The Greenhouse Conspiracy - Aussie movie from 1990

First and foremost, yes, but you again miss the salient point that the tax is not primarily about raising revenue, but about changing people's behaviour. Climate change is also a global problem that needs to be tackled globally. Assisting poorer countries in this will actually benefit the Australian people in the long run. I'm sure I've heard you complain that our tax is pointless as other countries are not taking the same steps, so why are you against giving them the initiative to take these forward steps?

Note that only 10% (supposedly) of the tax is going to the GCF. So clearly the priority is to the aussie people.

Yet they are still third world countries. So really that is a null point.

Nobody said it was 'our fault' and this has nothing to do with the GCF. Please stay on topic.

Again, please stay on topic.

The basics, yes, but you are not grasping the full picture of what the tax is supposed to achieve and how it will achieve it.

I beg to differ. Nothing you just said refutes anything I said or Ross Gittins explanation of the tax. In fact what you just said makes me think you didn't even read my post. Perhaps you should read it again. Do you deny the government is compensating us for the cost that will be passed down to us? Do you understand why they are doing that? Clearly you don't and clearly you need to educate yourself a bit more on this topic. Simply saying it's bullsh!t doesn't make it so, you actually need to provide evidence as to why it is bullsh!t to be taken seriously...And also reply on point.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you didn't understand any of it. I suggest doing so as you will see it is not bullsh!t but the reality of how the tax is supposed to work and it makes perfect sense...And like I said, it should fill in some of your blanks. You are mistaken if you think you fully know how the tax is supposed to work.

Here, I will even quote some of the more pertinent bits from it, although I highly suggest listening to Ross Gittins in his video as he actually knows what he is talking about and isn't just regurgitating political rhetoric.

LOL...Dude, next time look before posting. It would save us both a lot of time. That link was the whole point of my post!

 

You must be aware that if it wasn't for the mining boom Australia would be no better of than an Ireland over in Europe, we are in the deep end as well and the only thing that prevents the IMF coming over here and demanding austerity measures to pay of our debt is our wealth in minerals.

What are we a charitable institution?

The unfortunate thing about the Carbon tax/ETS is yes it will change people's attitudes to using electricity and some might live like moles in holes at night time, that it will drop our standard of living i'm quite sure it will, cause our standard of living is based on energy.

But the big polluters will just go on their merry way without a care in the world after all its not them that are going to pay the cost its the peasants.

And yes Australia only produces 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions yet we have been given the biggest carbon tax in the world that is only set to increase in cost, our contribution to global warming is negligible yet we have been burdened with saving the world LOL.

10% is going to the United Nations why i dont know, 40% is going back into the 500 big polluters so they dont just shut up shop and go to SE asia to do business the rest is going to the Australian people.

Ok Nigeria for example has one of the largest oil industries in the world, yet its people 90% or more live in poverty, where is the rest of the world why dont they say this is unexeptable to starve the population yet they have riches for their people to have a decent standard of living.

What you also want Australia to feed the whole world too.

If justice is what you want for the third world countries then there is only one way for the goody two shoes united nations to start sanctions etc etc you know how the story goes we cannot feed the entire third world.

It is on topic because all of these things, AGW, CO2, ETS/Carbon Tax, third world countries etc etc are related, you cannot save the world from the supposed Greenhouse effect and not have the third world involved?

Sorry lep the tax will achieve nothing in the way of reducing CO2 emissions unless the governments of the civilised nations say we must stop growing, now can you see that happening?

The only thing it will achieve is, it will place us all into financial slavery sending billions of dollars to overseas corporations in the purchase of carbon credits, it will cause most of the land on earth to be purchased by big corporations, its even happening here in Australia.

The proof is in the pudding lep, why has the tax threshold been raised to $19000 from $6000, why all these hand outs, why is the government going to keep half the revenue to give back to us.

Because at the heart of the Carbon tax / ETS is our standard of living, attacking energy like this is a direct assault on our standard for living, i mean take away energy and what are you really left with.

Now the carbon tax ETS will increase the price of energy and will keep on increasing every year since the carbon tax will be increased 2.5% above inflation every year until we are apart f the European emissions trading scheme.

At first the expense will not be so apparrent but after a few years like a domino effect all goods and services will go up because of this tax, further reducing our standard of living, but hey this is exactly what the 1% want and they will get it.

I haven't watched it yet i will watch it tonight.

 

Great video! That guy explains it really well, I think a lot of people, dumbanddumber included, have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an ETS is.

 

Before you make another post, READ THE LINK I POSTED.

I fail to see your point in relation to my post. We aren't talking about Ireland. We are talking about third world countries. You do know what a third world country is, yes?

You agree that climate change is a global problem, yes?

You say it will drop our standard of living but again you misunderstand the tax's purpose and how it will work.

"It's not necessary to leave people worse off to get them to change their spending patterns. And since the primary purpose of the carbon tax is to change relative prices rather than to raise revenue, you may as well return the revenue to people by cutting income tax and increasing benefits..."

