go around.

 

Dont blow a gasket dude.

And i'm a labor supporter thank you very much.

 

Are you telling me you're NOT going to vote for the Liberal Party?

 

I'm voting for the liberals to get rid of the SCAM labor calls the carbon tax.

Thas the only reason.

 

The idea is that the carbon scrubbed from the atmosphere & the carbon burnt as vehicle fuel would balance out as a closed loop - no net change to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

 

If that bacteria could be engineered to get rid of worms as well as methane Australia's sheep farmers would be overjoyed.

Oh I don't know, the politicians may be putting out feelers to see what they can get away with for more revenue.

http://http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=taxing+people+for+farts.&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CFMQFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjoebloggstimes.co.uk%2Fthe-news%2Feu-ready-to-impose-tax-on-passing-wind%2F500778&ei=8Xy3T5ipN6iXiQeg2vXkCA&usg=AFQjCNHaRg33ZEikdeZD-30i9N9IIoB9yg

 

All the criticisms you made of the ETS apply to Abbott's scheme. Do you even know anything about Abbott's policies? Not his silly promises about reppealing the carbon tax (You know how he says he'll do this? He's relying on the ALP to vote to reppeal their OWN POLICY, does that sound like a good plan to you?) and apparently making all these massive savings and shrinking the public service and making tax cuts across the board, while also issuing a NEW TAX to pay for his parental leave scheme and hiring 10k public servants for his "green army". The opposition's policies are a bad joke, apparently all those idiots who support them don't have a clue wtf they're going to do when they get into office.

 

Would be better if we could just produce Kangaroos that grew wool - that way we would end up with a "Wooly Jumper"
(apologies to all here - I could NOT resist that one!)

This is either a joke or a validation of my signature

 

I have seen Kangaroos casually hop over a 1.8 meter high fence, getting the wool off could be a problem.

 

Oh! Dear!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joke

 

No they apply to labor/green carbon tax / ETS.

I think you'll find that Abbotts plan keeps most of the money in our country and he tackles climate change from many angles, instead of a carbon price full stop.

No all that i have been saying applies to the Labor / Green carbon tax / ETS because it sends out billions of tax payer dollars to overseas institutions.

Ziggy i pictured you as passionate,but to blatanly lie is a whole new ball game.

 

Maybe I should have put two or three laughing smileys at the end of that post.

 

I'm talking about the criticisms you made earlier in this thread, Abbott's plan does not prevent anyone from polluting, it too relies on abatement. He is also putting a price on carbon, according to his policy up to $15 per tonne, although that figure is seriously optimistic and farmers and other groups have put the price anywhere between $20-50. There is no guarantee that he will be able to reach his stated emissions targets, and in fact he has said that he won't spend any more than they have committed to already, with their by all accounts grossly underestimated costings. So the likelihood of him actually reaching his 2020 emissions targets that he's committed to is so small, to the point that it's really not a serious policy at all. And indeed, most people who seem to support it, like you and even Abbott himself, are apparently also "unconvinced" that co2 emissions contribute to global warming and are self proclaimed "sceptics", which says something about the quality of commitment from this policy. Add to that the fact that his emissions reductions won't count towards our Kyoto commitment, that the vast majority of economists say that an ETS is more efficient (and his response was "maybe that says something about the quality of our economists", no Tony, it says something about the quality of your junk policy) and... it's just not a serious policy at all.

I dunno dumber, it seems like when you have nothing of value to say you just resort to calling people liars, why don't you actually go and read Abbott's policy.

Soil Sequestration is a perfectly viable way of trapping co2, but it is not a silver bullet that will solve all our problems and it certainly won't be as cheap as Abbott makes out. Abbott's also backed away from his commitment to close our dirtiest coal power plants. I wonder how long it will be before he backs away from any commitments he's made concerning ghg emissions.

The governments plan is in every conceivable way a more comprehensive and effective policy to reduce/abate our ghg emissions and to see us reach our Kyoto commitments.

I don't know why you're so afraid of Australian money going overseas, are you a protectionist or what? If another country can achieve carbon abatement cheaper than we can, why shouldn't our multinationals utilise this cheaper way of reducing their emissions? All it means for us is a cheaper end product, much the same way that a lot of manufacturing and other services get outsourced. It's not a conspiracy, it's free trade. Anyway I think it's %50 of abatement must come from the Australian market, at least initially. However over the long term the cost of overseas abatement is estimated to rise to the point where most of it will be in Australia, after I think... 2030.

It is unsurprising that "sceptics" have rallied around Abbott, I can't imagine anyone really takes his "direct action" policy very seriously.

 

I think the biggest issue with renewables is efficiency and land usage. This article pretty much sums it up perfectly.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/v...even-greener-with-a-little-help-from-the-sun/

The solar panels take up 33 acres and yet only produce enough power for 12.5 percent of the plants total energy demand. You would need 8X that many panels just to power that one factory on 100% solar. That is a ridiculous waste of land. The array creates 9.5 MW of power, meanwhile a nuclear reactor which takes up a couple hundred acres typically produces at least 1000 MW of power. They have reactors that produce over 3000 MW of power and more. Simple algebra tells you that you get a hell of alot more energy per unit from the nuclear plant than you do the solar panels.

Take the Sequoia reactor which is part of the TNVA and produces over 2,300 MW of power on 525 acres of land. If you had 525 acres of the solar panels at Chattanooga you would only get 528 MW of power making the nuclear plant 4 times more powerful and if you factor in that the solar panels don't produce energy at night and you get reduced energy during crappy days then you get an even larger disparity of power generation. Also, keep in mind that Sequoia is an old reactor. Generation 3 reactors are much smaller, more efficient and use less fuel and have have twenty more years additional operational lifetime.

Geothermal is highly localized and there is estimated to be 39,000 MW of total geothermal energy available in the US. That isn't anywhere near what we need provide. I think I figured it to a little over 5% of total power generation if you used ALL the geothermal potential in the entire country.

Wind is chaotic and unreliable.

Solar thermal is the only one that looks attractive as it works at night as well although its still not as powerful as a nuclear reactor by far.