Labor's carbon tax lie

[Smurf1976]

If cheap electricity is way to grow the economy, and that has been tried and tested numerous times in this country, then it stands to reason that expensive electricity is a way to cause a recession.

And what about this volcano? What taxes will be paid by that huge source of pollution? An event on the other side of the world is grounding aircraft and turning the sky grey in Tasmania and New Zealand. That's an awful lot more pollution than comes out of cars and power stations...

 

[Happy]

Almost funny, that different countries are treated differently regarding carbon emissions. In essence "develiping countries" can pollute more. Like Australian original residents can do less and this is OK too.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Nice piece of realism Mexican (and Smurf, and Happy, respectively).

 

[Logique]

..And what about this volcano? What taxes will be paid by that huge source of pollution?..

Quite right. Natural processes cause 97% of atmospheric CO2, and are an untapped well of potential tax revenue.

A volcano tax is needed, this will help volcanos to transition to solar or wind powered seismic activity.

 

[basilio]

Quite right. Natural processes cause 97% of atmospheric CO2, and are an untapped well of potential tax revenue.

A volcano tax is needed, this will help volcanos to transition to solar or wind powered seismic activity.

Absolutely correct Logique. Natural processes do produce 997% of atmospheric CO2.

Natural processes also recycle the 97 % of CO2 each year as well. It's the extra 3% a year that humans produce that is not effectively recycled by the environment that is accumulating and causing grief..

 

[Calliope]

Rubbish. How are "natural processes" going to distinguish between our contribution and the volcano's contribution?

 

[basilio]

Rubbish. How are "natural processes" going to distinguish between our contribution and the volcano's contribution?

Volcanos contribute a spit in the eye of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. they are just part of the background of naturally produced and naturally recycled CO2.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors

Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production

Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes””one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”
.

http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

And your quite right Calliope. This isn't what Bob Carter says in his book because Bob Carter either

1) Didn't research the work of the US Geological survey or
2) Didn't want to believe their analysis.

 

[sails]

Volcanos contribute a spit in the eye of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. they are just part of the background of naturally produced and naturally recycled CO2...

And, regardless of which side of the AGW fence one sits on, it seems that carbon tax will do no more than a spit in the eye to reduce co2.

The fact that Gillard chose to be deceptive in her wording pre-election shows that carbon tax itself is based on deception and lies. She admitted she lied to the people.

On that basis, it should be taken to an election BEFORE it is imposed. No minority government should be introducing major tax changes and especially when they have such a poor track record of managing anything.

Sign a stop the carbon tax peitition here: http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Issues/StoptheCarbonTaxPetition/tabid/103/Default.aspx

 

[Ruby]

Volcanos contribute a spit in the eye of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. they are just part of the background of naturally produced and naturally recycled CO2.



http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

And your quite right Calliope. This isn't what Bob Carter says in his book because Bob Carter either

1) Didn't research the work of the US Geological survey or
2) Didn't want to believe their analysis.

No-one disputes the fact that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the end of WWII and that it continues to increase; and that we are contributing to this.

What is in dispute is:-

• Whether increased CO2 is causing global warming (This is in doubt for many reasons, not least that the warming started several hundred years before the increase in CO2 emissions.)
• Whether the warming is dangerous.
• Whether we are warming. As there has been no warming in the last 10 years and we may in fact have have entered a cooling cycle as we did after WWII.
• How we adapt to variations in the climate. Climate is not static. Why do we think that the climatic conditions of some particular time in the past century were somehow perfect for this world? If we are going to live here, we have to accept change and adapt to it

.

 

[Logique]

Busy setting up straw men there Basilio.
At your reference, Ask.com (an arm of the New York Times), one may also learn about classic cars, Cleveland, crochet, Cool Kids Fashion, Aliens, animal careers, auto repair, beauty supply, and Baltimore.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, .038% of the atmosphere. Not some synthesized toxin that can accumulate. Plants love it, it's the basis of photosynthesis. Carbon cycle, carbon in = carbon out. We're not making any new carbon Basilio, as inconvenient as that is to the alarmists agenda to de-industrialize the world.

 

[Happy]

...
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, .038% of the atmosphere. Not some synthesized toxin that can accumulate. Plants love it, it's the basis of photosynthesis. Carbon cycle, carbon in = carbon out. We're not making any new carbon Basilio, as inconvenient as that is to the alarmists agenda to de-industrialize the world.

Interesting if arsonists caught could be forced to pay CO2 tax?
Say 100,000 square miles of forest burned = so many tonnes of CO2 x $ (whatever per tonne)

Not to mention that we would probably have to insure ourselves against unintentional house fire and resulting CO2

As mentioned before, every human being and their pet could be taxed for exhaled CO2 too.

All depends on how far they want to go.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, .038% of the atmosphere. Not some synthesized toxin that can accumulate. Plants love it, it's the basis of photosynthesis. Carbon cycle, carbon in = carbon out. We're not making any new carbon Basilio, as inconvenient as that is to the alarmists agenda to de-industrialize the world.

