The carbon tax explained

Yeah, I know what you mean pegasuss. Look at they way a certain person picked one line out of one of my recent messages and then started attacking it completely out of context with the rest of the message.

This is a perfect example of the emotive, stupid, thoughtless and completely wrong statements that carbon tax supporters use as some sort of scare tactic.
Where did you "read and learn" that climate change is going to be so severe and so sudden that it "wipes out" our grand children?
Where did you "read and learn" that Gillards carbon tax is going to prevent climate change from "wiping out" our granchildren?

And seems how you have read and learnt so much about the carbon tax, perhaps you can explain why Gillard is actively suppressing the use of alternative, cleaner fuels by adding extra taxes to ethanol, biodiesel and LNG.
And why the Labor government scrapped subsidies for solar power.

 

This flowchart accurately describes my feelings towards my "discussions" with a couple of you. You know who you are.

It represents why i quit this topic long ago.

 

While i agree with the proposition of anthropogenic climate change, it is not because i am qualified to do so. It is because i'm confident that the scientific process that led most qualified people to that conclusion is sound.

Please note that in this thread i do not mean to use the word 'ignorant' as an insult: it is a description. We are all ignorant on this topic (some more so than others), no one has convinced me otherwise.

What depresses me is that a sound argument against the argument that one might hold for not believing in the science (like "money") is just brushed aside without (it seems) a serious thought and certainly not an effective rebuttle. Ignorance about the science of climate change is one thing, but being willfully ignorant as to why one believes it or not is another entirely.

 

Why has the term 'global warming' been replaced with 'climate change'?

 

Perhaps Gillard could explain it....

Or Combet.....

Or Swandive...

Or bwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha

Only joking, they wouldn't have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue

 

Some quick googling will give you the right answer (i.e not a conspiracy)

They mean two different things!

Try this NASA site, it also shows how long the terms have been being used for - debunking more misinformation from some denial quarters!

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

 

Debunking?

That is the new disease named after Tim Flannery, yes?

Never snow again, never rain again, seas rises a million meters.

Ah yes, Tim "i'm sick of being debunked" Flannery.

I wonder if he is going to jump in his famous tinny and show everyone how full the rivers are now?

Or would he be debunking himself? Hmmmmm, self debunking, sounds.....interesting.

 

so given your bold words, please present the data that demonstrates causation between man made CO2 and global warming.

 

Please read all my posts in this thread first, if you still feel you need to ask the question, then i will respond.

 

Lucky Tim Flannery doesn't sue everybody that misquotes him!

Care to show us where he made ANY of these claims or are you building a whole room full of strawmen?

 

What's a straw man...

Adelaide will be out of water by 2009? Is that a strawman?

Sydney dams wll be dry...strawman?

The earth will be so hot that the rains won't even reach the dams!! Strawscareman!

LOL, no wonder Gillard gave him a job he fits in well with the rest of the inept loops she has already!

Go Tim, get ya tinny out.

 

Strawman is a type of logical fallacy where people basically make up a statement (often misrepresenting someone else's position) and then dispel it, thinking that it proves a point, or discredits that person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Where did Flannery make these claims?

>Adelaide will be out of water by 2009

Sydney dams wll be dry...strawman?

The earth will be so hot that the rains won't even reach the dams!! <

I've searched a bit and can only find people saying that he said it, not his actual statements. It seems some surrounds an editorial in New Scientist magazine, but if you go to the source (like all good researchers should), he doesn't make ANY definitive statements! He uses the language of a scientist, nothing 100%, speaking in terms of probability eg if this happens, this is likely - if things continue etc etc

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm

There may be another source I couldn't find which is why I asked you for your source??? Would you care to share it?

 

In other words he uses the same vague predictions that horoscopes and palm readers use in order to never be wrong and keep gullible people believing in him.

 

How much $$ do you recon Flannery has made out of this?

How big is his (*)(*)(*)(*)ing carbon foot print!

Another scaremongering hypocrite.

 

No, most science is probabilities and statistics - not much black and white.

Back to the point, where are these 'alleged" quotes from?

 

So do you know where the quotes came from?

 

Out his gob i'm guessing Davo, he's made up so much alarmist dribble over the years.

Why don't you have a look?

"Because every litre you use now on your car, or your garden or whatever else, you might want to drink in a year's time."

Drink up dude!

LOL

 

He's made up? I can't find the source, I'm guessing this was made up!

I clearly stated before that I have tried looking for it and couldn't find it, thought someone here might be able to direct me to the source, but guessing no one cares. Those who hate him are happy to believe whatever is said about him!

 

When are people like you going to understand this policy. It's not a tax at all. A tax is where you pay money to the govt5, you must know that by now, surely. Right?

SO this is a carbon PRICE set for the biggest polluters to pay. It is a price for using and producing carbon. Do you get that yet?

From there we see what costs are passed on to consumers as a PRICE increase and we are compensated by an amount to be decided yet, as is the carbon price.

If that's too difficult for you to understand then you'll never understand.

From there the price of carbon WILL go up and the polluters are most likely to increas prices for us too. In a short period of time these polluting businesses will realise they could make more money using a different type of energy or they will die as a company as other companies will undercut them.

It'll take a while but we've been desroying the atmosphere for a very long time already.

The other thing most of you probably expect is that the temperature will drop. Not so, cannot do. The whole aim from here is to limit the further increase in temperatur to no more than 1 - 2 degrees. If we continue doing nothing it will pass that quite quickly and the planet will change more and more rapidly.

