Current Affairs and Politics

Carbon Tax / ETS

Reply
  Tools
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

then why are you compensating everyone? How does that change behaviour? Why are you exempting petrol?

Because it is not a retail tax and it changes the behaviour of INDUSTRY. Via a market based mechanism at a cost that is far less than per tonne of carbon abatement than government subsidy of programs to abate carbon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,284

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

then why are you compensating everyone? How does that change behaviour? Why are you exempting petrol?

Because people think that government should give them something if things become slightly difficult otherwise they won't accept reforms. Australians are so used to getting paid to do thigs. But apart from that, those at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder are least able to absorb price inflation, those at the top can. As time goes on, and renewable energies become the standard then compensation will start to be replaced with increased wages/salaries/welfare to meet the new reality of expenses.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

then why are you compensating everyone? How does that change behaviour? Why are you exempting petrol?

They aren't compensating everyone. They are compensating consumers.

The tax is about making our retailers buy from wholesalers that don't pollute.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
ok now i understand it much better. We dig coal out of the ground as quickly as we can to sell it to other countries to burn and cause the pollution we feel so guilty about, and in order to overcome our guilt we charge a tax on our own companies and people who burn it. That makes much more sense to me now
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239
You can be as glib as you like, it doesn't change the economics of it. A market based system is the path to least cost abatement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

DSILVR +

Registered User

DSILVR's Avatar
Joined
Jul '06
Times thanked
< 18
Posts
3,289
Just for a SINGLE second can we all stop focusing on the notion of "how much will this actually reduce temperatures by" and focus on the notion that these carbon creating resources do NOT last forever and that the investment for renewable energy is a inevitable NECESSITY

I just honestly can't fathom how the fuck people can cry about this situation? I really don't. Perhaps climate change might not be real, perhaps it's all a joke. But, to think that we can continue to dig coal out of the ground for the next XYZ amount of years is the real joke.

[EDIT] - And cheers khunts. Great discussion in this thread. Much enjoyed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by weapon

These days, whenever I'm balls deep, I can't help thinking "I cant wait to tell my buddies on ITM"

Last edited by DSILVR: 13-Jul-11 at 04:55pm

Reason: Additional thought

legal-affairs +

Moderator says 2.0

legal-affairs's Avatar
Joined
Apr '02
Times thanked
< 513
Posts
12,530

Quote:

Originally Posted by kance View Post

It will be the biggest economic reform in our history.

* No Referendum for the people to choose. Currently only 13% are in favour.

* No debate in the Parliament.

* No disclosure as to who are the biggest 500 'polluters'.

* Money to compensate householders will be borrowed from the IMF so even if they lose the next election in two years' time it will be too late to repeal.

* Every major political figure supports some kind of ETS or Carbon Tax.

Taking your points in order:

- The economic impact will be considerably smaller that the introduction of the GST in terms of revenue raised and CPI effect;

- Referenda are for changes to the Constitution, not ordinary legislation. The Parliament has no power to fetter its ability to pass legislation on the merits, which is why Tony Abbott's plebiscite "idea" amounted to an opinion poll paid for with $80million of taxpayers' money;

- Debate in the parliament will occur when the legislation is introduced into Parliament - not before. Of course, there's been lots of debate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, but the Coalition have dealt themselves out of that.

- the 500 biggest polluters are here: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/500-companies/

- Australia doesn't borrow money from the IMF and nor is the compensation being funded through borrowing;

- Is Abbott not a major political figure?

