Thread: Carbon Tax. Well someone had to bring it up!

I have been following and contributing to this thread now for a while, and it strikes me that as soon as some facts are put on the table, like the actual viability of the technology that is around (refering to diesel electrics, "prearse" and all that sort of stuff) and with sound examples, that the nay sayers seemed to have pulled their heads in and are not saying very much

Just goes to show that all the negativity is just a lot of hot wind that blows out when the facts get in the way...

Originally Posted by Marshall

I have been following and contributing to this thread now for a while, and it strikes me that as soon as some facts are put on the table, like the actual viability of the technology that is around (refering to diesel electrics, "prearse" and all that sort of stuff) and with sound examples, that the nay sayers seemed to have pulled their heads in and are not saying very much

Just goes to show that all the negativity is just a lot of hot wind that blows out when the facts get in the way...

It's not that we've shut up. We're just sitting back waiting for you lot to realise that your Comrade Gillard has just announced the death knell of Australian industry in response to what is effectively the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.
The sooner you come to your senses and fight it the better off we will all be.

...and speaking of Facts, what is the factual benefit of a Carbon Tax - in terms of the reduction to the planets temperature - because that's what it's purported to do.

No one, on either side, can say. That's not a negative, it's just a fair question.

The anger against it is largely because people are being told how to live their lives and how a change is good for them, when the goal or result cannot be proven nor evidence adduced to support the claim that the world is being adversely affected by people doing what we do. The current, and projected percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot solely alter the earths climate, and so why would the majority support a tax that cannot be proven to alter this supposed change (in temperature).

By the way, it's so far out there for the ALP and so distant from their traditional platform, you can't help but see the strings being pulled by the Greens - have a look at their website and agenda.

If it's about reducing pollution, then make it that, because CO2 is not a pollutant.

Matt.

Originally Posted by Marshall

I have been following and contributing to this thread now for a while, and it strikes me that as soon as some facts are put on the table, like the actual viability of the technology that is around (refering to diesel electrics, "prearse" and all that sort of stuff) and with sound examples, that the nay sayers seemed to have pulled their heads in and are not saying very much

Just goes to show that all the negativity is just a lot of hot wind that blows out when the facts get in the way...

It is called Abbottosis

Originally Posted by mudmouse

...what is the factual benefit of a Carbon Tax - ...

Forget about climate change and temperature reduction for a minute.

Fossil fuels are finite resources. A carbon tax scheme (if priced appropriately) will swing the economics away from fossil fuels towards (more) renewable energy sources. So we will be in a better position to operate without fossil fuels when they run out.

Countries and companies which are leaders in renewables technology will be in a very profitable position in the future.

How many kilometres would I have to drive my '95 Defender to equal the CO2 produced in the mining, manufacturing, production, storing, shipping and marketing of a Prius?

Originally Posted by ugu80

How many kilometres would I have to drive my '95 Defender to equal the CO2 produced in the mining, manufacturing, production, storing, shipping and marketing of a Prius?

Well, if you include the "mining, manufacturing, production, storing, shipping and marketing of" your defender, then not very far. In fact the mining and manufacturing of the aluminium body on a landie would make it stack up poorly against a steel bodied equivalent like a prado.

Someone in aluminium industry R&D once said to me than an alien looking down on an aluminium smelter would think it is a CO2 production plant - which produces a small by-product of aluminium.

Again - despite all the BS to the contrary, hybrids stack up well against most other commuting options on a life cycle basis.

Climate change cage match: Abbott debates Abbott
by Bernard Keane

As the Gillard government’s plan for a carbon prices sends Coalition stocks soaring, attention is increasingly focusing on what opposition leader Tony Abbott believes in about climate change and how to deal with it. Today in Crikey, Tony Abbott debates one of his most formidable opponents on the issue — Tony Abbott.

Tony Abbott: Climate change is a relatively new political issue, but it’s been happening since the earth’s beginning. The extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have been associated with climate change.

Tony Abbott: I’ve always thought that climate change was real because I’ve always known about the ice age and other things which indicate that over time climate does change.

Tony Abbott: I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have significantly increased since the spread of industrialisation, but it seems that noticeable warming has only taken place between the 1970s and 1990s.

Tony Abbott: We have a clear policy on climate change. Climate change is real.

Tony Abbott: I mean in the end this whole thing is a question of fact, not faith, or it should be a question of fact not faith and we can discover whether the planet is warming or not by measurement. And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Now admittedly we are still pretty warm by recent historical standards but there doesn’t appear to have been any appreciable warming since the late 1990s.

Tony Abbott: It’s quite likely that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has had some effect on climate, but debate rages among scientists over its extent and relative impact given all the other factors at work.

Tony Abbott: We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change. If they are, we don’t know whether they are exacerbating or counteracting what might otherwise be happening to global climate. Even if they are adding to climatic extremes, humanity may be able to cope with only modest adjustments.

Tony Abbott: What we can say, though, is that we should try to make as little difference as possible to the natural world. As well, prudent people take reasonable precautions against foreseeable contingencies. It’s the insurance principle.

Tony Abbott: OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.

Tony Abbott: I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate.

Tony Abbott: The argument is absolute crap.

Tony Abbott. We believe climate change is real, yes, we believe humans make a contribution towards climate change.

Tony Abbott: There may even have been a slight decrease in global temperatures (the measurement data differs on this point) over the past decade despite continued large increases in emissions associated with the rapid economic growth of China and India.

Tony Abbott: I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.

Tony Abbott: I think there are all sorts of ways of paying for this that don’t involve a great big new tax that we will live with forever.

Tony Abbott: There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.

Tony Abbott: What we need is environmental direct action. We need action which is actually going to make a difference. What we don’t need is a whopping great new tax masquerading as a green measure.

Tony Abbott: The Howard government proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost… On the other hand, artificially created markets could be especially open to manipulation… For this reason, many now think that a carbon charge scheme directed at the least environmentally efficient producers would be simpler and fairer than an emissions trading scheme.