So deforestation, polluted water and the 'release' of more carbon into the atmosphere does create an imbalance in nature. One could also consider we are part of the planetary evolution process and what we do is meant to be anyway. Thinking.

 

[IFocus]

Surprised no one has picked up on the various prices for carbon reduction put out by the Productivity Commission.

Solar on houses really sucks

 

[Julia]

Surprised no one has picked up on the various prices for carbon reduction put out by the Productivity Commission.

Solar on houses really sucks

IF, don't assume we haven't picked up on it. I read it without surprise. The conclusions on these various schemes have been well known for some time, i.e. they cost a huge amount for very little productive outcome. Meantime, the costs involved have been pushing up the everyday costs of electricity for all those people who couldn't afford the capital outlay to install the systems.
They should imo be wiped.

Consider perhaps that no one comments on this sort of stuff because many of us are so depressed and fed up with this sort of nonsense that we've reached the stage of feeling that any comment is futile.

 

[drsmith]

Solar on houses really sucks

I decided this was a case of, if you can't beat em, join em.

Mine are to be installed before the end of the month.

And, to reduce my non-renewable carbon dioxide footprint further, I'm cranking the wood heater to the max.

Ahhh, there's nothing like being a latte greenie.

 

[Smurf1976]

I decided this was a case of, if you can't beat em, join em.

Mine are to be installed before the end of the month.

And, to reduce my non-renewable carbon dioxide footprint further, I'm cranking the wood heater to the max.

Ahhh, there's nothing like being a latte greenie.

In principle, keeping electricity affordable is something I've long had an interest in. No surprises for guessing that much of my past political activism centres around that issue.

But then along came your taxes and the offer of my own tiny power plant sitting on the roof. I was hardly going to say no - taxpayers footed 100% of the cost after all. In principle I'm not in favour of such things since they are a ridiculously expensive form of power generation. But if it's going to be spent anyway, and someone is throwing my taxes around like there's no tomorrow, then I may as well have some of it. A few solar panels and an inverter at least has some long term useful value which is more than can be said for many of the other things my taxes are spent on.

As for wood heaters - well that's another thing I was never keen on and yes, it goes right back to the great Tassie power debate all those years ago when environmentalists went as far as setting up in business manufacturing them. That plus the smoke, and the early ones pumped out plenty of that, gave me a life long dislike of the things. Childhood memories of one that went badly wrong probably added to that too.

Practical reality however is that one came with the house, and it's keeping it at a nice 22 degrees inside right now which sure beats the 5 degrees outside. With the way electricity prices are going, it's either make friends with the wood burning devil or sit there shivering in it seems. Heating oil prices went silly many years ago, LPG has gone the same way over the past few years, and now electricity is doing much the same. That leaves either major building works to become reliant on passive solar, natural gas for the few that can get it (not me...), or burning wood to keep warm. Either that or we all move to Queensland for the winter (oh wait, hang on a minute, there's no planes flying at the moment due to the volcano... better stick to burning wood then).

 

[Logique]

..The conclusions on these various schemes have been well known for some time, i.e. they cost a huge amount for very little productive outcome. Meantime, the costs involved have been pushing up the everyday costs of electricity for all those people who couldn't afford the capital outlay to install the systems..

With you on this. NSW would have ~5 Mill population. The benefits of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme with Fed Govt Recs (combined = free money) went to just 110,000 households.

I don't blame the likes of Smurf or Dr Zacchary for getting on board, the fault lies with the ALP, state and federal ('friend of the worker party') for designing such a ridiculously inequitable scheme, and administering it so abominably.

It's easy being green with other people's money. So far that has been the net outcome of this travelling medicine show.

We have been force-fed the most expensive form of electricity generation possible. And we have to deal daily with the unutterable smugness of the select solar-panelled 'greener-than-thou's, all on our tax dollar. As they travel to work in their Toyota Pious.

 

[moXJO]

RESOURCES Minister Martin Ferguson says only a few coal mines would be in danger of closing under the carbon tax, with demand from China ensuring a "huge expansion" of coal exports.

Um doesn’t that 'huge expansion defeat the purpose

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-will-cost-4000-coal-jobs/story-fn59niix-1226074780231

 

[Ruby]

Um doesn’t that 'huge expansion defeat the purpose

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-will-cost-4000-coal-jobs/story-fn59niix-1226074780231

It's the usual politicians' doublespeak and begs the question which I and many others have asked, "How is the levying of a tax going to reduce this so-called carbon pollution?"

Martin Ferguson has given the answer. It's not. It is just a tax, a money grab, their way of trying to con us into a warm fuzzy feeling about 'doing something to reduce pollution, blah, blah'. One of the reasons the govt gave for imposing this tax in the first place was that Australians have the highest intensity emissions of CO2 per capita (or whatever the terminology was). What they didn't tell us is that is because we export so much coal; so expanding our coal exports will exacerbate the problem. What nonsense they talk!

Lies and doublespeak!!!

 

[Logique]

Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study
Ben Webster From: The Times June 10, 2011 [in The Australian, 14 June 2011] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ys-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576
'..ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars..'