Happy to help you understand the issues, but you really need to do some reading from somewhere other than where you got that guff from, comrade.
But we're fools if we sit back and stare at the ground
While the weasels and analysts sing
If we want our place in history, we can't let the frustration
Drive us to fashionable drinking again
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSILVR View Post

Just for a SINGLE second can we all stop focusing on the notion of "how much will this actually reduce temperatures by" and focus on the notion that these carbon creating resources do NOT last forever and that the investment for renewable energy is a inevitable NECESSITY

[EDIT] - And cheers khunts. Great discussion in this thread. Much enjoyed!

how can you stop focussing on it when that is the single justification being used by the pro carbon tax crowd? Maybe people wouldn't react so angrily if Gillard didn't take Australians as total fools. I have barely heard her say anything about focussing on renewables. She just craps on about 'the science is in 'polluters must pay for polluting our atmosphere' etc etc. People complain about soundbytes coming from Abbott, but fuck me i've heard it all from Gillard in the last two weeks
legal-affairs +

Moderator says 2.0

legal-affairs's Avatar
Joined
Apr '02
Times thanked
< 513
Posts
12,530


After I responded to kance's post above, I thought, "I wonder where he got the IMF thing from".

The answer - David Icke's forum:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...post1060033652

There are not enough lizard man emoticons on this website to express how I feel about that.

[edit - typo].
But we're fools if we sit back and stare at the ground
While the weasels and analysts sing
If we want our place in history, we can't let the frustration
Drive us to fashionable drinking again

Last edited by legal-affairs: 13-Jul-11 at 05:34pm

buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle View Post

They aren't compensating everyone. They are compensating consumers.

The tax is about making our retailers buy from wholesalers that don't pollute.

what are you talking about? What retailers and wholesalers are you talking about? The emissions in this country are caused by you and me and the energy we consume as a result of the lifestyle we choose, so why should we be compensated?
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

how can you stop focussing on it when that is the single justification being used by the pro carbon tax crowd?

Except all the science saying that climate change is happening and likely to have strongly negative effects on our economy and even survival as a species?

You know all those reams of scientific reports telling us this is the smart thing to do?
The economic reports that this is the proper way to institute change if it is necessary to do so due to climate change?

Yeah sure if you ignore everything told to you by every person on the planet actually qualified to give advice on the issue then this is in fact the only argument the "pro-carbon tax crowd" put forward.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

what are you talking about? What retailers and wholesalers are you talking about? The emissions in this country are caused by you and me and the energy we consume as a result of the lifestyle we choose, so why should we be compensated?

Because it is the only way to get anything politically distasteful done these days. And the framework is the smartest, cheapest way to get industry to reduce/abate carbon emissions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

how can you stop focussing on it when that is the single justification being used by the pro carbon tax crowd? Maybe people wouldn't react so angrily if Gillard didn't take Australians as total fools. I have barely heard her say anything about focussing on renewables. She just craps on about 'the science is in 'polluters must pay for polluting our atmosphere' etc etc. People complain about soundbytes coming from Abbott, but fuck me i've heard it all from Gillard in the last two weeks

You don't need to 'focus on renewables' that is the beauty of a market solution, if you increase the price of the cheapest but most carbon intensive method by the amount relative to its externality then the less carbon intensive option becomes preferable.

I can draw you a graph if you want, but this is econ 101 stuff.

I know you aren't big on maths unless it includes the words BILLYUN AND DISSSGRAAACEFUUUUL

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
No buffed the consumer here is just buying energy.

They don't care how it is generated in fact have no discretion to choose how it is generated. This is decided entirely by the Retailers that sell energy to us. Only large industry buyers get the choice of who they buy from.

Some retailers provide a service where you can choose to only use clean energy sources but in general they just buy whatever is cheapest.

The carbon price normalises the price of high pollution generation and low pollution generation then gives the money taken from high pollution generation and gives it back to the consumer. This means that if the high pollution companies just pass on the cost the retailers will buy green energy whenever it is cheaper.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
Weinertron +

random shoutbox generator

Weinertron's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 934
Posts
3,649
I'm no economist, but even I understand the benefits of this scheme. How people can find ANY rationale to oppose it is beyond me.

I believe L-A had the best synopsis of the whole situation:-

Quote:

This helps our emissions in 2 ways:

a) The tax is not paid directly by consumers, it is paid by polluters. Polluters who pollute less will pay less, and thus be able to (a) lower their prices or (b) make greater profits. So there's an incentive for polluters to pollute less.
b) Compensation paid to households won't be paid as rebates on bills. If your bills go up $500 and you get a tax cut of $500, you can either spend the $500 on your bills or you can reduce your energy use and spend the money on beer. Beer is good. So there's an incentive for consumers to pollute less.

