The Abbott Government

[SirRumpole]

Conservatism is about moral values, rugged individualism, self regulation and responsibilty.

LOL

Nanny State Family tax benefits introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives

Paternalistic baby bonus introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives

Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.

The path to "rugged individualism and responsibility" is education, decimated by Abbott/Pyne Conservatives

The only things I can do are shake my head in disbelief at such myopia or ROFL at such hypocrisy.

 

[wayneL]

I knew a lot of union officials with those valves..............

Unions are a collectivist notion, Im calling BS on that IF. Unless you mean official don't live their ow ideology

 

[noco]

LOL

Nanny State Family tax benefits introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives

Paternalistic baby bonus introduced by Howard/Costello Conservatives

Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.

The path to "rugged individualism and responsibility" is education, decimated by Abbott/Pyne Conservatives

The only things I can do are shake my head in disbelief at such myopia or ROFL at such hypocrisy.

Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.

Hang on Rumpy, whist I am and always will be against the PPL, wasn't the funds coming from BIG BUSINESS and not the tax payers?

I thought it was Fabian Society rules to play Robin Hood.....Tax the rich to give to the poor.

 

[SirRumpole]

Mollycoddling PPL intended to be introduced by Abbott/Hockey Conservatives.

Hang on Rumpy, whist I am and always will be against the PPL, wasn't the funds coming from BIG BUSINESS and not the tax payers?

.

According to reports in News Corp newspapers, the scheme has been fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, showing it will cost taxpayers $6.1 billion over the forward estimates, in addition to the 1.5 per cent business levy, which will be paid by the highest earning 3000 companies.

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/lif...-scheme-all-the-details-20130818-2s4tn.html

The government actually administers the scheme, which is where the cost to the taxpayer arises.

 

[drsmith]

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/lif...e-scheme-all-the-details-20130818-2s4tn.html

The government actually administers the scheme, which is where the cost to the taxpayer arises.

You might struggle to get an argument over TA's PPL scheme.

I don't think there's anyone here who agrees with it.

That being said on that particular policy, one has to consider the whole when passing judgement on a government and in comparison, what the opposition parties offer as an alternative.

 

[Julia]

That being said on that particular policy, one has to consider the whole when passing judgement on a government and in comparison, what the opposition parties offer as an alternative.

Perhaps the Labor supporters could outline what they see as just this, ie if a DD election were to occur and a Labor/Greens/PUP mixture beat the Coalition, what do you think their policies would be (at this stage we have no idea) and what do you think the results would be for Australia?

 

[SirRumpole]

Perhaps the Labor supporters could outline what they see as just this, ie if a DD election were to occur and a Labor/Greens/PUP mixture beat the Coalition, what do you think their policies would be (at this stage we have no idea) and what do you think the results would be for Australia?

We don't have much of an idea of Labor's policies except to copy Abbott's "Dr No" approach, and why not, it worked for him. If people fall for it once, why not again, especially now that the Coalition has shown themselves to be inclined to hit the low paid with taxes and charges permanently, while hitting the rich with a temporary deficit levy. All these were contrary to his stated policy, so the Coalition's electoral trust is at rock bottom.

If Labor has the guts they should go for a strengthened mining tax, which was going to be their saviour before they stuffed it up. It's politically popular and economically sensible to hit the big income earners where they can afford it.

The example set by Norway which taxes its oil and gas producers hard while not suffering a pullout of investment shows that it can be done successfully to the benefit of the nation. Australia already has a resources rent tax on oil and gas production and our gas production has soared.

I think Labor will reverse the tertiary education cuts which will be popular and beneficial to the economy. Having voted against the Medicare co-payment I can't see them keeping it in government, but if it did go into the public hospital system, it could be justified.

 

[noco]

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/lif...e-scheme-all-the-details-20130818-2s4tn.html

The government actually administers the scheme, which is where the cost to the taxpayer arises.

Now Rumpy, the public servants and politicians are on the same scheme as Abbott proposed PPL which is fully funded and paid for by you and me and a few others who are not on social welfare.

Now what I would like to see before the next election is the Green/Labor left wing socialists promise to give the public servants and politicians the same deal as they gave mothers in private enterprise and what about all those stay at home Mums who do not work....Also, I want to see them go to the next election promising to bring back the carbon dioxide tax.

I watched Albo being interviewed on the Bolt Report and he was asked, by what percentage has the carbon dioxide tax reduced Global Warming.......he could not answer.

He was also asked certain questions about Clive Palmer but he always diverted the attention back on Tony Abbott........He after the free Labor plug on more than one occasion.