Until their power plants come to the end of their current lives, in which they will be replaced with more efficient, less-polluting power plants. What don't you understand about that?

Your typical right-wing rhetoric....*YAWN*

You don't even know? Clearly you are in no position to even be discussing this topic if you haven't heard of the Green Climate Fund, which we had agreed to before the carbon tax even went in.

Sounds like what you want is a global government that can dictate how other countries work. The world is much more complex than simply saying 'this is unacceptable'. Would you have us invade them if they refuse to change their ways?...Actually, don't answer that. I want you to try and stay on topic.

Don't be ridiculous.

I never said anything about justice. I simply recognize climate change is a problem that needs to be tackled globally and that many third world countries are not in the position to do this.

Which is why we have the GCF...And yes, those things are related but your comment that "corporations have installed a dictator in most of these countries to take advantage of the resources and theur governments dont share the countries wealth with its people" is not related to the UN giving developing countries assistance, AGW, CO2 or our portion of the carbon tax that is going into the GCF. Try again.

Also, please use proper grammar and punctuation if you wish to converse as an adult. How old are you by the way? Your posts are awfully hard to read and you come across as rather asinine when you fail to spell simple words correctly.

So you think the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to STOP GROWING?! Give me a break man. You still have no idea how the tax is supposed to work. WATCH THE VIDEO AND EDUCATE YOURSELF.

More right-wing rhetoric. *YAWN*

Again, READ THE LINK I POSTED. Save yourself further embarrassment.

Didn't I just tell you to not bother responding until you watched it? You are still making the same mistakes you did 2 posts ago!!! Like I said, the link was the whole point of my post and you still haven't even watched it. Really you are just wasting my time.

 

I watched the video, so all i can say is you are headed for a very big shock and a hole in your pocket.

$10 a week what absolute nonsense! We will see soon enough.

I'm pointing out to you that Australia is in trouble financial just like those European nations so if it wasn't for our mining resources w would have austerity measures here too.

All this and you want to send Australian tax payer dollars overseas.

Have you heard the news about how many companies a retrenching and closing up shop, have you been down to your local shopping strip how mnay shops are vacant?

No at times like these our nation comes first, like i said before the world is about to go down the dunny.

Again your waffling if energy prices go up so will all goods and services, the video and you above are making it sound as though only gas and electricity will go up so we can be mindful of there use.

Not the case EVERYTHING that uses energy will go up, and i cant think of something that doesn't use energy.

Our standard of living is about to drop so you have to wonder just how much does Julia and Christine really care about Australian families, there are much better ways to REALLY reduce CO2 emissions this is the worst possible way to go about it.

Not right wing at all you have read enough of my posts to know that.

Call it what you will the bottom line is the United nations will get the 10% United nations climate change fund - green fund i dont care.

What i care about is the oz tax payer dollars (our money) going to these pigs.

Now your talking crap.

Sounds like it!

Well if we let them drill the oil out of their land or mine their minerals just like we do they would also be in a position to help themselves.

Yes lets give these pigs the power to distribute the world's wealth through climate policy, why not hell we haven't got anything better to do, lets let them buy up all our land for carbon credits WTF who cares.

Well i do, the carbon tax is a scam based on a lie.

How else do INDUSTRIALISED nations grow????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Again i'm not right wing at all and i suggest that you broaden your horizons, take your head out of the greens / labor policy books and have a good look around.

 

No, dumber certainly is "not right wing at all". Frankly I'm more right wing than he is. The greens are probably more right wing than he is too, and the ALP certainly is.

 

Is that all you have to say about the video?

We are talking about third world countries. Pay attention.

Not recently, but a month ago there was more shops opening up than closing.

The point is that people will buy things that are less emissions intensive as the price will not rise as much as something that takes a lot of pollution to create. You only take the idea halfway and then stop. Follow through with your thought patterns!

I agree it will probably drop slightly, but I disagree with your alarmist stance on this.

Ok, sure, ignore that, now what about the other part of my post? You conflated two different responses in that one quote! That is being completely dishonest.

"Until their power plants come to the end of their current lives, in which they will be replaced with more efficient, less-polluting power plants. What don't you understand about that?"

As I said, if you don't even know what the Green Climate Fund is then you are in no position to discuss this topic and certainly in no position to complain about 10% of the tax going to the UN because you don't even know the reason why in the first place!

Inform yourself before coming to conclusions. Otherwise you just look foolish.

It was the only logical conclusion to be drawn from your post. If you meant something else, explain yourself, otherwise be quiet.

lol, I'm glad we both agree you were being ridiculous.

Citations needed to show we have been stopping developing nations from mining their land. You have an overly simplistic view of the third world. Inform yourself.

Am I to take this deflection as tacit admission that what you said wasn't related to the topic?

Dude, clearly we can reduce CO2 emissions in the future while still growing. As has been shown by the tax giving big polluters incentive to install less-polluting generators when current power plants run their useful course. How would this hinder growth?

Sorry, you just preach the same rhetoric that I hear coming from many conservatives.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but that video wasn't at all informative actually i think it was politically motivated to sell the carbon tax to the viewer.