Compound this with the fact that we are running out of coal and oil and the other wonderful things that keep this world turning, there is simply no other long term option other than moving to a low/no-carbon economy. [this point alone should suffice when you think about it]
Fuck Everything Forever
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
Good point Weinertron.

Even just comparing coal power plants some are way more efficient and generate more power for the pollution they create. At the very least it will move the coal industry to move to the newer plants and phase out the old ones faster.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
dandharma +

ethereal

dandharma's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 3
Posts
1,944

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

what are you talking about? What retailers and wholesalers are you talking about? The emissions in this country are caused by you and me and the energy we consume as a result of the lifestyle we choose, so why should we be compensated?

This is awesome, I haven't seen buffed on the forums since way back in 2006 when he was off on a rant about why we can't just "cut and run" from Iraq.

It's good to see you still have the blinkers on mate
I don't know how to play chess. But life is like a chess game to me.
EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330
As to Buffed's question about petrol, I think that this is entirely political. If you're increasing voters' electricity bills marginally and taking a major hit in the opinion polls for it, you don't want to increase their petrol bills at the same time.

Even if climate change did turn out to be all a joke, car exhausts in Australia's major cities are very real. Pollution from cars affects people everyday more than pollution from big factories with big stacks.
EeeeeeeJ +

Registered User

Joined
May '10
Times thanked
< 19
Posts
330

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

[Commonwealth parliamentary terms] are exactly 3? how long was the last one?

Unlike most state parliaments with their fixed four year terms, three years is only an upper limit on the length of a term for the Commonwealth Parliament. Mostly, they end up being about two years and nine months. However, the Senate terms are not in sync with the House of Representatives and the calling of an election normally means only the dissollution of the House of Representatives, the Senate running its full term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

smaller parties may be problematic.... a perfect example see israel.

On the other hand, Germany seems quite successful in forming coalitions according to who has the numbers. In Australia, it's mostly tradition that the National Party (whatever its name is at the time) enters an election campaign with the intention of forming a coalition with the Liberal Party, regardless of whether this is in the interest of rural voters.

Israel's main problem is that rogues keep bombing it and they have to balance enforcing law and order, appeasing religious zealots, maintaining human rights and keeping the peace.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle View Post

The carbon price normalises the price of high pollution generation and low pollution generation then gives the money taken from high pollution generation and gives it back to the consumer. This means that if the high pollution companies just pass on the cost the retailers will buy green energy whenever it is cheaper.


to be economcally correct, the basis for the theory behind taxing negative externalities is to internalise the externality, ie the price of the final good or service should include the external cost. therefore the price consumers pay will include the social cost and demand will fall to the new equilibrium. there is no point to taxing an externality unless it changes consumer demand......supply doesn't just magically shift because you add a tax. In a free market, the producer will simply add the cost to the goods
jdoodle +

in on the killtaker

jdoodle's Avatar
Joined
Nov '01
Times thanked
< 2,255
Posts
17,014
http://networkedblogs.com/kksim
how i feel at the moment
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

to be economcally correct, the basis for the theory behind taxing negative externalities is to internalise the externality, ie the price of the final good or service should include the external cost. therefore the price consumers pay will include the social cost and demand will fall to the new equilibrium. there is no point to taxing an externality unless it changes consumer demand......supply doesn't just magically shift because you add a tax. In a free market, the producer will simply add the cost to the goods

Supply can magically shift to something that is less carbon intensive that is now more desirable at its lower relative cost, or if a producer can be more efficient in regards to carbon they gain a competitive advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
Here's a better way of putting the whole debate by 'someone else' and i quote, lol

"Subject: Carbon Facts vs. Carbon Tax

Let’s put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.