So try and stick to what the stated policy is, not what Tony Abbott or the Bolt fool invent.

 

You said it, sounds like a merry go round full of red tape and another tax for the people of Australia and the world.

Please state alternative greener energy???????????????????????????
You honestly think the oil-coal and others companies will allow this?

dreaming mate mars bars and snikkers

switch to what????? the money they collect will not be invested into greener enregy?? what is the alternative???

Are you joking man, why have it in the first place if all these polluters will only pass it on to the consumer and then the goverment will compensate us for it, sounds too stupid to be put into practice.

Are you kidding me, mate wall street makes bets on whether countries will go bank rupt, you telling me they will not bet and place money on carbon emmissions schemes, find that one hard to believe.

I cant see what saving the earth has to do with some fat rich moguels betting on carbon emmissions scheme on wall street, and all the little gamblers as well.

Saving the earth and gambling never thought people could associate the two but there you have it.

 

Yeah i think it is a tax and indirect tax passed onto the consumer by the supplier who was forced into it by the goverment of the day.

If it is set for the biggest polluters why the hell does it involve me, why should my utility bills go up $850 per annum.

What do you mean when you say CARBON Julia Gilliard means that she will be taxing the carbon dioxide that we as a nation produce and disperse into the air, now if you read the document at the start of this thread you will see that this is an insult to my intelligence even though i might not have too much of it.

Man she might as well tax the oxygen or the nitrogen in the air, maybe she could tax the hydrogen.

She is not talking about CARBON SOOT (the black stuff) that once filled the air due to the burning of coal in every home, you know why because its not around anymore, who uses coal fired heaters at home these days.

I'm a simple person, if something aint working properly i just fix it or get someone who can or buy a new one, i dont sit there conjuring up complicated procedures that accomplish nothing but paperwork.

Hard to believe oil-coal companies will change their ways, since they are run by very greedy people or if its not them then the capatalistic system that governs all goods and services.

Communism and Capatalism are two sides of the same coin they both stink, they both let a small percentage of people enjoy the wealth of the country and they both produce poor people in the extreme just look at the USA and how many poor people it has with no medical or other insurance.

How have we been destroying the atmosphere with carbon dioxide which is a natural gas and is produced by nature???

If Earth's temperature drops in the next few years what does it tell us about the carbon tax???????????????????????????????

I've always been a Labor man but lately in rertospect of who thought of the GST, who sold our Commonwealth Bank and telstra who floated the dollar and the shirts of our backs i recon its better to be no ones supporter there both as bad as each other, only thinking about their chairs AND not the country.

With all the advisers they have behind them even an average Australian could do their job, thats what we need more average Australians in parliament, we should get rid of the doctors and lawyers and fat moguel businessmen just those two words doctors lawyers speak volumes for themselves anyway.

My mother used to say God help you from doctors and lawyers, and yet these are the people that are running our country.

 

I am very curious as to what energy methods we should swap to?

I am an earth scientist from the UK who during postdraduate studies was part of a team that looked at power availability from carbon free sources. In effect we wanted to know could the UK produce all of its power from renewables such as solar, wind, tidal, wave and geothermal. The result was that if all of these methods were maximised to the fullest we could generate enough energy to power greater London. The rest of the country would in effect have to go and rub sticks together.

Australia, obviously is a different case. Big land mass, small population and variations in climate, some of which are much more condusive to renewable energy. However, i would be surprised if even here it would be possible to generate total energy needs.

The other option is nuclear and in many ways Australia is the ideal candidate for nuclear stations, but politicaly i dont think there is sufficiant will.

As for the carbon tax i think it is the wrong approach. We hit high polluters with a tax. The companies are required to protect the profit. Nothing wrong in this, simple economics. So they pass on the increase to the consumer. This will do nothing to force the company to alter is energy use unless it is a organisation that can not pass costs on such as non ferrous miners as there product is sold on a world metals market whose price does not necessarily reflect the cost of mining. The result of which is it increases the cost of mining but the miner has no way of reducing energy costs or carbon footprint and so deposits become sub economic and mines close. Now a nation that has tied its economy very heavily into mining is hit very hard as large mining companies find they can obtain a better return from investments in other countries.

Even the ferrous miners who are able to pass on price increases as product is often sold by contract to buyers are also in a poor position as it is well known that there biggest customer, China, already feels, with some justifacation, that it is being over charged and is already sponsoring mass exploration programs in Mongolia and parts of Africa in order to source metal at a cheaper rate would certainly ramp this up. It may also make the option of buying ore from further afield and shipping further more attractive. The result is a decline in iron ore mining as well.

Of course there are some winners. The large financial institutes will set up trading houses and make money in trading carbon. But it wont make a lot of difference to the corbon emitted without serious economic problems

 

I love this one....

Flannery: I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.


LOL

Looks like our kids and grand kids are going to cook/or drown (?which is it now?) regardless of what we do!

 

Looks like they're going to drown where I live.

'And in bad news for WA, sea levels around the country's west and far north have risen the most, with an eight millimetre rise recorded since the early 1990s.'

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environme...tre-by-2100-20110523-1ezf0.html#ixzz1N8aLTgRP

I'm off to the shops ...

 

Anyone surprised by this statement or thinking that he slipped up by saying it, proves that they don't read the evidence. It's in the IPCC report (understand if you didn't read 800+ pages), the IPCC FAQ (much easier to read, the Australia Academy of Science summary etc etc

Here's another strawman as I'm not aware of many people trying to encourage global cooling, just slow the warming - two very different statements!