Labor's carbon tax lie

[drsmith]

As an aside Oz do you have an opinion on population / resources usage grow and the solution or do you think its all good?

A brief history of the growth of human civilisation and its realtionship to energy usage.

1) The ancient Egyptians harnessed the power of collective effort to build their monuments.
2) The Romans hernessed the fundamental forces of nature (such as gravity) to build their civilisation.
3) The burning of fossil fuel through the industrial revolution has brought about the modern world.

In each case, the advancement came about as a consequence of more efficient and hence cheaper energy sources.

An energy tax such as a carbon tax does the opposite. It makes the cheapest form of energy more expensive and that only increases the potential of conflict (in a global context) and reduces our potential to develop newer, ultimately cheaper energy sources.

The way forward is to develop new sourcces of energy that again reduces the cost of that energy. Only then can our civilisation take the next logical step, the colonisation of space. That may sound far removed from a Julia Gillard's carbon tax, but it's our destiny. Either that or extinction.

 

[medicowallet]

The way forward is to develop new sourcces of energy that again reduces the cost of that energy. Only then can our civilisation take the next logical step, the colonisation of space. That may sound far removed from a Julia Gillard's carbon tax, but it's our destiny. Either that or extinction.

This sounds slightly less wacky than the reasons given for AGW and a carbon tax.

I like it!!

 

[IFocus]

A brief history of the growth of human civilisation and its realtionship to energy usage.

1) The ancient Egyptians harnessed the power of collective effort to build their monuments.
2) The Romans hernessed the fundamental forces of nature (such as gravity) to build their civilisation.
3) The burning of fossil fuel through the industrial revolution has brought about the modern world.

In each case, the advancement came about as a consequence of more efficient and hence cheaper energy sources.

An energy tax such as a carbon tax does the opposite. It makes the cheapest form of energy more expensive and that only increases the potential of conflict (in a global context) and reduces our potential to develop newer, ultimately cheaper energy sources.

The way forward is to develop new sourcces of energy that again reduces the cost of that energy. Only then can our civilisation take the next logical step, the colonisation of space. That may sound far removed from a Julia Gillard's carbon tax, but it's our destiny. Either that or extinction.

With oil and phosphate running out sooner rather than later and the technology gap to enter space think 2000 years and the aspirations of another 2 billion consumers requiring 8 earths resources to meet the demand the carbon debate seems the is the wrong argument to be having.

 

[drsmith]

2000 years ??

Little more than 100 years ago, we couldn't fly.

 

[IFocus]

Should I assume you require a 1000yr version?

You could assume any answer is fine.

You think the next 1000 years is do-able?

No oil, no phosphate, no technology to replace, 9 billion and growing.

 

[IFocus]

2000 years ??

Little more than 100 years ago, we couldn't fly.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results

 

[drsmith]

You think the next 1000 years is do-able?

Look how far technology has taken us in the past 1000 years.

What we have today would be total fantasy to the people of that time.

 

[drsmith]

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results

It is if you stagnate.

Most extinctions occur naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

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

 

[Smurf1976]

Look how far technology has taken us in the past 1000 years.

What we have today would be total fantasy to the people of that time.

Much of what we have today was fantasy within the lifetimes of many on this forum.

It wasn't that long ago that mobile phones were science fiction and the notion of anything resembling an iPod would have seemed ridiculous indeed, as would anything like a GPS. That was within the lifetime of many people on this forum. Today's children are growing up with that as "normal" whereas their own parents had landline phones, cassette tapes and printed maps at the same age.

We've undoubtedly made huge progress in many areas over the years, but other things (eg food production, transport, energy) are pretty much mature technologically and thus progress far more slowly. Just because we've had a revolution in computing, doesn't mean we're about to have a revolution in some unrelated area (though in the case of energy, ultimately we have no choice in the matter - the only question being the outcome).

 

[Smurf1976]

With oil and phosphate running out sooner rather than later

In the specific case of oil, I'd argue that it is already far too late to avoid significant dislocation as demand outstrips cheaply available supply. We're already being bitten by that one to some extent right now.

 

[noco]

After viewing this interview of Tim Flannery by Andrew Bolt, it beggars beyond belief why the media are allowing this incompenent Labor Government to get away with so much rrlating to the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX.
Flannery stated if carbon dioxide was reduced by 5% by the year 2020, it would be 1000 years before we felt any affect.
This interview is a must to read. Even IFocus would have to agree.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

 

[drsmith]

We've undoubtedly made huge progress in many areas over the years, but other things (eg food production, transport, energy) are pretty much mature technologically and thus progress far more slowly. Just because we've had a revolution in computing, doesn't mean we're about to have a revolution in some unrelated area (though in the case of energy, ultimately we have no choice in the matter - the only question being the outcome).