 

[noco]

Perhaps the Labor supporters could outline what they see as just this, ie if a DD election were to occur and a Labor/Greens/PUP mixture beat the Coalition, what do you think their policies would be (at this stage we have no idea) and what do you think the results would be for Australia?

Much the same as before Julia......keep borrowing, give plenty of hand outs, spend up big, tax us to the high heavens, add it all on the credit card and let the coalition work out how to pay it back and having to do so make the Coalition look bad when they and top economists tell us to tighten the belt....it is a vicious circle and is history repeating itself over and over again.

Ah yes, we all like to see money pouring into our pockets and the Fabians know exactly what they are doing....it is in their book of instructions for all to read and they are doing it in a very subtle way so the naive do not realize what is going on.

I say to all Australians, WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

 

[boofhead]

I'm surprised there is not much individual thinking happening in this thread. Abbott has (like many politicians and others before him) present issues as dichotmoies. The choice of major parties may be a dichotmoy but don't let them corner thinking.

Seems they don't like how something is being done by an opposing foe (but policy may be reasonable) they will have a different policy. Why not fix how it is being done? NBN comes to mind.

Consider the size of the budget and many areas money goes in to you can wonder why other areas are not touched. For example delay or even cancel the F-35 and find some alternative suitable for Australia. By the time the aircraft arrive we will be paying more for it.

Seems that Abbott's comments about being the political lovechild of Bishop and Howard is he hasn't learned from his political father. Howard would make the issue clear, explain how his fix is required, act on it. Howard wouldn't be trying to fight for political points via news daily news bulletins. Nor would Howard waste time on the trivial of reintroduction of titles. Seems Abbott doesn't have focus.

Coalition's changes to Labor's FOFA seem a bit odd especially in what has been reported during the year.

Howard wouldn't be bullied by Palmer. Abbott nears to stop being trying to please everyone and lead. Is it signs there are too many internal fires to control?

It can go on...

 

[noco]

I watched Albo being interviewed on the Bolt Report and he was asked, by what percentage has the carbon dioxide tax reduced Global Warming.......he could not answer.

He was also asked certain questions about Clive Palmer but he always diverted the attention back on Tony Abbott........He after the free Labor plug on more than one occasion.

Here is the interview with Albo this morning on the carbon tax.


ANDREW BOLT: Oh, no, no that’s a different issue. That was about whether negotiating a deal to get into Government. But, listen, about this, the Government must now, I think, be considering whether a double dissolution down the track, an early election, is the way to go. And I’m wondering how prepared for that, Labor is. Can I start with the carbon tax. Now, Labor this week voted with Palmer against repealing the carbon tax, and at the last election you promised to get rid of the tax. Why did you break your word?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: We didn’t break our word, Andrew. We voted for exactly what we said we would do, which is, we would get rid of the carbon tax, but replace it with an emissions trading scheme. See, we understand that the science is in –

ANDREW BOLT: You said terminate. I saw Kevin Rudd stand there, “I will terminate the tax.”

ANTHONY ALBANESE: And replace it with an emissions trading scheme. We can’t afford to have no policy on climate change. We think the science is in on climate change, and, what’s more, not only are we not climate sceptics, we’re not market sceptics, either. We want to harness the power of the market through an emissions trading scheme, to use that, to drive that change through the economy.

ANDREW BOLT: Alright. Talking about the emissions trading scheme, the IPC scientist, professor Roger Jones, estimates that, at the very most, if
global warming theory hasn’t been exaggerated, your carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme to achieve the same effect, would cut the world’s temperatures by 4,000ths by one degree by the end of the century. Is he right? 4000ths of one degree?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well, Andrew, what we know is that 95% of the
scientists -

ANDREW BOLT; No, no, I’m asking you about that calculation. I’m asking you about that calculation. Is he right, would your policy achieve a cut in the world’s temperature, by the end of the century, by 4,000ths of one degree?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well, Andrew, what we know is that we need to act on climate change, and the best way to do it –

ANDREW BOLT: But is that so hard to answer, Anthony? What’s so hard to answer, about that question? You’re asking Australians to pay all this money, what’s the –

ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, no, Andrew, I’m not asking Australians to pay all this money. What I’m asking for, is for the power of the market to drive through change through the economy, so that we drive down emissions.

ANDREW BOLT: To what effect?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Australians know that 2013 was our hottest year on record.