Also i cant believe that the only impact the carbon tax will have on households is $10/week, especially when it affects all goods and services, what happens when they go up too will it still be $10/week?

Some examples of the domino effect of the carbon tax,

1. Getting a hair cut - barber uses electricy - price goes up

2. Fast food outlets use electricity and gas - price goes up

3. Manufacturing - price goes up

I could go on and on but basically anything from shoes to pasta will increase in cost, because like the big polluters they will pass it on to the consumer.

Do you know anything that doesn't use energy?

How can it only be $10/week, this is s furphy at best.

? Co2 emissions involve the whole world! and whats happening to it as a whole.

Well when you get back from holidays take a stroll.

This is political rhetoric and just nonsense, i'm going to buy a litre of milk do you honestly think i care whether the electricity used to make this litre of milk is from fossil fuels or renewable energy, come on get real.

And if that litre of milk has been made by fossil fuels and is cheaper than a litre of milk that was produced by renewable energy which one would you buy?

Absolute nonsense.

But why should it drop we can really reduce CO2 emissions i mean REALLY not just on paper, we may have to cough up a few billion ONCE and become the cleanest polluters in the world.

Why should we be tied to some foreign ponzy scheme that will hand over our sovereignty on the use of power and energy in our country to some UN official who doesn't even know where Australia is FFS.

Why should we commit to financial slavery for ever by sending out billions of our tax payer dollars to foreign instituitions, this monet could be better spent here retrofitting our existing infrastructure and REALLY reducing CO2 emissions.

Yeah what are you saying that when this happens the carbon tax ETS will end?

If we get 100% of our energy from renewables will the carbon tax / ETS be revoked? i bloody well hope so but somehow i just cant see it happening.

We can greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from our power plants in REAL TERMS by fitting them out with the lastest technology in curbing greenhouse gas emissions after all this is the whole purpose of the tax / ETS isn't it to reduce CO2 emissions by.

1. Fabric Filter Bags
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbers
4. CO2 Sequestration
5. Gas Fires Power Plants

The fact that its an organisation that is owned by the united nations thats suppose to re-distribute wealth around the world through climate policy is enough for me, i dont need to know anymore than that.

Ok i'll rememeber that.

Lep you know how much i hate and despise the United Nations - New World Order and anything that has to do with it, including the first new world order tax or as we know the carbon tax / ETS.

Ok i'll give you that one.

What i should have said is that the indigenous people of thrid world countries should be profeteering from their mining sector, and not the corporations that are raping their lands and reaping all the profits.

No deflection the United Nations gives with one hand and takes with the other, yeah sends aid and then through its subsidiary company the IPCC makes laws to pull the thrid world people's land from under their feet like a magician pulls a table cloth from a set table through climate change policy.

Lep you are old enough to know how privatisation works they will not do anything for nothing.

Less polluting generators care to show an example, will it be wind, geothermal or solar driven.

I dont think it can be done today, or even ten years from now.

While i am a labor man at heart i dont just follow them blindly and do pay attention to what their trying to achieve.

As you know i dont always agree with my parties policy, and if i dont agree then i dont agree whether its my Labor party or the Liberal party.

In no particular order, things that i disagree with no matter which party,

1. Carbon Tax
2. GST
3. Work choices
4. Privatisation of our utilities
5. Sale of telstra
6. Sale of the Commonwealth bank
7. Privatisation of public transport
8. Floating the dollar
9. Bail out of private banks
10. Privatisation of our Reserve Bank

I could go on but you get the picture,

Apart from No.2 (GST) the rest are all designed to put all the wealth of the world into the hands of the few.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I've been trekking through the jungle for the last few days.

You may disagree with Ross Gittins but the man has integrity and actually knows what he is talking about which is more than I can say for you.

Personal incredulity does not amount to a strong argument. In fact it makes for an incredibly weak one.

Evidence, or ****. I've already dealt with your misunderstanding of the logic behind the polluters passing the cost to the consumer. That is exactly how the tax is meant to work. Economists are not total idiots like you seem to think.

Mate, like many times before, you expose yourself as lacking the abilities of rational thought. I'm not stupid enough to fall for your confusion tactics. Of course it involves the whole world which is why I said: "Climate change is also a global problem that needs to be tackled globally. Assisting poorer countries in this will actually benefit the Australian people in the long run. I'm sure I've heard you complain that our tax is pointless as other countries are not taking the same steps, so why are you against giving them the initiative to take these forward steps?"

To which you said: "You must be aware that if it wasn't for the mining boom Australia would be no better of than an Ireland over in Europe, we are in the deep end as well and the only thing that prevents the IMF coming over here and demanding austerity measures to pay of our debt is our wealth in minerals."

Which is unrelated as I was clearly discussing the third world and Australia giving them assistance via the GCF. Do you honestly believe Australia or Ireland are third world countries?

