I will politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Due to Australia being the source of the raw materials which have greater mass than manufactured products, the requirement for shipping would increase with a carbon tax and relocation of manufacturing offshore. As such, total emissions would increase rather than simply staying the same.The net effect on CO2 output will be: zero. Why is this, you ask? Those machines, those goods, those computers do not have to stay in Australia. Countries sans-economic-sabotage will make up the energy consumption shortfall.
The future health of us all have the vested interest.
Sometimes I wonder?
yes the emotional argument... I can say that most people objectively want a better world run by renewable energy and all that nice stuff you have a penchant for.. the means on getting there is by throttling the economy, reducing individual freedom and using bogus science to push an agenda, its an argument on the means not the objective
i still find it baffling how carbon which impacts the global climate 0.000002% is more powerful then say the Sun. But hey I must be a greedy capitalist pig, the left of society need to shove their idiotic ideals down the throats of the people who don't wanna stomach something so unintelligible..
And this is what Governments do well - Propaganda.
Nobody really knows what the reality is, or the depth of the issue, but we are constantly told propaganda via mainstream media and Government that something is happening that needs to be fixed via a tax. Ask your friends and family these questions....
....In a perfect world, a good government would make sure it’s people had all the useful facts, so they could decide where they wanted to put their resources.
In the real world, the government has already decided for them, and it’s aim apparently is to filter the PR so that the public can reach the “right” preconceived conclusion. (An approach also known as “propaganda”.) Hence I can’t see the Climate Committee rushing to tell all Australians they only emit 1.5% of 3% of global CO2.
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Responses: Nearly all people thought it was “20% – 40%”, the highest said 75%, and the lowest estimated 2% – 10%.
Answer: 0.039% or about one thousand times less than what the average punter thought.
Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Responses: All said ’No’ or they ‘couldn’t remember’.
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Responses: Most estimated it to be 25% to 75%, and answers ranged up to 100%. Only four people thought it was 2 to 10%.
Answer: Human emissions are about 3% of the total.
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Responses: Ranged from 1% to 20%.
Answer: Australians emit 1.5% of the CO2 emitted by humans. So Australians, over the years, emitted at most about 1.5% of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (that increase is is probably due to ocean warming, due to whatever has been heating the world since 1680), or 0.0000017% of the air (1.7 ppm).
Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Responses: All but one thought it is a pollutant, at least to some degree.
Answer: If CO2 is a pollutant, it’s the only pollutant we pay money to pump into rose-gardens and tomato farms. It’s a fertilizer at current levels (and at levels up to five times higher). The only possible detrimental harmful effect is postulated by models which don’t get the regional, global, historical or future predictions correct.
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Responses: Almost all did not know of any evidence. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
Answer: Nearly all the claims of evidence amount to “effects” of global warming, and not the cause. (See the missing hot spot.)
The labor carbon tax should be called the "de-develop Australia Tax", dang! that's already been used in the US - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’
I guess there are other ways to skin a cat
Well if you like we can extend it to the worst case scenario: China simply buys up all of Australia's resources, made capable by the massively depressed asset prices stemming from the economic strangulation, and allowed by the massively indebted Australian government in exchange for much needed immediate cash. The resources are then extracted at depressed Australian costs, and then sent to China, thus lowering the cost of fuels in China, thus allowing massive increase in energy consumption, thus much more CO2.I will politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Due to Australia being the source of the raw materials which have greater mass than manufactured products, the requirement for shipping would increase with a carbon tax and relocation of manufacturing offshore. As such, total emissions would increase rather than simply staying the same.
So cyanide in the reservoirs then?To save the planet for human life to live, expansionism will have to be reversed.
Softening of the tax is not the idea. Once started we will need to strengthen it.
Anyone who does not realise that we are in for huge change due population growth which is causing global warming is dreaming. We will need to reverse it very soon.
Emotional you say. Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun. Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer.
Getting back to the many bits, peices and facits to climate change/global warming are in fact the bits and pieces that in individual examples in isolation in turn build the arguments to steer people away from knowing about and facing the real facts.
All of the evidence in its many parts make up the whole. To say, that because we had a wet summer, droughts have come to an end, is the rubbish put in the way of developing a more united spirit to finding solutions.
Having a carbon tax is at least a start on a raod that has to be taken together. Softening it will allow the dilly dally to take it away.
Must comment here Explod. Tell that to Kevin Long: http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html. He is a mechanical engineer, and has been studying climate change and sunspot activity for decades. I'd trust him over the bulk of those venal and mendacious neophytes at the IPCC....Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun. Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer...
Yes brilliant from OzWaveGuy:Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here. He explains it perfectly.
If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.
Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here. He explains it perfectly.
If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.
A good example of government spin occurred this week on ABC Radio, one of the evening programs.what the FCUK has carbon got to do with anything?!
tax toxic waste or something that reduces air quality or something remotely related to pollution... its a tax grab that will never be repealed and only worsened, it amazes me how govt is seen as the big brother to look after society, it should be playing a role as umpire not provider from cradle to grave.
A good example of government spin occurred this week on ABC Radio, one of the evening programs.
OK, so the presenter says "What is the carbon tax"?
Answer from the esteemed Mr Dreyfuss: "It's simply a tax on pollution".
How utterly dishonest. It conveys to the naive listener the righteous notion that all those nasty exhaust fumes he sucks up in traffic every day and all that muck he sees in the air will soon all go away because this brave government is going to put a sensible tax on it so people just won't cause it any more.
I've duly sent in an email of complaint and a suggestion that we will be waiting for someone from the Liberal Party to also come in and give their own definition of the carbon tax.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's really funny.Sails, I've never read the Sun Herald. Does it have a specific demographic/political bias?
`Ah, but it is becoming obvious that they intend to buy voters off, especially those in the lower income groups, by providing generous 'compensation'. How on earth does this make any sense if they are in fact attempting to change consumption behaviour?
What rubbish.
And the world would be a fairly blank page without creative idealists. I say that because a good inventor will come up with a good one in about 1 to 10.
Well now, shiftyphil, given that I've never laid eyes on the publication, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why you are so amused. And then when you have your mirth under control to offer an answer to my original question re the readership.Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's really funny.
(also, it's the Herald Sun.)
Ah, that will be why Mr Combet, minister for Climate Change, recently offered his list of helpful hints about how people needed to change their electricity consumption by e.g. turning items off at the wall, not running air conditioners etc. Other government luminaries have also suggested consumers will need to significantly alter their behaviour.It makes sense because they are not trying to change consumption (although it may have some impact on consumption, the primary goal is to change the nature of the supply). Arguments based on "the compensation just defeats the purpose" are completely off base.
Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.
It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.Well now, shiftyphil, given that I've never laid eyes on the publication, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why you are so amused. And then when you have your mirth under control to offer an answer to my original question re the readership.
I'm pretty sure that advice has been around for a while.Ah, that will be why Mr Combet, minister for Climate Change, recently offered his list of helpful hints about how people needed to change their electricity consumption by e.g. turning items off at the wall, not running air conditioners etc. Other government luminaries have also suggested consumers will need to significantly alter their behaviour.
A lot of people still don't understand that a light switch has an off position for a reason.Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.
If the Libs and Labor worked together it could be done without Green approval. It would be for the good of the country and the world.
We went down that road already.
It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.
This is a pictorial commentary on the quality of the Herald Sun. - http://theagevsheraldsun.tumblr.com/
Your replies to Julie and me are negative and nonsensical. Try to stay on the subject.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?