Labor's carbon tax lie

[explod]

Even Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish 'Sceptical Environmentalist' who does believe in climate change, gets scant attention from the Aussie warmist media.

His sin? He thinks a carbon tax in current format is the least efficient way of reducing emissions. Both financially and in effectiveness. He favours diverting funding into research on renewable energy technologies.

He says making renewables cheaper is the only way to encourage switching away from fossil fuels.

You can imagine the forces (on all sides) opposed to his 'inconvenient' views.

Good post

Some views of sceptics on here are a disgrace. We do have to face some penalties to reduce pollution.

GG, liked your recent post here too.

 

[Whiskers]

Maybe this is the article you were referring to? (I've got it as an email and posted it elsewhere.)

That's a good analogy Pixel.

Another point that I've heard is the proponents of climate change in their preparation of statistics to show evidence of global warming over a decade or so, selectively removed many temperature recording sites from their list and focused on the increasing ones in large cities.

Essentially, as most people realise, the micro environment in the concrete jungles is far from representative of the whole world. The temperature and wind is completely distorted.

The truth is that they could get lower temperatures and lower CO2 readings simply by better urban planning... ie more tree lined streets and parks, even mutli story buildings roof tops can and have been planted with gardens, shrubs and trees.

For me, there are numerous ways to cool and reduce CO2 levels in urban areas where these misleading temperature readings come from if that was really the issue.

I agree with the view that the bottom line is it's just a roundabout way to collect more tax.

Breathing produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

...multiply that by the growing world population and you have exponentially increasing CO2 emissions from humans simply breathing.

A cursoy look gives about a 600% increase of CO2 immesions from human breathing over the last 200 years.

Are we going to be taxed or trade carbon credits for the CO2 we breath out!? That would be interesting... people making money from holding their breath for long periods!

But if these greenies were serious about reducing CO2 wouldn't they be wanting to limit population growth, especially illegal immigrants or gate crashers. The CO2 emissions savings would increase exponentionally for every one that we shut out. That's less cars, energy and other CO2 causing activities that they would create here.

But look at the main CO2 emitters as at 2000 (apart from our necessary breathing)... power stations and transportation, close to 50% in the government domain. So what are the governments doing to lead by example? How many politicans are using public transport, push bike or walk often, or buy small economical cars instead of their limosines.

Globally, power generation emits nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 per year. (2007)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm

Getting back to the world population breathing, 7 billion x 1 kg per day x 365 = 2.555 billion tonnes per year. That has got to be a significant amount of all CO2 emissions (if my maths is correct).

Now given more power stations will go nuclear, hydro, wind, solar etc with zero emissions over the next decade or so, that still leaves that growing human population breathing a very substantial amount of CO2 at an increasing rate.

But wait...

The study also found that global CO2 emissions from deforestation have decreased by over 25% since 2000 compared to the 1990s, mainly because of reduced CO2 emissions from tropical deforestation.

"For the first time, forest expansion in temperate latitudes has overcompensated deforestation emissions and caused a small net sink of CO2 outside the tropics," says Professor Corinne Le Quéré, from the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, and author of the study. "We could be seeing the first signs of net CO2 sequestration in the forest sector outside the tropics," she adds.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121160229.htm

...does this mean that forest growth is compensating for increased CO2!? I wonder why!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

[bellenuit]

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left: about half an inch.

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

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 the Labor Government calls Carbon Pollution.

I hate being a nit picker, but assuming those figures are correct, Australia's contribution to carbon pollution (not that I would use that phrase) is the thickness of a hair (.18 mm) to 12 mm, not to 1 km. The figures are assuming carbon pollution is just those 12 mm of carbon dioxide that is the result of human activity.

I have asked this before, but haven't received an answer. Assuming the above figures are correct and human activity increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 3% (12 mm in 38 cm) and this increase alone is the cause of the warming, so in other words without human activity the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is neutral in respect to warming/cooling, what causes a balance to be achieved for the non-human processes that add to or subtract to the amount of CO2?

The warmists are saying that there is a balance between the amount of CO2 produced naturally by nature (non-human activity) and the amount consumed naturally by nature (non-human activity) so that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere should remain constant, but that it is the human activity contribution that causes an imbalance that over time is increasing the amount of CO2. But as I understand it, the natural processes that produce CO2 are, for the most part, disconnected from the natural processes that consume CO2. So what causes them to be in balance? If there is some self correcting mechanism, why doesn't it correct for human activity too?

 

[Julia]

Even Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish 'Sceptical Environmentalist' who does believe in climate change, gets scant attention from the Aussie warmist media.

His sin? He thinks a carbon tax in current format is the least efficient way of reducing emissions. Both financially and in effectiveness. He favours diverting funding into research on renewable energy technologies.

He says making renewables cheaper is the only way to encourage switching away from fossil fuels.

You can imagine the forces (on all sides) opposed to his 'inconvenient' views.