First off, you need to watch/read my link again because you still don't understand and are very confused. Nobody is talking about renewable energy here, we are talking about emissions intensive goods. The point is that products that use more emissions will be more expensive than products that use less emissions. Using your milk example, if a certain brand of milk was to use less emissions than other brands of milk to create, it would be cheaper to sell under a carbon tax compared to the brands that use more emissions and so cost more to create. It is intuitive that people would prefer to buy the cheaper product...Especially if the prices of everything are going up as you constantly reiterate.

Provide credible evidence for your alarmist position or ****. Furthermore, provide evidence we are handing over our sovereignty on the use of power and energy to a "UN official who doesn't even know where Australia is" because it sounds like you are talking utter crap right now and I'm willing to bet you are. Even furthermore, you contradict yourself by complaining we shouldn't have a tax because it will be negligible due to the rest of the world's emissions and then by raving about how we could somehow "really reduce CO2" by NOT giving other countries incentive to reduce their own emissions and instead spend it all on just reducing emissions in Australia.

But anyway, this is all a bit irrelevant. Pure and simple, put up (regarding your alarmist position) or shut up.

LOL. Man are you lost in this conversation. Clearly you are far out of your depth. Read what I said again: "Until their power plants come to the end of their current lives, in which they will be replaced with more efficient, less-polluting power plants. What don't you understand about that?"

I never said anything about renewables or the ETS ending because of it. Stay on topic and if you can't follow the conversation, don't reply. Simple.

Well, no, the purpose of the ETS isn't necessarily to reduce emissions by implementing those 5 specific things. Where is your source for that?

Okay, sure, you draw your conclusions from ignorance and a lack of knowledge. I'm glad we settled that.

Remembering is useless if you don't practice it. The quote of yours above is the perfect example.

Then explain yourself or be quiet!

Yeah, sure, they should be profiting but they aren't and simply getting their mining sector up and running with money going back into the country will not magically fix the third world overnight.

And dude, "profeteering"? Seriously, how old are you? Even a 10 year old should be able to use spell check.

You are either lying to save face or just plain stupid. Of course it was deflection as we were talking about your comment that: "corporations have installed a dictator in most of these countries to take advantage of the resources and theur governments dont share the countries wealth with its people" " and how it "is not related to the UN giving developing countries assistance, AGW, CO2 or our portion of the carbon tax that is going into the GCF. "

Every time a conversation with you spans more than 2 posts you start to become confused. It really is exasperating. If you can't stay on point, don't bother arguing as you come across sounding like a fool.

What on earth are you talking about? Haven't you heard of the technology to build more efficient, less polluting coal-fired power plants? If not then you really need to ****. Also, why wouldn't they want to save themselves money by installing better generators when their current ones die?

I don't know much about you to be honest. I just see you spouting misinformation all over these boards.

 

Sounds like your having fun.

Not my hero, lets move on.

Thats how i see it, i cant believe that the domino effect of the carbon tax will have on all retailers and manufacturers will only cost households $10/week.

The proof will be in the pudding and i will remind you of it, i'm sure you know that.

No trickery or spin either you aknowledge that CO2 emissions is a global problem or you dont.

Australia is not the worlds piggy bank thanks, we have more urgent matters to deal with here at home.

Australia and Ireland are not third world never said they were.

But take away our mining and we are no better of than Ireland, so do you still think we should be the world's piggy bank?

Well then we're really farked now and who will keep tabs on what is and what isn't emissions intensive?

I think we're going to need another government department to look after that mess.

Lets just wait and see, i bet my bottom dollar emissions intensive or not all goods and services will go up.

The evidence has been presented to us how much will the carbon tax raise in 4 years, that's $24.7 billion dollars from this money 46% will be pumped straight back into the 500 big polluters and 54% will be handed over to households, now we are going to have to cough up 46% of $24.7 billion dollars because this direct cost will be passed down to the consumer right!

Now what about all the businesses that aren't apart of the big polluters what will they do when their energy bills go up or their goods and services go up?

Not hard to understand really lep.

I say that the UN will be dictating to us what how and where we can use our energy, otherwise we will be paying them millions in fines if we cannot meet their targets.

And that to me is giving up our rights and our sovereignty to some bigs over at the UN who are just watering at the mouth to get our dollars, they have set themselves a target of $100 billion dollars by this december, this money will be collected not just from Australia but other countries as well.

Now lep lets see how they spend this $100 billion dollars next year, lets wait and see what programs they will invest it into.

More efficient ones less polluting ones - explain yourself where and where are these rabbit out of the hat less polluting generators going to come from what will they use as fuel?

Do you actually know or is it just spin than your dribbling?

Get with the times lep, i'm suggesting to retrofit our existing infrastructure with those 5 methods to curb the CO2 emissions, you know reduce them make us the cleanest polluters in the world, after all isn't that what all this is about to reduce our CO2 emissions?

Look all i want to say on this one is lest see how they actually distribute the $100 billion dollars they will recieve at the end of this year.

Ok lets move on.

I have been explaining myself but you aint been listening.

It would go along way dont you think.

The point i'm trying to make is the UN robs peter to pay paul, they assist the third world countries with aid and then through their own company the IPCC make laws about land grabbing for carbon cedits that affects those very same people they are sending aid to.

