Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Copenhagen Agreement - Australia to lose sovereignty?

Jump to new
2020hindsight said:
amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.
Click to expand...
One thing that is very undemocratic is the silence of the contents and the lack of debate in the public domain by leaders, and other politicians including the people of the nation on the nearly decided issue.

I still haven't heard or read anything by the leader, nor the opposition leader spelling out what the agreement will mean to the Australian public.
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
One thing that is very undemocratic is the silence of the contents and the lack of debate in the public domain by leaders, and other politicians including the people of the nation on the nearly decided issue.

I still haven't heard or read anything by the leader, nor the opposition leader spelling out what the agreement will mean to the Australian public.
Click to expand...

Proves once again: Democratically elected dictatorship!
 
An updated summary of podcasts from 2GB's Alan Jones on this crazy agreement:

Alan Jones talks to Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt regarding climate change NEW
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesbolt121109.mp3

Senator Barnaby Joyce joins Alan Jones in the studio to discuss emissions trading.
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesjoyce041109.mp3

Alan Jones talks to Lord Monckton, British climate change sceptic, who says the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesmonckton261009b.mp3

Malcolm Turnbull joins Alan Jones in the studio to talk about climate change, boatpeople and Peter Costello's new government job.
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesturnbull021109.mp3

Alan Jones talks to Dr Richard Lindzen - Massachusetts Institute of Technology – atmospheric physicist – regarding the global warming scam.
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneslindzen301009.mp3
 
There are obviously some ASF members who believe the ETS is necessary, well designed, and capable of achieving a reduction in CO2. (This is not the thread where we dispute the anthropogenesis or otherwise of CO2).

So could any or all of you people kindly set out for the rest of us just how the government's ETS is actually going to achieve this reduction in CO2?

With thanks.
 
Re: The Copenhagen Agreement

Smurf1976 said:
Note that I said "probably" in that sentence.

If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.

Now, I'm not saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. But I do think it reasonable to assume that if we forever increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then there will be some effect on something, somehow. What I don't know, but it would be an unusual situation if there were not some form of feedback resulting from a change in composition of the atmosphere.

Proof? I don't have any and don't claim to have any. But if the change were large enough then I do think it reasonable to assume that there would be some impact on something - whether it's good or bad I really don't know.

My main point though is that no matter what your stance on CO2, Copenhagen doesn't deliver. It doesn't cut emissions and it doesn't maintain cheap energy. Fail on both sides of the fence.:2twocents
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments Smurph.
 
smurf1976 said:
1. Note that I said "probably" in that sentence.

2. If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.

3. Now, I'm not saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. But I do think it reasonable to assume that if we forever increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then there will be some effect on something, somehow. What I don't know, but it would be an unusual situation if there were not some form of feedback resulting from a change in composition of the atmosphere.

4. Proof? I don't have any and don't claim to have any. But if the change were large enough then I do think it reasonable to assume that there would be some impact on something - whether it's good or bad I really don't know.

5. My main point though is that no matter what your stance on CO2, Copenhagen doesn't deliver. It doesn't cut emissions and it doesn't maintain cheap energy. Fail on both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
gee smurf
1 & 2. -
3. well I am saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. I agree with BOM and Hadley Centre for instance.

4. gee whiz smurf - there's a debate back there by "intelligence squared" - that Global Warming is or isn't a crisis - where everyone (all 6 speakers) agree that "more greenhouse gases will cause warming". Not only is the smart money on that one - all the money is on that one.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369727

In the words of Crichton ... ( and he's on the side saying it isn't a crisis)
“Is the globe warming .. yes
Is the greenhouse effect real? yes
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is it being increased by man? Y
would we expect this warming to have an effect? Y
would human beings in general affect the climate? Y

But none of that answers [what he sees to be] the core question of whether or not CO2 is the current driver for the warming we’re seeing.
…
But [his argument against GW being a crisis right ]
One third of the planet has no electricity
a billion have no clean water
half billion go to bed hungry every night… it seems we don’t care, .. not acceptable.. a disgrace.