Mike Smith, CEO of ANZ, in a speech today said the government's proposed carbon tax would make no difference to emissions. This follows a large article in The Weekend Australian with several CEO's/Directors on a similar basis.

I'll be surprised if their suggestion is not followed by several other business heads similarly decrying the pointlessness of it.

Even Heather Ridout, CEO of the Australian Industry Group, previously a stalwart supporter of the government and of 'pricing carbon' (jeez I hate that expression), has refused to support the carbon tax.

 

[BigAl]

I need to add further thoughts to my rant yesterday.

My problem with the whole mentality of "but we need to do something but we can't guarantee or measure the outcome" is this, I'll draw a couple of analogy's:

1. I'm on a fair wicket & conditions at my current job and I'm looking for a new job / career progression. I get interviewed, place seem okay, but I'm asked to start with no contract in front of me, no discussion on pay, no idea on hours, no idea of conditions and when I query this, "Don't worry about it, we'll sort out the paperwork later".

2. I'm looking to buy a business, owner is selling it for XYZ, lets say $1M. I don't get to see the financials, no idea if there are any arrangements, leases and rent increases, staff salaries, provisions, value of stock, maybe a franchise % paid to head office, I've got no idea about squat. But the Business Owner says it's worth $1M, so I give it 5 minutes thought and handover my $1M, without my Accountant and / or Lawyer sighting anything. In fact, I don't even know if this lovely bloke even owns the business.

It's called due diligence. Making an informed opinion. You would laugh if anyone asked you to make a decision based on the above, yet that's what the government is asking me to do.

"But we need to do something". I'll do something... until I have clear and concise facts in front of me, I'm doing nothing.

This Pathetic & Disgraceful Govt can go and get stuffed. They are here to serve our agenda and will of the people, not their airy fairy dreams / political agendas.

 

[BigAl]

3. Buying a new Home, "here give us $20K today, we'll worry about the Drawings and Price Later".

4. I go to spend $50K on my home theatre, "We've got everything sorted, but can't tell you the components you are getting, can't tell you when we'll get them from overseas, can't give you a receipt, but hand over the $50K today and we'll see you in a few months when we deliver to you."

 

[trainspotter]

You know all the fizzy drinks we consume (Bollinger, Moet, sparkling wine, softdrinks, BEER in general) is carbonated. Thats right CO2 is the colourless and odourless gas that creates the bubbles in your beverages.

Do you see the climate alarmists honking on about this as a "pollution" ???? HUH ????

What about dry ice then? Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It is colourless, odourless, non-flammable, and slightly acidic. The low temperature and direct sublimation to a gas makes dry ice an effective coolant, since it is colder than water ice and leaves no residue as it changes state.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ??? Not a pollution but a coolant more effective than water ice.

Yep ....... we need to tax the buggery out of this dangerous chemical that is killing our planet. AND QUICKLY !

 

[Mofra]

Some views of sceptics on here are a disgrace. We do have to face some penalties to reduce pollution.

Or reduce benefits - there are other options.

Why are we giving the mining industry a $5bn diesel fuel kickback?
By rolling back some of the Keating & Howard era indistrial pork barrelling we could feasibly save more funding than an extra levy.

 

[Calliope]

Good post
Some views of sceptics on here are a disgrace. We do have to face some penalties to reduce pollution.

I think that those who support a tax based on lies and false assumptions are a disgrace.

 

[noco]

Qandas questioning and positing of Arnage against the PM was disgraceful, a full on leftie setup. Shame on the ABC as a public broadcaster.

Alan Jones is a louse upon the the pubic hair of life, rude, abusive, opinionated and a disgrace. His treatment of the PM was self centred and irritating. He is a boofhead.

gg

I don't believe you GG. There should be more Alan Jones around. Get rid of that biased Tony Jones on QandA. Lets get some real debate going on JU-LIAR.

 

[noco]

Watch our JU-LIAR, she's going to sneak up behind you with her Carbon Dioxide come ETS tax.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...lard_will_hurt_you_more_thans_shes_admitting/

 

[Mofra]

There should be more Alan Jones around. Get rid of that biased Tony Jones on QandA.

Jones is far more biased to the right than Jones is to the left. By a massive margin.

 

[Logique]

Professor Garnaut on I think the 7:30 Report last night. Just a shiver up the spine.

The Dept of Climate Change - spruiked for by this economist. Why are my taxes funding what is essentially a Greens Party policy development unit?

Add to this the cost of changing all the stationery to it's real name - The Department of Taxation Change. Churn our money in via tax the collect, and then back out (to people we approve of). Very efficient management.

This government, of 18 weeks paid maternity leave for people earning $150k, of killer roof insulation and the BER squandering - now asks for our trust in supplying fair and equitable compensation on electricity bills!

It grows ever more Orwellian.

 

[moXJO]

Or reduce benefits - there are other options.

Why are we giving the mining industry a $5bn diesel fuel kickback?
By rolling back some of the Keating & Howard era indistrial pork barrelling we could feasibly save more funding than an extra levy.