No deflection i posted about this in another thread, so get real UN/IPCC policy is forcing the land grab by the corporation.

NO. care to explain yourself, what will be used for fuel?

Have a good holiday dude.

 

So you accept your argument is incredibly weak. Cool. I'm glad we agree.

So you have absolutely no evidence. Again your argument is incredibly weak and not even worthy of debate as you can't provide a shred of evidence to support your claims. Lets move on.

Clearly you didn't read my post. I will quote it again for your sake. I said: "Climate change is also a global problem that needs to be tackled globally. Assisting poorer countries in this will actually benefit the Australian people in the long run. I'm sure I've heard you complain that our tax is pointless as other countries are not taking the same steps, so why are you against giving them the initiative to take these forward steps?"

To which you said: "You must be aware that if it wasn't for the mining boom Australia would be no better of than an Ireland over in Europe, we are in the deep end as well and the only thing that prevents the IMF coming over here and demanding austerity measures to pay of our debt is our wealth in minerals."

Which is unrelated as I was clearly discussing developing countries and Australia (a developed country) giving them assistance via the GCF.

Stop deflecting and bringing up red herrings. You just admitted Ireland is not a third world country so wtf are you on about? Why do you think this matters when we are clearly discussing developing countries and developed countries giving them assistance?

OMG dude how is it you still don't understand? I've literally spelled it out for you a number of times now! I honestly don't know how to make it any more simple for you. If you cannot understand this then please refrain from posting as it is wasting my time.

"The point is that products that use more emissions will be more expensive than products that use less emissions. Using your milk example, if a certain brand of milk was to use less emissions than other brands of milk to create, it would be cheaper to sell under a carbon tax compared to the brands that use more emissions and so cost more to create. It is intuitive that people would prefer to buy the cheaper product, especially if the prices of everything are going up as you constantly reiterate. "

Sorry mate but clearly you have no idea about this topic. You failed to include the 10% going to the UN that you are constantly posting about so clearly your numbers are wrong or you are just very confused. Please provide actual evidence or don't respond. It's that simple!

Also, you would only have to cough that up if you refuse to change your behaviour and continue to buy emissions-intensive goods.

Again, provide actual evidence for your position or accept it is unsubstantiated alarmist conjecture.

This isn't relevant at all to my quote, but eh, I'll bite because it is so easy. Provide evidence or ****! It doesn't matter what your opinion is. Your opinion is worthless as we've already established you are in no position to comment on the UN as you admittedly draw ignorant conclusions. Facts are everything! I don't come here to listen to unsubstantiated opinion. I want to actually learn and you learn by being presented with facts!

So you haven't a shred of evidence? This is ridiculous. This whole discussion has been a farce if you cannot support any of your claims!

 

Cut into two parts. Quoting all your posts to help you stay on track took up too many letters.

LOL! Mate, do some bloody research if you want to engage in debate. You are just embarrassing yourself here.

New technologies reduce environmental impacts of coal-fired plants: http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-E...ronmental_impacts_of_coal-fired_plants/22603/

Making coal fired generators more efficient and less polluting with Hydrogen: http://planetforward.org/idea/makin...e-efficient-and-less-polluting-with-hydrogen/

China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

Need I say more?

You said: "this is the whole purpose of the tax / ETS isn't it to reduce CO2 emissions by...."

Which is the first I've heard of those five things being the "whole purpose" of the ETS. Please, provide evidence for such claims otherwise I cannot take them seriously.

Personally I'd be all for pimping us out with those things but lets be realistic here and discuss what is actually being implemented...and like I quoted: "Until their power plants come to the end of their current lives, in which they will be replaced with more efficient, less-polluting power plants." ....So we don't even have to fork out cash to them to do these things as they should be doing it themselves when their current power plants run their useful course.

Sure, so long as you understand that your position is uninformed and so cannot be taken seriously.

BS, you never made it clear what you meant by "where is the rest of the world why dont they say this is unexeptable to starve the population yet they have riches for their people to have a decent standard of living. "

The only logical conclusion is that you want the developed world to dictate how the developing world should be run. If this isn't what you meant then explain yourself or be quiet about it so we know you were just talking gammon.

Yeah sure, but it wouldn't fix all the third world problems overnight either.

Huh? How on earth was I to figure that out from your comment that started this tangent that "corporations have installed a dictator in most of these countries to take advantage of the resources and theur governments dont share the countries wealth with its people"

Go read your whole response in post #75 where you said that and you will see how confused you are getting. There was no way to figure out that's what you meant from your original post. I think you are just talking crap and are totally lost in this conversation.

Then explain how your comment that "corporations have installed a dictator in most of these countries to take advantage of the resources and theur governments dont share the countries wealth with its people" is related to the UN's GCF, AGW, or CO2. I would also like to see evidence that "corporations (which ones?) have installed dictators in most of these countries". Also you now need to provide evidence that shows UN policy is "forcing the land grab by the corporation"...whatever that means. Which corporation are you talking about? What land grab? Which policy? It is hard to understand when you have such poor grammar skills and provide no evidence whatsoever for your claims.

