Thread: Could he explain the carbon tax

Originally Posted by hodgo

Our goverment may be able to use this bloke to explain the carbon tax

YouTube - Entabulator.wmv

Probably not Hodgo, he makes it sound so simple......

What he was actually trying to say.............................

This is a really easy way to understand it:

A carbon tax is an environmental tax that is levied on the carbon content of fuel.
Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are burnt.
In contrast, non-combustion energy sources (wind power, solar energy, hydropower, and nuclear energy) do not convert to carbon dioxide.

Australia’s current Labor Government has implemented a carbon tax by taxing the burning of fossil fuels in proportion to their carbon content.

However…

It is not just another tax. It is equal to putting the GST up to 12.5%, which would be unacceptable and produce a public outcry… particularly when you realise the insignificance of Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere.

Here's a practical way to understand the Labor Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme:

Imagine one 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 one kilometre.

Twenty metres to go…

The next 10 metres are water vapour.

Ten metres left…

Nine metres are Argon.

One metre to go…

Various 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.

Ninety-seven percent of that 38 centimetres 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 0.18 of a millimetre.

That’s 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 the Labor Government calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Melbourne’s Westgate Bridge, or Sydney’s Harbour Bridge, or Brisbane's Gateway Bridge. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers until its one-kilometre length is surgically clean… Except that the Labor Government 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. Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is NOT one of the more pressing ones!

It’s hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow away that pesky hair…

Originally Posted by hodgo

Our goverment may be able to use this bloke to explain the carbon tax

YouTube - Entabulator.wmv

I think he made an error. He said six hydrocoptic marzelveins. I'm sure you need an odd number, e.g., seven, to prevent the thing stalling.

Originally Posted by p38arover

I think he made an error. He said six hydrocoptic marzelveins. I'm sure you need an odd number, e.g., seven, to prevent the thing stalling.

That particular model had a belt below the lower Sigmoid, an odd number causes gastric rumblings from the inverse colon.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by p38arover

I think he made an error. He said six hydrocoptic marzelveins. I'm sure you need an odd number, e.g., seven, to prevent the thing stalling.

Correct but they must be interlinked in even numbers with the odd one providing biunilateral crosssection isometric fribulation when octaving a forwards orientating osscilation. Naturaly a reverse octaving oscilation requires that the hydrocoptic marzelveins be hooked up in an odd number bodkin bracketed by a single marzelvein at each end hygroscopically coupled to the fluid fluxor, the difficulty comes when the fluxing fluid in the fluid fluxer reaches its enthropic flux capacity. Optronic degredation of the equinatorial effluencer in the antinomial bipolariser under these conditions results in a hiclone vorticie in the vector orientator.

Its well documented that the hiclone effect is ineffectual and generally undesirable. Its persistant presence is a cost that can be done without.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

Correct but they must be interlinked in even numbers with the odd one providing biunilateral crosssection isometric fribulation when octaving a forwards orientating osscilation.

Of course! Silly me. If they were both odd or both even, then there wouldn't be a phase difference and motion wouldn't ensue.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

Correct but they must be interlinked in even numbers with the odd one providing biunilateral crosssection isometric fribulation when octaving a forwards orientating osscilation. Naturaly a reverse octaving oscilation requires that the hydrocoptic marzelveins be hooked up in an odd number bodkin bracketed by a single marzelvein at each end hygroscopically coupled to the fluid fluxor, the difficulty comes when the fluxing fluid in the fluid fluxer reaches its enthropic flux capacity. Optronic degredation of the equinatorial effluencer in the antinomial bipolariser under these conditions results in a hiclone vorticie in the vector orientator.

Its well documented that the hiclone effect is ineffectual and generally undesirable. Its persistant presence is a cost that can be done without.

I not going to try and justify my reasoning about this, in fact I give up while I'm ahead!

Cheers Arthur

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

Correct but they must be interlinked in even numbers with the odd one providing biunilateral crosssection isometric fribulation when octaving a forwards orientating osscilation. Naturaly a reverse octaving oscilation requires that the hydrocoptic marzelveins be hooked up in an odd number bodkin bracketed by a single marzelvein at each end hygroscopically coupled to the fluid fluxor, the difficulty comes when the fluxing fluid in the fluid fluxer reaches its enthropic flux capacity. Optronic degredation of the equinatorial effluencer in the antinomial bipolariser under these conditions results in a hiclone vorticie in the vector orientator.

Its well documented that the hiclone effect is ineffectual and generally undesirable. Its persistant presence is a cost that can be done without.

I whole heartedly agree with you Dave, regarding how ineffectual the hiclone effect would be, and let's face it, the catastrophic outcome of un-bilingual cohesion of the thermal dynamics would be in proporsion to a small thermo-nuclear explosion. But if you intergrated a quasinuclearphaseinterlockeddipthrongretarder via the bambleweeney 57 sub-meson brain, thru an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong brownian motion producer, in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy, it should envelop any said detonation in a total persepective vortex and render it ineffectual. Please correct me if I am mistaken.