ANDREW BOLT: I find it amazing -

ANTHONY ALBANESE: You want to talk about scientists –

ANDREW BOLT: I find it amazing that you guys make Australians pay billions, and you can’t even tell us what that – all that paying actually achieves, and you dodge the question repeatedly.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, no, I don’t, Andrew –

ANDREW BOLT: Alright, well, tell me how much difference.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: What we’re seeing is that the rest of the world is acting, and that’s the wrong question, Andrew, because –

ANDREW BOLT: Oh, that’s what you guys always say. That’s what you and Tim Flannery always say.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, no.

ANDREW BOLT: Pay all this money, we don’t know what it’ll achieve, and if you ask what will it achieve, you say, “Wrong question.€ But listen, Labor’s also –

ANTHONY ALBANESE: That’s not right, Andrew, climate change is real, and we need to act on it.

 

[So_Cynical]

Here is the interview with Albo this morning on the carbon tax.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: That’s not right, Andrew, climate change is real, and we need to act on it.

So what don't you understand about this?

--------------

A doctor tax to pump 20 billion into medical research is all good but a carbon tax to pump 20 billion into renewables research and DEVELOPMENT is not.

 

[noco]

So what don't you understand about this?

--------------

A doctor tax to pump 20 billion into medical research is all good but a carbon tax to pump 20 billion into renewables research and DEVELOPMENT is not.

What I do understand is what the Alarmists are preaching about Global Warming is "CRAP".......Yes the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will go on changing and is caused by the Sun spots, the angle of the Earth's axis and the proximity to the Sun. .....Earth's traverse around the Sun is elliptical and not circular hence the reason for climate change .

Are you going to tell that when Brisbane has its coldest day in 103 years it is caused by man made global warming.

And do you still believe the seas are are going to rise by X amount of metres by the end of this century?

Are you going to tell that because the Ant Arctic has had its coldest winter in years and the fact the ice shelf is increasing and not decreasing as the Alarmists try to make out that it is caused by man made Global warming?


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_next_time_a_warmist_hypes_some_hot_weather/

 

[banco]

What I do understand is what the Alarmists are preaching about Global Warming is "CRAP".......Yes the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will go on changing and is caused by the Sun spots, the angle of the Earth's axis and the proximity to the Sun. .....Earth's traverse around the Sun is elliptical and not circular hence the reason for climate change .

LOL here comes Noco the scientist.

 

[sydboy007]

What I do understand is what the Alarmists are preaching about Global Warming is "CRAP".......Yes the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will go on changing and is caused by the Sun spots, the angle of the Earth's axis and the proximity to the Sun. .....Earth's traverse around the Sun is elliptical and not circular hence the reason for climate change .

Are you going to tell that when Brisbane has its coldest day in 103 years it is caused by man made global warming.

And do you still believe the seas are are going to rise by X amount of metres by the end of this century?

Are you going to tell that because the Ant Arctic has had its coldest winter in years and the fact the ice shelf is increasing and not decreasing as the Alarmists try to make out that it is caused by man made Global warming?


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_next_time_a_warmist_hypes_some_hot_weather/

Why do you use weather events to talk about climate change?

The basics from climate change are that extreme weather events will become more regular. Heat waves more often, higher daily maximums & minimums, cold snaps less often. It's pretty much what's been happening around the world.

Climate change is not the world is going to be hotter all the time everywhere.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66 °C (1.19 °F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century””1998””was warmer than 2013.

Most areas of the world experienced above-average annual temperatures, as indicated by the Temperature Percentiles map below. Over land, parts of central Asia, western Ethiopia, eastern Tanzania, and much of southern and western Australia were record warm, as were sections of the Arctic Ocean, a large swath of the southwestern Pacific Ocean along with parts of the central Pacific, and an area of the central Indian Ocean. Only part of the central United States was cooler than average over land. Small regions scattered across the eastern Pacific Ocean and an area in the Southern Ocean south of South America were cooler than average. No region of the globe was record cold during 2013.

The best way to transition our economy to renewables is via a tax and or emissions trading scheme. It worked marvellously to reduce SO2 emissions and pretty much stopped acid rain. It allowed the market to determine the most cost efficient manner to achieve the goal set by the Government.

I would prefer a user pays setup for reducing the carbon intensity of the economy than what the "free market" L+NP has proposed which makes all tax payers pay, but gives no reward to individual tax payers for their efforts. It's like taxing everyone for smoking, but then if you cut back or stop, you still pay.

 

[Craton]

@noco, I totally agree re. Sun spots, our orbit's shape and various cycles of our orbit coupled with our other planetary alignments, scientists are just starting to unravel these interactions. So too, how our geomagnetic field protects our all from being fried from the constant solar wind and solar flares and how it interacts and influences our environment. Tell me, how well is this interaction really understood?

Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66 °C (1.19 °F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.

To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change.

Putting a price sorry, gotta call it what it is, putting a tax on Carbon is just that, another bloody tax and we are all paying for it one way or another. ETS? Plu...ease, do I look that dumb?
ETS is just another marketing ploy to extract tax dollars for govt revenue and the Big Players never ending greed for profit.

If govt's were serious, they would come up with a far better way of tackling this so called issue. However, the real problem is that gov's in 1st world countries are struggling to find enough revenue to fund existing services and cater for the ever aging population so, they come up with these half piped tax revenue streams dreamed up by "economists" and then play the guilt card on the masses. Shame on them!

I do agree that we need to remedy the gross neglect of our Mother Earth, not by targeting specific things like carbon and not by introducing more taxes. This just puts the voter's nose out of joint. Tax incentives, tax credits and other schemes that drive innovation into obtaining real results seems to me the way to go.

Getting the grass roots people, us, on board is crucial in any sweeping reform and it has to be done in a way that is not only equitable but makes sense with tangible results. For us Aussies, with our tiny population, I don't think we feel we can make much of an impact on a global scale per se. Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.

Sure there are costs to these technologies but so too in developing the NW shelf or Olympic Dam or the Snowy Hydro scheme. I seem to remember when the Opera House was being built, one could buy a lottery ticket where some of the monies raised would go to funding construction. We are a nation of gamblers so lets us this power to fund innovation across a broad spectrum of industry and science.

Or as we are now so interconnected thanks to Social Media networks, what about govt sponsored/supported crowd funding projects?

Ha, and gotta laugh at Albanese's attempts at answering Bolt's question re. temp change. Climate Change, what a joke! The climate changes daily, nope, make that second by second. Sheesh.

 

[noco]

LOL here comes Noco the scientist.

Typical Fabian.......when you don't have the answers, attack the man's character....that is in the Fabian's DNA.

In my time we were taught the basics in Science and is something that is neglected today.......Perhaps Banco you should go back to school or do some sensible research on the matter yourself.....you just might learn something useful instead of listening to what the Alarmist keep preaching.

I guess you are one of those types , who, if asked by your Fabian comrades to put your head in the fire, you would......use your brain instead of your big mouth and you might get somewhere. You might also get some respect from other members on the ASF as well.

 

[noco]

Why do you use weather events to talk about climate change?

The basics from climate change are that extreme weather events will become more regular. Heat waves more often, higher daily maximums & minimums, cold snaps less often. It's pretty much what's been happening around the world.

Climate change is not the world is going to be hotter all the time everywhere.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66 °C (1.19 °F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century””1998””was warmer than 2013.

Most areas of the world experienced above-average annual temperatures, as indicated by the Temperature Percentiles map below. Over land, parts of central Asia, western Ethiopia, eastern Tanzania, and much of southern and western Australia were record warm, as were sections of the Arctic Ocean, a large swath of the southwestern Pacific Ocean along with parts of the central Pacific, and an area of the central Indian Ocean. Only part of the central United States was cooler than average over land. Small regions scattered across the eastern Pacific Ocean and an area in the Southern Ocean south of South America were cooler than average. No region of the globe was record cold during 2013.

The best way to transition our economy to renewables is via a tax and or emissions trading scheme. It worked marvellously to reduce SO2 emissions and pretty much stopped acid rain. It allowed the market to determine the most cost efficient manner to achieve the goal set by the Government.

I would prefer a user pays setup for reducing the carbon intensity of the economy than what the "free market" L+NP has proposed which makes all tax payers pay, but gives no reward to individual tax payers for their efforts. It's like taxing everyone for smoking, but then if you cut back or stop, you still pay.

And your point is emphasis on warming of which has been proven there has been no Global warming for 17 + years.

The other point is you talk about more taxes........more costs to the household....I am show that won't win any 'BROWNIES' for the Fabians.

 

[noco]

@noco, I totally agree re. Sun spots, our orbit's shape and various cycles of our orbit coupled with our other planetary alignments, scientists are just starting to unravel these interactions. So too, how our geomagnetic field protects our all from being fried from the constant solar wind and solar flares and how it interacts and influences our environment. Tell me, how well is this interaction really understood?



You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.

To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change.

Putting a price sorry, gotta call it what it is, putting a tax on Carbon is just that, another bloody tax and we are all paying for it one way or another. ETS? Plu...ease, do I look that dumb?
ETS is just another marketing ploy to extract tax dollars for govt revenue and the Big Players never ending greed for profit.