Here’s a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre – about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia ‘s contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane ‘s new Gateway Bridge , ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It’s hard to imagine that Australia ‘s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away"
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239
^ Climate change denialist horseshite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

^ Climate change denialist horseshite.


lol, you sound like me when i have no comeback to a post
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

lol, you sound like me when i have no comeback to a post

There is no 'comeback' required - That email has been kicking around for a while now, it is a favourite on wingnut forums, it is shite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
it puts it into perspective though, we are being pushed headlong into this bullshit for no result.

It's like chalking up to train abs.........retarded
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239
The compensation to the coal industry is unnecessary, a carbon price and emissions trading make loads of sense. It is the only way forward for least cost abatement, the longer we leave it the MORE it will cost.

5% by 2020 is nothing, we need to worry about the 80% by 2050. Decarbonising the economy cannot happen overnight, there has to be a starting point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

Pete Paranoid +

Future Primitive

Pete Paranoid's Avatar
Joined
Aug '02
Times thanked
< 11
Posts
619
I remember watching her father’s (David Suzuki) videos as a kid. The videos will speak for themselves, and I’m not an environmental scientist or an environmentalist, so I have no comment to add here at all.

Media Player
The Girl Who Silenced The World For 6 Minutes - YouTube

Media Player
Severn Cullis-Suzuki - YouTube
www.luminouslights.com.au Myspace Facebook Luminous Lights Facebook The Midnight Surfer
truba +

Registered User

truba's Avatar
Joined
May '05
Times thanked
< 112
Posts
3,252
if world only listened to Nikola Tesla some 100 years ago we probably wouldn't have any fossil fuels in use anywhere we'd all have free energy but instead the world decided to go backwards instead of forward so now 100 years later we are paying for it
horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 422
Posts
5,459

Quote:

Originally Posted by truba View Post

if world only listened to Nikola Tesla some 100 years ago we probably wouldn't have any fossil fuels in use anywhere we'd all have free energy but instead the world decided to go backwards instead of forward so now 100 years later we are paying for it

Did Tesla say: reign in population growth or any gains in efficiency in energy or food production will count for nought?
phoneyhuh +

3o~

phoneyhuh's Avatar
Joined
Jul '01
Times thanked
< 206
Posts
8,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by truba View Post

if world only listened to Nikola Tesla some 100 years ago we probably wouldn't have any fossil fuels in use anywhere we'd all have free energy but instead the world decided to go backwards instead of forward so now 100 years later we are paying for it

There's been recent progress on fusion

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...or-fusion.html

Quote:

The world's largest laser is approaching the long-sought goal of igniting a fusion reaction that produces more energy than the laser delivers.

Lasers are intended to do this by super-heating a fusion fuel pellet until it implodes, heating and compressing its central core to the temperatures and pressures needed for nuclear fusion.

Past experiments have been plagued by irregular implosions that wasted most of the input energy. But now, researchers led by Brian MacGowan of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have managed to squeeze targets of material into spheres rather than pancakes or more lopsided shapes, paving the way for future attempts at fusion.

legal-affairs +

Moderator says 2.0

legal-affairs's Avatar
Joined
Apr '02
Times thanked
< 513
Posts
12,530

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ View Post

As to Buffed's question about petrol, I think that this is entirely political.

Exactly correct - it was the price of Tony Windsor's vote. I don't think it was a sound decision from a policy point of view but politics is the art of the possible and if that concession makes it possible for there to be a price on carbon, that's a good result.

Of course, in the Abbott alternate reality, it was Abbott who secured the exclusion of petrol. Quite how he managed to do that from outside the process, when he was always going to vote down the package regardless of whether petrol was in or out (and opposed to Windsor, who will vote for the package now that petrol is out) is a very good question - perhaps one for Abbott when he does Q and A, given that journalists don't seem to want to ask it.
But we're fools if we sit back and stare at the ground
While the weasels and analysts sing
If we want our place in history, we can't let the frustration
Drive us to fashionable drinking again
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

it puts it into perspective though, we are being pushed headlong into this bullshit for no result.

It's like chalking up to train abs.........retarded

no buffed it's completely horseshit that analogy.

You could draw a similar analogy for something like cancer.