Uhhhh, can't you read? COAL!!! I've already provided links above that explain this and I specifically said it in that post you quoted. Wtf man? At least read it before making a response.

"Haven't you heard of the technology to build more efficient, less polluting coal-fired power plants?"

Thanks I am. Traveling is amazing

 

Also I should've added in regards to your comment: "now we are going to have to cough up 46% of $24.7 billion dollars because this direct cost will be passed down to the consumer right!"

That would only be right if the government wasn't compensating us for the expected increase in price. The link I posted explains all this very clearly. I suggest watching it again until it clicks.

 

No i dont i never said i did.

The tip of the iceberg has laready sufraced now we have to wait for the domino effect to take place

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-15/electricity-gas-prices-rise-south-australia/4072446?section=sa
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-13/power-pain-hits-nsw-with-18pc-price-increase/4068266
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-15/electricity-gas-prices-rise-south-australia/4072446?section=sa
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rubb...n-hit-list-for-carbon-tax-20120615-20fon.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13962089/carbon-to-force-up-rates/
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...n-tax-slug-for-ratepayers-20120615-20env.html

I read it, and i stand by my statement that Australia is not the worlds piggy bank.

Yes our carbon tax is pointless it will not reduce our green house emissions which according to alarmists are at the point of no return to irreversible damage on our atmosphere, how can we go on polluting even more by the purchase of carbon credits while we are told that it will be the end of the world.

We have seen that the people running the european ETS are more concerned about that health of that market rather than how much we are actually cleaning up the Earth?

Increasing your carbon footprint and then showing that it has decreased through the purchase of carbon credits will surely tip us over that peak of irreversible damage wouldn't it?

So if the world was on the verge of ending as we know it, would this be the stance all governments would take?

The Carbon tax is a ponsy scheme based on a lie AGW.

Australia is a developed country and so is Ireland i never said they weren't you are the one that is going of track here, what i did say is that the only thing that keeps us afloat in comparison with a country like Ireland is our mineral resources, and that without these resources we would be in the same financial boat as Ireland.

Even more the reason to stop these billion dollar handouts to third world countries, no red herring.

Sorry mate now you are talking rubbish what are we going to have labels on our milk or any other consumable or service for that matter stating whether they were made a by cleaner emitting power suuplier or energy?

What nonsense this is absolute malarkey!

I may not understand the break up of the carbon tax revenue 100%, but i do understand the bottom line.

And that is the carbon tax will inflate the prices of all goods and services which in turn means that our standard of living will drop.

Because not even the government knows exactly how the carbon tax will affect the price of a tomatoe or the price of a haircut or a new car.

The only guarantee is they WILL INCREASE.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ca...nne-carbon-price/story-e6frf7jo-1226091428949

Again the bottom line is these people set a target that if we dont meet by the nominated period we will pay hefty fines in the millions, self explanitory really, we are giving them the power to dictate to us how and when we can use our energy.

I can't see how you dont find it wrong that we should give 10% of the carbon tax revenue over to some pigs in the United Nations that want to distribute the worlds wealth through climate policy.

Who the fark appointed them to fill this role in the world?

 

That is great, i'm not against this actually i'm all for it good, lets get it over here too!

With the new technology going into the front end as you suggest above and the latest technology bolted to the back end as i suggest in the previous post we can indeed become the cleanest polluters in the world.

Now does China have a carbon tax ETS system, yet they have managed to lead the world in cleaner fossil fuel energy.

The carbon tax ETS that we are getting will not achieve this milestone in a million years, but dont take my word for it lets just give it some time.

Uninformed in what way? I thin i have done my homework on the UN and i have found it to be full of pigs.

If you dont know how the world works at present i suggest you make some time and find out, here are acouple of good starting points.

[video=youtube;JXt1cayx0hs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs[/video]
[video=youtube;7iW1SHPgUAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ[/video]

Maybe not but it will go along way.

See vids above, or do some research.

See vids above.

Like i said i'm all for this one, that is making the combustion phase cleaner, it can also be added to my list of five which only deal with whats coming out.

 

From the link: "As the gas retailer component comprises around 40 per cent of an average residential gas bill ... the average annual gas bill for a residential customer consuming 21,000 MJ annually will rise approximately $37 (GST exclusive). The remaining 60 per cent of an average residential gas bill is comprised of Envestra's distribution network tariffs as approved by the Australian Energy Regulator...Carbon pricing will mean an overall annual bill increase of around $31 in 2012-13 and $32 in 2013-14 due to that component."

Honestly, I work a minimum wage job and could still afford this. Also, it clearly states: "We recognise that costs of electricity and gas have both gone up for various reasons, particularly carbon tax and cost of feed-in tariffs and we have to pass those costs on to all consumers," he said.

Mr Kerin said consumers could seek support and ways to ease their bills.

There are various forms of assistance that people should certainly look at. They can shop around and there are up to 15 per cent discounts offered by retailers compared to the standing contract, [so] there are ways to save energy," he said."

This is the whole idea of the carbon tax and backs up the link I posted in regards to changing people's behaviour.

Again this goes back to changing people's behaviour: "Household bills for Energy Australia customer will increase by 20.6 per cent, an average of an extra $364 a year.

Country Energy customers will be slugged on average an extra $427 a year, an increase of 19.7 per cent.Integral Energy will be hit by the smallest increase of 11.8 per cent, which translates to an extra $208 a year on average."

Given the links above shouldn't prices for gas and electricity combined still only go up roughly $10 a week? Do the math! And that is only if you refuse to change your behaviour. I was expecting evidence of your incredulous position that: "i cant believe that the domino effect of the carbon tax will have on all retailers and manufacturers will only cost households $10/week."

Although I do agree it will be more as the prices of goods and services rise in conjunction with the price of electricity and gas, but that takes us full circle to the original video I posted! Watch it again.

This one isn't relevant as it isn't Australia wide: "RATEPAYERS in the local councils of Bendigo, Geelong, Hume and Wyndham face higher costs because of the carbon tax on rubbish tips....and doesn't have anything to do with "retailers and manufacturers" which is what you were asked to provide evidence for.

"[/I]

Again this does not support your position that refers to all of Australia getting hammered left, right and center: Ratepayers of four of WA's biggest councils could be hit with rate rises.

This link even goes so far as to say: "While the effect of the carbon price on ratepayers has been a hotly contested issue for the government and Coalition, the effect on ratepayers is likely to modest."

Which is completely at odds with your alarmist position

Wtf, please go research the Green Climate Fund. Australia is not the only country taking part. That would be absurd!

Maybe do some research and stop listening solely to the alarmists? I don't think anybody that has done their research agrees with the alleged position that "it will be the end of the world". This is nonsense.

First off, how old are you, seriously? Your grammar is literally primary school level.

Carbon credits don't magically make your carbon footprint drop. Where did you get that idea? It is intuitive that they are there to encourage them to use less pollution as it rewards companies with leftover credits. The only reason they would rise in a cap and trade system is due to corruption or that the cap has been set higher than current emissions which is, presumably, so we don't see the huge drop in living standards you keep talking about. Which is it?

Again, wtf are you on about? You are a sucker that fell hook, line and sinker for the 'world is about to end' crap. Or you just refer to the most radical position to try and justify your own, which is pathetic. Be reasonable, mate.

But if they are both developed countries then it is unrelated! How don't you understand this? We were discussing developed countries giving support to developing countries. Comparing two developed countries on this topic is asinine. If you were comparing us to a developing country then you would have a point, but you aren't!

Wtf? Who said anything about labels? It should be blatantly obvious when you look at the cost of the milk. Again, how did you not pick up on that? I literally bolded it so you couldn't possibly miss it!

OMFG. That is the whole point! Prices of emissions-intensive goods will increase! I've literally told you that a number of times now and it was a central theme in my original link! Also, I've already agreed that the standard of living will drop, but stated that I disagree with your alarmist position. Pay attention.

Citations required that show the UN are dictating to "us how and when we can use our energy."

I don't find it wrong because climate change is a global problem and some countries are not in a position to tackle this problem. If they were distributing wealth for no reason other than the sake of distributing wealth, yes, I would have a problem, but that is not the case. There is a legitimate reason for it. If you recognize climate change is a global problem, why are you against tackling it globally?

 

So ironically it was you who was, to use your own word, ‘dribbling’. Lol. If you want them over here then why don’t you want the carbon tax? You are full of contradictions.

Wtf are you talking about? New and latest are synonymous you dolt! Again I will ask you to provide evidence that “the whole purpose of the tax / ETS isn't it to reduce CO2 emissions by....". Failure to do so again means you have been talking BS.

I don’t recall anyone saying it would make us the leaders in cleaner fossil fuel energy. Where did you hear that? I have never once been under that impression.

Because you are here discussing the Green Climate Fund which you think is an ‘organisation’ (proof you have absolutely no clue) and admitted that you draw conclusions from ignorance: “The fact that its an organisation that is owned by the united nations thats suppose to re-distribute wealth around the world through climate policy is enough for me, i dont need to know anymore than that.”

The only homework you’ve done is superficial at best.

Again, wtf are you on about? How are these documentaries relevant to my questions regarding your comment “"where is the rest of the world why dont they say this is unexeptable to starve the population yet they have riches for their people to have a decent standard of living. "? Which implies you want the rest of the world to dictate how developing countries are run and which is what I have been asking you about. Not capitalism or the history of money! I now assume you cannot explain yourself and again were talking nonsense. This is getting really boring.

Oh please, just admit that your supposed ‘point’ was a total non-sequitur when you look at what you initially said. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

If you can’t explain yourself just admit it and lets be done with this! I’m not about to watch 1 full length movie and 1 three hour movie to try and grasp your wild claims. My link took barely 5 minutes to read/watch. You honestly can’t expect me to sit there for 5 hours to understand your points. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain the relevant parts in a concise manner. Palming off my direct questions to watch 5 hours worth of videos is pathetic.

