Carbon Tax.Its a BIG Con!!!

[Dan_1987]

Hey sudszy I liked your answers to all the questions above. They were reasonable, and fair.
Out of curiosity, do people have any estimate for how many ppm CO2 will be reduced globally?
And further to that, the impossible-to-answer question, granted, -> How many degrees will global temperatures reduce on average in response to the reduced amount of CO2?
It'd be great to know the answers to these questions. In no way do I intend this in a hostile manner; I just genuinely want to know the answers to those questions.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Dan_1987

Hey sudszy I liked your answers to all the questions above. They were reasonable, and fair.
Out of curiosity, do people have any estimate for how many ppm CO2 will be reduced globally?
And further to that, the impossible-to-answer question, granted, -> How many degrees will global temperatures reduce on average in response to the reduced amount of CO2?
It'd be great to know the answers to these questions. In no way do I intend this in a hostile manner; I just genuinely want to know the answers to those questions.

Hi Dan, hopefully you aren't the same poster as Cheap, who I suspect is really Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones, his arithmetic skills(lack there of) leads me to suspect he is Mr Jones.

One only has to go to the transcipt of an interview between Bolt and Flannery to see that this is a common taunt/question tried on by the denialist brigade to unsuspecting pollies. Christine Keneally basically lost the election(she was gone anyway) when the question was put to her on how much their green policies would reduce co2 levels/world temps, she had no idea and looked all the more fool for it.
Fortunately Flannery wasnt caught off guard, but this didnt stop Bolt making strawmen from his answers.

To cut to the chase, as I said before:Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm

Co2 levels are not going to drop in the short term(next 10-20 years) even if we stopped man made emissions today, the co2 we have put into the atmosphere basically has no where to go. Scientists haven't been able to give accurate predictions of how long it would take for the system to restore itself, some even agree that the system cant be restored, we have reached a new equilbrium.

All we can do is talk about reducing the size of the increase and the extent of the temperature rise.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Hi Dan, hopefully you aren't the same poster as Cheap, who I suspect is really Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones, his arithmetic skills(lack there of) leads me to suspect he is Mr Jones.

One only has to go to the transcipt of an interview between Bolt and Flannery to see that this is a common taunt/question tried on by the denialist brigade to unsuspecting pollies. Christine Keneally basically lost the election(she was gone anyway) when the question was put to her on how much their green policies would reduce co2 levels/world temps, she had no idea and looked all the more fool for it.
Fortunately Flannery wasnt caught off guard, but this didnt stop Bolt making strawmen from his answers.

To cut to the chase, as I said before:Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm

Co2 levels are not going to drop in the short term(next 10-20 years) even if we stopped man made emissions today, the co2 we have put into the atmosphere basically has no where to go. Scientists haven't been able to give accurate predictions of how long it would take for the system to restore itself, some even agree that the system cant be restored, we have reached a new equilbrium.

All we can do is talk about reducing the size of the increase and the extent of the temperature rise.

Pretty sure you said you own a Ford Territory. Not the most fuel effective car now is it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Pretty sure you said you own a Ford Territory. Not the most fuel effective car now is it.

Good on ya Ben, glad your brought something to the discussion here.
Why dont you make one of those equally deflective comments and complain that Im producing co2 by being at my keyboard.

Mate, I own 6 cars, territory is one of them which I dont drive.


Probably you've mistaken me for someone that says we must all go back to the caves to save the planet, nope, Im looking for innovation so we can maintain a high level of living without burning carbon.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im looking for innovation so we can maintain a high level of living without burning carbon.

Carbon burning? Now you’re up with the stars, mate.

Look, just for you, I’m doing my bit to combat rising sea levels. I’m refusing to buy a boat. That’ll fix everything.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Good on ya Ben, glad your brought something to the discussion here.
Why dont you make one of those equally deflective comments and complain that Im producing co2 by being at my keyboard.

Mate, I own 6 cars, territory is one of them which I dont drive.


Probably you've mistaken me for someone that says we must all go back to the caves to save the planet, nope, Im looking for innovation so we can maintain a high level of living without burning carbon.

I haven't read every single post in this thread, but I got the impression that you were a tree hugging greeny who loves the idea of a carbon tax.
If that is not you, then I apologize.

I agree with finding a renewable "clean" energy source. But a carbon tax will not help find this energy source. It will not help cut carbon. It is just a way for governments to make money off this topic.

I still don't believe that the CO2 we put out is making a difference to the environment. Especially not Australia. We put out such a small amount compared to the rest of the world, taxing us will not benefit the environment a single bit. It will just benefit the government pockets.