Don’t use GW as an excuse to turn our backs on the sick and dying on our shared world.[ = change of topic, valid as it is]
Click to expand...


5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think. :rolleyes: Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?

Or do we continue to argue - as Johnny Howard did - that "we refuse to sign Kyoto, but we exceed their targets anyway. " - I believe that would belong in the "square root of intelligence" camp. :2twocents
 
2020hindsight said:
gee smurf
1 & 2. -
3. well I am saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. I agree with BOM and Hadley Centre for instance.

4. gee whiz smurf - there's a debate back there by "intelligence squared" - that Global Warming is or isn't a crisis - where everyone (all 6 speakers) agree that "more greenhouse gases will cause warming". Not only is the smart money on that one - all the money is on that one.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369727

In the words of Crichton ... ( and he's on the side saying it isn't a crisis)



5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think. :rolleyes: Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?

Or do we continue to argue - as Johnny Howard did - that "we refuse to sign Kyoto, but we exceed their targets anyway. " - I believe that would belong in the "square root of intelligence" camp. :2twocents
Click to expand...


2020 mate,

I was under the impression that all the CO2 and holes in the ozone layer horse**** had been shown to be a load of codswallop.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
2020 mate,

I was under the impression that all the CO2 and holes in the ozone layer horse**** had been shown to be a load of codswallop.

gg
Click to expand...
I can't help you with your impressions gg
mind you, you do a pretty good impression of someone pretending there isn't a problem, when maybe even you are observing some changes to the weather - and hence, long term, the climate .

I think by juxtaposing CO2 and ozone, you pretty much nail your colours to the mast. Ozone is proven, we acted, it's being corrected ( thanks to god - and James Lovelock)
 
2020hindsight said:
Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?
Click to expand...
It is now unequivocal that they are betting on the wrong horse (environmentally that is, politically is another question).

Therefore the direction doesn't matter. Meanwhile, mother earth continues to suffer from a myriad of other pollutants ignored by the alarmists.

Cognitive dissonance.
 
2020hindsight said:
5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think. :rolleyes: Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?
Click to expand...
All of the information I have on the subject is to the effect that CO2 is a global problem. Adding a tonne of CO2 to the atmosphere has the same effect whether it comes out the stacks at Torrens Island (biggest power station in SA) or from a central heating system in a house in Alaska. It's all just CO2 going into the atmosphere and it ultimately has the same effect, it doesn't concentrate in one area and just cause warming in that location.

So if New Zealand, for example, cut emissions to zero whilst the rest of the world continued to pollute then NZ would still suffer the effects of climate change.

Given that the Copenhagen agreement and Kyoto don't cut CO2 but rather relocate the point source of emissions from one country to another, I can't see how they are in any way effective at addressing a problem with CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere. Their primary effect being one of wealth redistribution, with the effect of an overall increase in resource consumption as more people enter the "wealthy" category, rather than emissions reduction.:2twocents
 
2020, since you are apparently convinced that climate change is a product of CO2 , and that we must have an ETS to save the world,
and since you are obviously au fait with all the detail, could you kindly explain to us how our ETS here will work to reduce CO2, with particular reference to the free permits which will be issued, and the purchasing of permits to pollute?

Further, if Australia is the only country employing such a scheme, how is the climate going to be affected, either locally or globally?

I think most Australians understand very little, presumably because we haven't been told to any extent, so here is your chance to be helpful.
 
Julia said:
I think most Australians understand very little, presumably because we haven't been told to any extent, so here is your chance to be helpful.
Click to expand...

You are the supreme optimist Julie. You are inviting the master of obfuscation to be helpful?

And have you noticed how he is trying to hijack the thread from "The Copenhagen Agreement - Australia to lose sovereignty" back to his pet subject. even though he started his own thread on this subject and there is also the climate change hysteria thread.
 

Similar threads

Richard Dale
  • Article
Resources for Systematic/Algorithmic Trading
Replies
12
Views
2K
Richard Dale
Richard Dale
ducati916
November DDD
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
ducati916
ducati916
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Recklyn
Sunday Sacred
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
23K
Skate
Skate
basilio
How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Value Collector
Top