LOL! Again it is established you have had no clue what we are talking about in this conversation and apparently don’t even read my responses. Mate, just stop before you humiliate yourself further. It feels cruel to keep going.

 

Sure you aren't discussing the kyoto protocol and not the green climate fund? Lets not get off track here.

 

Hi Lep

Gosh are you kidding would you try to defend all the articles ever published about how negative a carbon tax is.

Yeah i've just about had enough of you, you sound more interested in proving me wrong than debating the ins and outs of the carbon tax and your manners stink.

The bottom line is the carbon tax is a direct assault on our standard of living through the use of energy full stop.

Yes it will make people think about how and when to use energy since it will affect their pockest directly, the sad thing here is that it wont affect the big polluters, they will be compensated by the government and will also pass on the direct cost to the consumers.

Also the hike in energy will have a domino affect on all goods and services which are going to increase every year since the carbon tax will rise 2.5% above inflation every year until the ETS.

No matter how you cut it with small talk and insinuations trying to ridicule me, everyone knows that the carbon tax is the biggest ponzy scheme ever based on the lie that is AGW.

As for the green climate fund is it for the environment of for the polluters, corporations are just lining up to dig their hands into the piggy bank that is green climate fund with $100 billion per year for this UN corporation.

My arguement has always been that the carbon tax/ETS will do nothing to clean up our environment while it will fleece developed nations of their wealth.

Now unless you have evidence to the contrary, i suggest you ****.

Back to my holidays.

 

Is that seriously "all the articles" ever published that speak negatively about the carbon tax? You really shot yourself in the foot there ...And also, no, I'm not defending anything here. I'm simply quoting your own links. Not defending them or attacking them. What gave you that impression?

Don't be angry because your own links didn't support your alarmist position. Pay attention, check twice what is being asked of you and read your own links to make sure they are accurate. I asked you to provide evidence for your incredulous position (as personal incredulity is NOT an argument): ""i cant believe that the domino effect of the carbon tax will have on all retailers and manufacturers will only cost households $10/week." You provided links that talked about residential bills, electricity, gas, rubbish tips and one that was completely at odds with your stance. I already agreed it will probably cost a bit more but your links do not support an alarmist position, one of them even said the exact opposite of that! It is impossible to debate the ins and outs of the tax with you because you don't understand it or have any evidence to back up your alarmist claims. It's an absolute farce.

And if you say something that is completely inaccurate, yes, I'm going to call you out on it. You spread more disinformation than anybody else on these boards. I'm not as stupid as you like to think, dumb. Your games, deflections and confusion tactics won't work here.

I will assume your refusal to respond to my posts above is tacit admission you cannot answer my questions and that you accept you are in no position to comment on the GCF. If you aren't going to respond directly to my above posts, please, STOP RESPONDING. Stop wasting my time.

We've been over this. The big polluters now have incentive to use less energy as they can save money, although the big changes will come when current generators run their useful course and are replaced by less-polluting ones. Economists also know they will pass the costs onto consumers, that is half the point. You should be happy they are compensating the polluters as that should prevent a scenario such as the one you are describing!

Dude, you are literally just repeating yourself now. Am I expected to do the same? Either read my posts above and respond on point or don't respond at all.

Yes, everyone in Australia thinks that . I guess you think everyone in Australia thinks AGW is a lie as well...Seriously, you are either delusional or just very sheltered and detached from the real world.

"The green climate fund is it for the environment of for the polluters..... WTF does that even mean??? Is that a question or a statement? Do you even read what you write or are you dyslexic? If you are dyslexic I totally understand and apologize for my exasperation but it is entirely warranted and I implore you to slow down when you write your posts and use spell and grammar checks. Please, make your posts coherent or don't bother responding.

Are you serious? READ THE THREAD! There is plenty of evidence such as big polluters having real incentive to cut back on emissions, incentive to install less-polluting generators in the future, consumer incentive to buy less emissions-intensive products, the GCF giving developing nations the means to take their own steps to ensure we DO have an impact and haven't wasted our time because the rest of the world isn't taking action etc etc. It is clear now that you are fully entrenched in your beliefs and simply do not want to hear otherwise. Yes, we are redistributing wealth to poorer nations, but as I said: "If they were distributing wealth for no reason other than the sake of distributing wealth, yes, I would have a problem, but that is not the case. There is a legitimate reason for it. If you recognize climate change is a global problem, why are you against tackling it globally? "

Seriously dude, not responding to my posts above just made your position look even weaker.

 

Like i said i cant be bothered with your small talk anymore.

Plenty of threads about the carbon tax and its effects for you to defend.

So go for it.

 

LOL. Yes, run away, dumb. You have been humiliated enough in this thread already.

 

Not at all just tired of repeating myself, the posts are there for everone to see.

 

Then stop repeating your nonsense I've already responded to and say something on point! The only explanation here is that you can't and so you are turning tail and fleeing. Which is fine by me. All I will be doing when you repeat yourself is repeat myself until we get to the point where you run away again

 

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, is fine with me.

But i'm not going to repeat myself for your entertainment.