We have to have a further revolution in energy to sustain growth in the rest. It's either that or conflict over the scraps of what we have today.

Compared to 1000 years ago, how we generate and use energy today is very much a revolution.

 

[Julia]

I found this interesting

No noticeable drop in temperatures for 1000 yrs?? Sorry, but this assertion is just bizarre. We're already seeing significant changes in natural variability now (eg it's becoming cooler). I suggest Flannery is saying let's start paying more for CO2 and we'll circle back in 1000yrs to see if it's made a difference. ...................

That interview, assuming it's genuine, increases my respect for Tim Flannery.
He is at least being honest, in contrast to the government's mouthpiece, Prof Garnaut whose remarks are misleading and manipulative.

If the Libs had any nous at all, they would be taking this interview and capitalising on it.
However, given their repeated demonstrations of total incompetence, they will miss this great opportunity.

Ozwave, have you considered emailing the Libs with the question "what use are they intending to make of this interview?"

Thanks for posting it.

 

[drsmith]

Ozwave, have you considered emailing the Libs with the question "what use are they intending to make of this interview?"

I'm not convinced they are 100% against it.

It is after all more tax revenue to splash around and, as we know, Tony Abbott is not above that.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

That interview, assuming it's genuine,

Why do think it's fake?

increases my respect for Tim Flannery.

You mean he's finally realized that he's lost credibility from the years of pumping hysteria to the masses? So a slight change in his approach (now he's being paid by Julia) suddenly returns this lost credibility?

He is at least being honest, in contrast to the government's mouthpiece, Prof Garnaut whose remarks are misleading and manipulative.

As above - his job is to sell Climate Hysteria to the masses and is paid to do so.

If the Libs had any nous at all, they would be taking this interview and capitalising on it.

Agreed. They have been back seat drivers in this debate, only a few have been asking the right questions.

However, given their repeated demonstrations of total incompetence, they will miss this great opportunity.

Agreed

Ozwave, have you considered emailing the Libs with the question "what use are they intending to make of this interview?"

Waste of time.

 

[brty]

Dr Smith,

You are exactly correct with the following...

In each case, the advancement came about as a consequence of more efficient and hence cheaper energy sources.

I would argue that this is the precise reason why we need a tax on FF use. We need to find alternatives before we run into supply problems with the existing cheap resources. The very fact that they are so cheap stops many alternatives from gaining momentum, if there is indeed anything that can work as well as FF.

For those arguing that we should wait for everyone else to do something, the simple question is why. Why should we just follow everyone else? Why shouldn't we lead for a change?

brty

 

[Julia]

Why do think it's fake?

I didn't say I thought it was fake and I've since seen it in The Australian.
I was surprised because it appears to be such a turn around from his previous hysterical commentary.

You mean he's finally realized that he's lost credibility from the years of pumping hysteria to the masses? So a slight change in his approach (now he's being paid by Julia) suddenly returns this lost credibility?

To some extent, yes. But I don't know what his motivations might be.
I'm simply observing a very considerable turn around from manipulative hysteria to what seems more like reasonably factual statements.
OK?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Carbon has replaced God/Jesus/Allah bbhn/ Yahweh bbhn2/Buddha/Ning bbhn,also ....as the new God for the basketweavers.

gg

 

[sails]

Carbon has replaced God/Jesus/Allah bbhn/ Yahweh bbhn2/Buddha/Ning bbhn,also ....as the new God for the basketweavers.

gg

Yes, agree. Some of the religions you mention are quite peaceful in their beliefs, but extremists in any religion can make them unpalatable, even dangerous.

Carbon appears far more in the extremist category and every bit like a controlling religion for the believers. However, once you touch someone's hard earned money, there will be extreme opposition from the non-believers.

It seems that carbon believers try to label non believers with the same labels that actually seem to define their own actions such as calling the rally attendees "extremists" due to a couple of placards which may have possibly been planted by the carbon believers.

 

[Logique]

To be a Green you need to save the world from something. There has to be a villain whose elimination will justify your world view.

So they worked their way through whalers, uranium miners, loggers, fishers. The current target is coal miners and steel makers. Next it will be the offshore oil rigs. After that it will be anyone who drives a (non-electric) car.

And beyond that anyone who uses non-renewable electricity of any kind. Already we see that electric hot water systems are on the way out, soon they won't be available in the shops at all.

And so on it goes.