If govt's were serious, they would come up with a far better way of tackling this so called issue. However, the real problem is that gov's in 1st world countries are struggling to find enough revenue to fund existing services and cater for the ever aging population so, they come up with these half piped tax revenue streams dreamed up by "economists" and then play the guilt card on the masses. Shame on them!

I do agree that we need to remedy the gross neglect of our Mother Earth, not by targeting specific things like carbon and not by introducing more taxes. This just puts the voter's nose out of joint. Tax incentives, tax credits and other schemes that drive innovation into obtaining real results seems to me the way to go.

Getting the grass roots people, us, on board is crucial in any sweeping reform and it has to be done in a way that is not only equitable but makes sense with tangible results. For us Aussies, with our tiny population, I don't think we feel we can make much of an impact on a global scale per se. Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.

Sure there are costs to these technologies but so too in developing the NW shelf or Olympic Dam or the Snowy Hydro scheme. I seem to remember when the Opera House was being built, one could buy a lottery ticket where some of the monies raised would go to funding construction. We are a nation of gamblers so lets us this power to fund innovation across a broad spectrum of industry and science.

Or as we are now so interconnected thanks to Social Media networks, what about govt sponsored/supported crowd funding projects?

Ha, and gotta laugh at Albanese's attempts at answering Bolt's question re. temp change. Climate Change, what a joke! The climate changes daily, nope, make that second by second. Sheesh.

Mate, I agree 100%.

Queensland used to fund the hospitals with the Golden Casket and that stupid Beattie ( that Labor media tart) went and sold it for about $599,000.....

 

[sydboy007]

You see, this is what I don't get. Evidence based on a 134 year record when the age of our planet is oh, a little bit longer than that, simply doesn't wash with me.

To my mind, if we had accurate records that were more relevant in time scale to our history, say dating back 10~15,000 yrs, even then that's still just a blip in the scale of all things cosmic, then perhaps I would then say that there is some weight in this so called Climate Change.

Considering industrial society has occured within a particular climate system, are temperature ranges from thousands of years ago that relevant if it means our current way of life is no longer viable?

I do agree that we need to remedy the gross neglect of our Mother Earth, not by targeting specific things like carbon and not by introducing more taxes. This just puts the voter's nose out of joint. Tax incentives, tax credits and other schemes that drive innovation into obtaining real results seems to me the way to go.

The Abbott Government is doing it's best to kill of pretty much all public funding into non fossil fuel based energy production. DA is currently allocating just $1.44B over the forward estimates. Why kill off the CEF when it has been generating quite good multipliers in private investment?

Getting the grass roots people, us, on board is crucial in any sweeping reform and it has to be done in a way that is not only equitable but makes sense with tangible results. For us Aussies, with our tiny population, I don't think we feel we can make much of an impact on a global scale per se. Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.

So you feel it's Ok to lecture the Chinese about how they have to change their way of life, even though they churn out less than 1/3 our per capita CO2 emissions? Australia is near the top of the emissions league table when looked at on a per capita basis. Step back from the climate side of things, and just look at how poorly we are performing competitively when we need so much energy to produce a $ of GDP. Japan and Germany show the way, we should be striving for that if we want to maintain much more than a quarry in this country.

Now, if we invent an exhaust purification system that turns emissions into harmless vapor or invent a system that turns H2O into reusable energy, well then, that is something that will have a real impact and would have us on board ASAP.

Sure there are costs to these technologies but so too in developing the NW shelf or Olympic Dam or the Snowy Hydro scheme. I seem to remember when the Opera House was being built, one could buy a lottery ticket where some of the monies raised would go to funding construction. We are a nation of gamblers so lets us this power to fund innovation across a broad spectrum of industry and science.

Do you have any basic understanding of chemistry and the law of thermodynamics? CO2 is a by-product of energy release, so is H20. Combine 2 or more elements together and you generally release thermal energy, or most people call it burning. Burn hydrogen, you get water, burn coal / oil you get mostly CO2 and some H20 and a few other nasties along with it. The longer the hydrocarbon, the greater the energy produced by CO2. That's why natural gas CH4, is a better fuel that petrol C8H18, because more of the energy released is from the production of H20 than CO2.

You can't burn water. You can use LOTS of energy to break the bonds of H20 and convert it back to the basic elements. As for turning a power station's emissions into harmless vapour, isn't that what most climate change sceptics already argue is occurring with the odourless invisible gas that's just plant food? We took the thermal energy created by producing C02, so to turn it into a harmless vapour requires more energy to either pump it into depleted oil fields or more energy to convert it back to C and O, but then why not just avoid the production of CO2 in the first place?