I agree
I'd be happy with a mining tax if it was pumped into renewable industry R&D or upgrades to our current generators. Not a tax that does nothing but unleash further cost of living pain.

 

[spooly74]

Julia Goes All In

In the face of opinion polls showing a lack of support for her proposed carbon tax, Julia Gillard today has delivered a speech that indicates that she is willing to wager her future on this issue (The speech is here in PDF). In the speech the word "carbon" appears 36 times, also appearing 36 times are the words "jobs" and "economy."
.
.
Australia's economy is very carbon intensive (PDF). Thus, if carbon pricing were to work exactly as the Prime Minister describes, it will necessary lead to a great deal of economic dislocation and change -- Consider that to meet the 5% emissions reduction target (from 2000 levels), without relying on offsets or other tricks, implies that Australia's economy would need to become as carbon efficient as Japan's by the end of this decade. How such a profoundly disruptive transitional period would be managed is the one issue that advocates of a high carbon price have never really dealt with -- the market's invisible hand will take care of it I guess.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/03/julia-gillard-goes-all-in.html

 

[Mofra]

I agree
I'd be happy with a mining tax if it was pumped into renewable industry R&D or upgrades to our current generators. Not a tax that does nothing but unleash further cost of living pain.

Without knowing the details, we can't definitively say it will impact the cost of living. There are apparently going to be offsets built into the system to protect low and middle income earners.

My issue is with the inefficiency of the system. I prefer governments that simply tax credit systems (ie removing the diesel fuel credits to the mining industry) rather than add complexity to a system that is already nigh on impossible to understand in it's entirety (I doubt many on ASF could even deadlift the Tax Act if it was printed in full ).

 

[drsmith]

Professor Garnaut on I think the 7:30 Report last night. Just a shiver up the spine.

The Dept of Climate Change - spruiked for by this economist. Why are my taxes funding what is essentially a Greens Party policy development unit?

Add to this the cost of changing all the stationery to it's real name - The Department of Taxation Change. Churn our money in via tax the collect, and then back out (to people we approve of). Very efficient management.

This government, of 18 weeks paid maternity leave for people earning $150k, of killer roof insulation and the BER squandering - now asks for our trust in supplying fair and equitable compensation on electricity bills!

It grows ever more Orwellian.

Ross Garnaut's lateline interview with Tony Jones.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3167105.htm

Clear political bias in the way in which he answers questions. Look at the punch line on a question about coal fired power station construction in China.

TONY JONES: But have you any indication that they're going to reduce the number of coal-fired power stations they have currently on the drawing boards? Because if they build them all, we're in serious trouble.

ROSS GARNAUT: Oh, well, first, they are reducing the number of coal-fired power stations. They're getting rid of a lot of small, inefficient, environmentally very unfriendly power stations, replacing them with super hyper-critical plants that, for coal, have very low emissions.

But, yes, you're quite right in the premise of your question. It's a big challenge if you're still building coal-fired power stations no matter how environmentally clean they are as coal stations, it will still increase emissions.

Meanwhile, while China is building coal fired power stations like there's no tomorrow, the Greens bang on about how they want to shut down the coal industry. The following is what the NSW Greens are taking to the state election;

stopping the building of coal fired power stations and the expansion of coal mining, and “just transitions” funding for coal-dependent communities to develop low carbon economies;

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy

Deeper within there energy policy is this gem,

QUOTE]16. Oppose the expansion of coal mining in NSW and the expansion of coal export infrastructure, including Hunter rail networks and the Newcastle Port. The role of NSW as a global coal-pusher must come to an end (see Coal Policy for further details);[/QUOTE]

http://nsw.greens.org.au/sites/gree...oads/Greens NSW Climate and Energy policy.pdf

They don't like gas either,

rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions using wind energy, crop wastes and solar heating (including solar hot water) with natural gas as a transition fuel;

So, wind, crops wastes and solar is to do the lot if the Greens have their way.

 

[Calliope]

Unless a Gillard carbon tax supporter can justify this statement, I will have to put it down as another desperate lie, or alternatively, she is crazy.

Julia Gillard said on Monday that "products made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products made with more carbon pollution".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-promise-mocked/story-fn59niix-1226023539143

 

[Julia]

She would seem to be exposing herself to ridicule with a statement like that.

Does she mean we will all be so generously compensated that we will be able to buy these more expensive goods/services because we have many extra thousands of dollars in our pockets?

In the unlikely event that were true, what would be the point, since she has previously said we all have to pay more for our sinful use of everything in the expectation that we will eventually repent and use, e.g. candles instead of electric lighting, bicycles instead of cars?

 

[Ferret]

I suppose she is saying that companies who have high carbon emissions, or suppliers with high carbon emissions, are going to be paying high carbon taxes. Hence the products they produce will have to increase in price and to the extent that they become more expensive than products made by a company with low emissions and hence paying a lower carbon tax.

Sounds a bit simplistic to me.