Fossil fuels will not last forever, and when there is a reliable, renewable source that is as good as fossil fuels, then I will use it.
But until then I will be driving V8's and 4WDs.

[snappy]

Why doesn't the government bring in the carbon price at the market value @ $17 is beyond me
An name a renewable energy that works as a base load power .
There is not one our only answer is nuclear .
The facts are coal power is our only advantage in our country with high wages cheap energy is our only way of competing on a global scale and we are throwing that away for a feel good policy

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by snappy

Why doesn't the government bring in the carbon price at the market value @ $17 is beyond me
An name a renewable energy that works as a base load power .
There is not one our only answer is nuclear .
The facts are coal power is our only advantage in our country with high wages cheap energy is our only way of competing on a global scale and we are throwing that away for a feel good policy

I dont think the Japanese would agree with about nuclear at the moment.

The idea of a "tax" on big business which pollutes a massive amount is what i would call an "easy" way out of doing things.
If governments were truely interested in saving the planet they would simply introduce "laws" !!! which compell companies to reduce emissions.

They could introduce them gradually and as an incentive they could "fine" companies for polluting! (OMG they do that now!)

[snappy]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I dont think the Japanese would agree with about nuclear at the moment.

The idea of a "tax" on big business which pollutes a massive amount is what i would call an "easy" way out of doing things.
If governments were truely interested in saving the planet they would simply introduce "laws" !!! which compell companies to reduce emissions.

They could introduce them gradually and as an incentive they could "fine" companies for polluting! (OMG they do that now!)

Your kidding right japans 30yo nuclear plant has just been hit by one of the biggest earthquakes the planet has ever seen followed by a tsunami and it didn't go in to meltdown . What more proof of them being safe do you need do they need to survive armageddon or something
Ask the japs what the going to build to replace it , ten bucks says its not going to be a windmill

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by snappy

Your kidding right japans 30yo nuclear plant has just been hit by one of the biggest earthquakes the planet has ever seen followed by a tsunami and it didn't go in to meltdown . What more proof of them being safe do you need do they need to survive armageddon or something
Ask the japs what the going to build to replace it , ten bucks says its not going to be a windmill

Er um.... didnt go into meltdown??? Indeed, im almost sure it did as reported adnauseum. Even the Japanese gov is asking questions about the goings on at the power station.

[mickyyyy]

Bottom line is they are trying to make money on us and have more leverage over society

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[snappy]

To cut to the chase, as I said before:Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm

Co2 levels are not going to drop in the short term(next 10-20 years) even if we stopped man made emissions today, the co2 we have put into the atmosphere basically has no where to go. Scientists haven't been able to give accurate predictions of how long it would take for the system to restore itself, some even agree that the system cant be restored, we have reached a new equilbrium.

Also many peer revieved scientists are undecided if the planet warming abit is a bad thing yet . An the concensis due to research from ice drilling is any changes wont be seen for 800 years .

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by snappy

Also many peer revieved scientists are undecided if the planet warming abit is a bad thing yet . An the concensis due to research from ice drilling is any changes wont be seen for 800 years .

oh really, list them and quote them on how it will be a good thing.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by sudszy

oh really, list them and quote them on how it will be a good thing.

I couldn't i don't take notes on video's and literature but Ive read i many of times i also know our climate commission supports this

[Jim Goose]

The Greens and the other 3 nutters that Labor sold their soul to are behind this climate/CO2 debarcle, way way more than any of us imagine.
It was, and still is, part of "THE DEAL"

Actually no... one of those nutters doesnt believe in the carbon tax and opposes it

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Actually no... one of those nutters doesnt believe in the carbon tax and opposes it

One nutter? Ok, I'll stand corrected.
I'll ask again.... Do we really believe that the hard core of the Labor party honestly BELIEVE in this Co2 agenda??
Or is it because of their DEAL with the Greens to get them over the line??

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

One nutter? Ok, I'll stand corrected.
I'll ask again.... Do we really believe that the hard core of the Labor party honestly BELIEVE in this Co2 agenda??
Or is it because of their DEAL with the Greens to get them over the line??

Whatever they do is gonna bite them in the rear. You have one side who say its too much and the other that says its not enough. This thing ruins current governments. Mind you the way they're going about it is stupid as all it does is causes unneeded speculation on quite a serious topic.

[GasoLane]

I would have thought that warning signs would have gone up when the Gov appoints someone, who is a wizard with money, ( Ross Garnaut is a Professor of Economics and former senior economic adviser to Bob Hawke) starts telling us that a carbon tax is a GOOD thing!

[BA GT-HO]

What amuses me about this is after spending a month in Jakarta where you cannot see up to 500 metres in front of you due to SMOG and POLLUTION some days, people actually think this tax will make a difference.

You can be driving your Prius, solar panels on your roof, a wind powered generator in your yard, only eat beef from cattle that don't fart, living a 'carbon neutral' lifestyle, but over in Indonesia some farmer is burning a giant mound of garbage, completely offsetting what you have saved.

Waste of time and money.

Next.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by BA GT-HO

What amuses me about this is after spending a month in Jakarta where you cannot see up to 500 metres in front of you due to SMOG and POLLUTION some days, people actually think this tax will make a difference

i had similar thoughts in manila recently

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i had similar thoughts in manila recently

.... and Shanghai & Beijing and a few more industrial places down south. Vietnam wasn't too pleasant either in the clean air stakes. All these places would be having a chuckle ..... stupid aussies.

[mik]

the thing about this tax that worries me is nearly every thing we do creates pollution, i`m sure they will find a way to tax you even for having sex, they can tax you for using any fuel/energy, if you buy something processed, transported, refrigerated, if your a farmer and your cows fart they can tax you, surely everything must go up in price.
i see some companies that just won`t be able to reduce their carbon foot print and will just disappear or go elsewhere because its already costly to do business in oz.

[mik]

hmm i dunno Shelby1965, i agree the JOOOLYA will likely get the kyber pass , but if Libs get in i`m betting they won`t let the goose that lays the golden go in hurry, time will tell.

[Franco Cozzo]

How is slapping a tax on something going to fix an issue? The only "issue" it fixes is the Government's wallet not being fat enough.

Also whats it going to do if only Australia does this?

I vote we go nuclear power and become a republic.

And then I woke up and changed hands.

[snappy]

charlatan that's rich
he has earned his voice you have not earned the right to discredit him .
He has been right on many occasion's and i thank him and you should to because he exposed that contract draft at Copenhagen that if we signed we
would of lost our sovereign rights along with the rest of the world .
An for the record i believe in climate change .
But this thread is not about that its about a carbon tax we need to keep this thread on topic .

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by snappy

charlatan that's rich
he has earned his voice you have not earned the right to discredit him .
.

earnt his voice....conning people, charlatan fits the bill nicely.

Earnt the right?????
Ive provided sources evidence that discredits him, dispute the videos if you can be bothered. Monckton has threatened all sorts of legal actions to criticisms, but he wont go near those two video producers, wonder why, because they are right!

[snappy]

Originally Posted by sudszy

earnt his voice....conning people, charlatan fits the bill nicely.

Earnt the right?????
Ive provided sources evidence that discredits him, dispute the videos if you can be bothered. Monckton has threatened all sorts of legal actions to criticisms, but he wont go near those two video producers, wonder why, because they are right!

No different to what you are doing conning people - Just his voice is important

I read the first two paragraphs in those links and i could of swapped al gore with moncton and the shoe would still fit.
He has given a voice to many scientist that were unable to have their work peer reviewed and just because he has raised many good points he has been attacked .
You forget climate science is still not 100% it 90% with a long bow men like him are important to the debate and it is important his opinions or finding are scrutinized . To complete the research

[gs1973]

Originally Posted by sudszy

earnt his voice....conning people?

Earnt the right?????
Ive provided sources evidence that discredits him, dispute the videos if you can be bothered. Monckton has threatened all sorts of legal actions to criticisms, but he wont go near those two video producers, wonder why, because they are right!

I just wasted 10 good minutes of my life watching that one way biased trash.. So it was the warmest January since the 90's? What was the Carbon level in the atmosphere then? What was the average January temperature 500 years ago? Once again, what will introducing a Carbon tax in Australia do to world Carbon levels? Just admit it, JACK ALL! I don't doubt for one minute we will get this Tax, I hope it's everything you have dreamed of and more Suds..

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gs1973

I just wasted 10 good minutes of my life watching that one way biased trash.. So it was the warmest January since the 90's? What was the Carbon level in the atmosphere then? What was the average January temperature 500 years ago? Once again, what will introducing a Carbon tax in Australia do to world Carbon levels? Just admit it, JACK ALL! I don't doubt for one minute we will get this Tax, I hope it's everything you have dreamed of and more Suds..

So layman videos are beneath you: So why not do a search on monckton and his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of climate sensitivities, and his reliance on dodgy data from Richard Lindzen, or you really dont want to know?

[gs1973]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So layman videos are beneath you: So why not do a search on monckton and his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of climate sensitivities, and his reliance on dodgy data from Richard Lindzen, or you really dont want to know?

No but seriously, what were the average January temperatures 500 years ago and the 500 before that, ad nauseum?