A tumor in the body about the size of 1cm in diameter could contain about a billion cells
The human body contains something in the order of 100 trillion cells

therefore the cancerous cells could make up approximately 100,000th (or 0.001%) of the total number of cells in the body and yet it can still kill you.

Magnitude does give reason to deny the science.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy View Post

no buffed it's completely horseshit that analogy.

You could draw a similar analogy for something like cancer.

A tumor in the body about the size of 1cm in diameter could contain about a billion cells
The human body contains something in the order of 100 trillion cells

therefore the cancerous cells could make up approximately 100,000th (or 0.001%) of the total number of cells in the body and yet it can still kill you.

Magnitude does give reason to deny the science.

so man made carbon dioxide is more dangerous than naturally occurring carbon dioxide?
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

so man made carbon dioxide is more dangerous than naturally occurring carbon dioxide?

no.. you clearly don't understand the science.

The earth has a carbon cycle.

Carbon emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources is absorbed back by trees and the ocean etc and doesn't remain in the atmosphere.

Every year humans contribute approx 3% more carbon on top of what nature emits into the atmosphere. Nature then doesn't have the capacity to reabsorb that extra 3% per annum that humans contribute so therefore it remains in the atmosphere.

So every year an extra 3% of carbon is put into the atmosphere and remains there. These accumulates all the time.

Carbon traps heat, and more and more carbon accumulating in the atmosphere means more a more heat is being trapped.
truba +

Registered User

truba's Avatar
Joined
May '05
Times thanked
< 112
Posts
3,252

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst View Post

Did Tesla say: reign in population growth or any gains in efficiency in energy or food production will count for nought?

one of his quotes was, " If we use fuel to get power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations" , he said this in 1900. Tesla wanted to provide free electricity to every household in the world by drawing electric charge from the atmosphere, his project was stopped by J.P. Morgan, a wealthy businessman who was funding it, he stopped it once he realized he couldnt put a meter on it. imho Tesla was bigger than Einstein.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
dude we just had a volcano erupt in chile which pumped more carbon into the atmosphere than humans have done for the last 10 years.

why don't you go and tax the volcano too?
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239
Getting in to lala land now, it's not relevant, that is not something we can control, it is just a straw man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

truba +

Registered User

truba's Avatar
Joined
May '05
Times thanked
< 112
Posts
3,252

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

dude we just had a volcano erupt in chile which pumped more carbon into the atmosphere than humans have done for the last 10 years.

why don't you go and tax the volcano too?

seriously, maybe we should tax the cows cause they fart a lot too
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

dude we just had a volcano erupt in chile which pumped more carbon into the atmosphere than humans have done for the last 10 years.

why don't you go and tax the volcano too?

that is a myth that is completely false.

read this, it's a paper in the journal EOS, which is the journal for the American Geophysical Union

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
custaro +

Thirsty Critter

custaro's Avatar
Joined
Jun '01
Times thanked
< 691
Posts
7,458

Quote:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors. Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years.

http://environment.about.com/od/gree...olcano-gas.htm

you're in my hut now
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,284

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

dude we just had a volcano erupt in chile which pumped more carbon into the atmosphere than humans have done for the last 10 years.

why don't you go and tax the volcano too?

So you've read Prof. Ian Plimer's book: very good.

Now read all the data that refutes his claims. Even global geologist associations concur with AGW theory, and refute this volcano bull shit argument.

You sound like Barnaby dude. Sorry to sledge you so hard, but it's true, you really do sound like him.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
phoneyhuh +

3o~

phoneyhuh's Avatar
Joined
Jul '01
Times thanked
< 206
Posts
8,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by truba View Post

seriously, maybe we should tax the cows cause they fart a lot too

Not as crazy as it sounds. The govt actually considered shooting Australia's camels to cut down on our carbon emissions.... until they realized that feral camels in the wild's farts don't count, only domesticated camels farts count.

Quote:

Scientists have found camels to be the third-highest carbon-emitting animal per head on the planet, behind only cattle and buffalo. Culling the one million feral camels that currently roam the outback would be equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road in terms of the reduction to the country's greenhouse gases.

But Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia's feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol. That equates to only a small number of the beasts, the sort found lugging tourists around Cable Beach in Broome and at Monarto Zoo, southeast of Adelaide.

Also the international camel lovers society of Arabia got wind of the news and were outraged at the prospect of camels being shot... So they gave up on that idea.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,691
Posts
12,284

Quote:

Originally Posted by legal-affairs View Post

Exactly correct - it was the price of Tony Windsor's vote. I don't think it was a sound decision from a policy point of view but politics is the art of the possible and if that concession makes it possible for there to be a price on carbon, that's a good result.

Of course, in the Abbott alternate reality, it was Abbott who secured the exclusion of petrol. Quite how he managed to do that from outside the process, when he was always going to vote down the package regardless of whether petrol was in or out (and opposed to Windsor, who will vote for the package now that petrol is out) is a very good question - perhaps one for Abbott when he does Q and A, given that journalists don't seem to want to ask it.

To be fair to Windsor, I don't think he had much choice but to insist on the petrol exemption, do you?

It shouldn't be excluded but as you say, if exempting petrol finally gets the ball rolling after 25 years of talking shit, then it is a good thing.

Credit to Windsor, he seems like someone who doesn't pretend to know all the answers so is willing to have his views challenged, mixed with realism regarding his electorate's situation. Compare him to Barnaby and he comes off sounding like Einstein.

Did anyone see Barnaby's rabid yelling match with union officials yesterday? I seriously thought his head was about to spontaneously combust.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
lowkeyandnude +

Registered User

lowkeyandnude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '05
Times thanked
< 106
Posts
3,687

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

dude we just had a volcano erupt in chile which pumped more carbon into the atmosphere than humans have done for the last 10 years.

mate, you're so %$^&ing wrong its not funny. how are we supposed to take anything you say seriously?
studio stuff for sale
http://www.inthemix.com.au/forum/sho...#post394820375


...latest releases...

lowkey+nude "NYC to BER" on "The best of Soul Shift vol.1"
baax +

Registered User

baax's Avatar
Joined
Dec '03
Times thanked
< 624
Posts
7,723

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowkeyandnude View Post

The Greens doubled their representation at the last election. Labor lost alot of votes and the coalition gained very few. The Greens will only benefit from this legislation. People who voted Green will see that their votes brought about the legislation that they wanted. There is going to be a price on carbon. I would be surprised to see the Greens clean up at the next election and double in size again...especially if the coalition run with a policy of dismantling the carbon price.

Yes this is true and could well happen, there is a big elephant in the room though, the world economy which at the moment is looking shakey at best.

If our resources drop in value jobs will be lost, debt will rise blah blah blah people wont feel the same.
It will come down to timing.
SOUNDCLOUD

MIXCLOUD
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowkeyandnude View Post

mate, you're so %$^&ing wrong its not funny. how are we supposed to take anything you say seriously?

I think from now on whenever buffed comes out with any comment in regards to climate change I may just post this

Media Player
Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - YouTube
baax +

Registered User

baax's Avatar
Joined
Dec '03
Times thanked
< 624
Posts
7,723

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

To be fair to Windsor, I don't think he had much choice but to insist on the petrol exemption, do you?

It shouldn't be excluded but as you say, if exempting petrol finally gets the ball rolling after 25 years of talking shit, then it is a good thing.

The thing that shits me about this is that when deisel get's taxed in two years the price of a bus ticket will rise but filling your single occupant vehicle wont.
SOUNDCLOUD

MIXCLOUD
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,778
Posts
50,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh View Post

Not as crazy as it sounds. The govt actually considered shooting Australia's camels to cut down on our carbon emissions.... until they realized that feral camels in the wild's farts don't count, only domesticated camels farts count.



Also the international camel lovers society of Arabia got wind of the news and were outraged at the prospect of camels being shot... So they gave up on that idea.

They cull thousands of camels from the feral herd each year anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

Reply

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Posting Rules

+
    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts