This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Where in the hell is Australia heading?

Jump to new
I agree this scheme is full of holes. No tax and take a different approach like reducing acceptable pollution limits for the so called big polluters. Give the companies reasonable time to implement changes to meet these targets and impose stiff fines if they don't comply.
 

I am for action but the carbon tax proposal is obviously committee designed, it tries to please everyone but pleases no one. It will be pretty ineffective while causing damage to the economy. It tries to pick winners and will therfore waste money.

Its pretty bad. Abbotts alternative is also pretty bad being based on using our taxes to buy rights off other countries and also trying to pick winners, quite socialist esp. for a Liberal government.

Come on Australian politicians, in the past we have been brave and thoughful and able to create innotative ideas that have led the world, how did we end up like this?

(A camel is a horse designed by a committee.)
 

That would be too sensible, also the problem with that idea is the government doesn't get the money to waste on stupid ideas or to pay off past stupid ideas.
With a tax the government gets the proceeds and decides what it will spend the money on.
Like when the petrol tax went on in the late 70's it was supposedly to suport and encourage oil exploration. That idea was soon dropped and it just became another tax.
Lets not forget not only is the carbon tax going to have the flow on to higher cost of living and increase unemployment, there is also an increase in marginal tax rates.
Fortunately the Australian public has seen through it.
I don't think Bob Brown will be smiling as much after the next election it has been a scary excercise for voters giving the Greens the balance of power.
Small parties and independents will be hammered next election, which only leaves LNP and Labor. The problem will be the LNP will win with such a huge majority it may give them too much confidence and cause the pendalum to swing too far right.
However after the backlash over work choices I think they will tread carefully.
So it is just a matter of patience, the die is already set and there is no way that the government can recover from the debacle of their terms in office.
 
Knobby22 said:
...Come on Australian politicians, in the past we have been brave and thoughful and able to create innotative ideas that have led the world, how did we end up like this?

(A camel is a horse designed by a committee.)
Click to expand...

Agree Knobby, surely Australia can do better than this.

I'm not convinced that co2 is an issue, but respect the fact that others are still concerned. Although, I think John Howard was right yesterday when he said people are moving away from it.

Maybe we should be looking for scientists to give recommendations rather than economists. If people are serious about reducing co2, what on earth do economists know about it?

Government economists would mainly think on the lines of a tax, however, we do have some very clever Aussie scientists that could possibly produce innovations such as improving filters for our power stations. Why do we have to shut the power stations down and risk our electricity to windmills and solar that apparently haven't been overly successful and come at a high cost? Some people depend on power just to survive. What about hospitals? They need reliable power.

I think Australia is too far advanced to go backwards with power supply. It would be better surely if something could be done to prevent our power stations putting out co2 to keep those happy who think it is a problem.

And let the government be more careful with the revenue they have than trying to get more just because they seem to be wasteful spenders.
 
I know this has been posted before but I thought I would find out some more information.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/home-audit-slug-for-green-rating/story-e6frea6u-1226095951403

So I sent the relevant Department an email in regards to this matter.


So the relevant AUDIT department is now claiming they are not the right Govt department at all and guess what ?????????

They did not attach the link as per email.

I have tried just about EVERY friggin governemnt GREEN department and they keep flicking me off to some other shclonkfester. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHHHH !!!
 
Julia said:
No, I would not. It has been thoroughly detailed in various threads on this forum and many other websites. I can't believe you are unaware of this fundamental fact.
Time to do some investigation and reading perhaps.
Click to expand...

I can assure you of this fact I was unaware, i havnt read any of the other threads, you made the statement and i asked the question, that is all.


Julia said:
I can only assume you are being provocative here, rather than simply ignorant in the shift of support for AGW.
Click to expand...

I asked you whose opinion on AGW has changed ? How is that provocative ? Once again ... you stated the "opinion on the science" for AGW has changed ... i ask who you are referring to ?

Julia said:
Thank you Ruby. OK now, Rand? Hopefully next time you'll have a look at a few facts before making a post.
Click to expand...

FACT: AGW is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

FACT : Joanne Nova majored in molecular biology, and has an honours for DNA research for muscular dystrophy. I ask what credible experience does she have in relation to AGW ? Other then an ability to talk about it ? Would you ask a neurologist why your having heart problems ?

FACT: China is planning a carbon scheme ... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/china-plans-carbon-trading-pilot-scheme-20110718-1hl9z.html

FACT: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in
their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions.

FACT: Personally im undecided as to whether the method put forward by Julia Gillard is the right one, my feeling is I think there could be a much better system. But I do believe that we need to TRY to do something about our c02 emmissions and pollution in general. I think we need to TRY to rid ourselves of our dependency upon fossil fuels. If Australia can head in that direction, id be happy.
 
Fwooooar read to page 9 of this thread and then thought........... I have a question.

Does anyone older than 40 remember how good tomatoes used to taste when we were youngsters. Always reckoned woolies and coles were ripping us off with tasteless produce. Tried buying them at the Vic. Market. Same ****!!!!!!. Then I tried to grow them myself.......but not any old bunnings variety, no no no! I got heirlooms online and got them into my garden. watered and nurtured and finally harvested them. First taste teleported my taste buds straight back to my youth in the 70's. Ahh the 70's when the board of works was fining anyone who had a rainwater tank in their backyard "because they were stealing Water". Oddly enough, went to a farmers market in the recent autumn months and lo and behold managed to snag some heirloom tomatoes. again tasting as exquisite as the ones I grew and reminding me of the days when the green grocers used to sell us just such quality produce.
Now I like to think that I'm moderate in my views so here goes nothing.
I believe the Greens will ultimately come to rule Australia within the next 5 terms of Government. Why???? Because the dickheads that currently occupy the seat and the coalition have their heads so far up their behinds that its impossible for them to actually serve ( Thats right folks they are elected by us to SERVE us not tell us what they think is good for us). Why is it when any particularly divisive piece of legislation is proposed, the ruling party fails to put it to the people via a referendum, yet theyre all about fining you the voter if you fail to vote at any election.
We in Victoria are the proud owners of a desalination plant that is about to cost us some 34 billion dollars without drawing a single drop of water from it. At a time when our dams are sitting at approx 60% rising and the fine governments of QLD and NSW both announce 2.4 billion dollar solar farm projects to power upwards of 15000 homes each. The above figures are recalled from various newspaper and online articles that I'm frankly too lazy to source. There are enough fact hunters on these forums, I do actually comend you, that will no doubt set me straight if I'm wrong.
Now .....the greens getting real ruling power is gonna hurt......you think kneeling before a dunny bowl is learning humility????? Wait till bob brown is lubing up a cactus to colonically irrigate you with while you kneel there. You wont be growing any of your own vegetables because that stupid F*&&^%r will convince the population that composting is going to accelerate Global Warming....and furthermore we need to rehabilitate suburbia back to old growth forest.
I want my little girls to have little kids of their own and not walk around with sperm suits (white coveralls with hoods) on and hiding under umbrellas sheilding from the uv's that would burn them to a crisp. I want the glaciers to survive for at least another 50 yrs.....so I might be able to finally afford to visit and marvel at their wonder.
Socialism/ communism is a hugely idealistic world ......if only it truly worked. I would happily live in a modest 3 bedroom home that the community helped build if the prime minister lived in the same conditions... you know a collective where the individual is but a reflection of the whole. But be buggered if I'm gonna eat lips and assholes while those pigs are eating strawberries.
I do everything I can to mitigate my "footprint". I'm genuinely concerned about societies dependance on fossil fuels and scratch my head in bemusement that we, humanity, can put a man on the moon (no conspiracist rebuttals please its semantics) but we cant make solar, wind, hydro more economically sustainable. For those that are interested, look up Bloombox on youtube and observe keenly over the next few decades how successive governments through fossil fuel energy companies intense lobbying, manage to shelve such folly and keep their constituents not only maintaining their high energy consumption bills but in fact raise those costs.
I come to the aussie stock forum to learn about the next big thing in stocks hopefully learn from far smarter investors than myself. I promise if through the forum , no if I generally score a stock of the ilk of FMG, I will buy and dissappear to a hundred hectares by the coast, live out the rest of my days in my solar wind powered humpy, eating strawberries and surfing pr0n on the interweb.
Till then I will tend my suburban vegie patch, work my 50 hours plus a week to service my 500k mortgage and wait for the Victorian government to come knocking, wanting to charge me a levy for having installed rainwater tanks, because our dams are now full and they would prefer I use and pay for "their" water to save reinforcing the dam walls that are bursting under the constituents water wise habits

Stepping off soap box now
 


So not exactly set up to "handle this mess" more set up to honour our commitments under Kyoto and the original CPRS.

Kyoto stipulates that there must be a Govt body to run the GHG reduction show and oversee Kyoto compliance etc.


But of course you already knew that because its been common knowledge for 15 years...since Kyoto.
 

yawn!..... been covered before... suggest you take julia's (not juliars) advice and read some of the posts on these threads to get up to speed
 
*STRETCH* ...... have covered this before *YAWN* DYOR........ *ROLLOVER* ...... game on.

No worries So_Cynical .. will respond once I wake up.
 

I know that everything in essence has impact on what happens on our planet.

Rock – can absorb heat, can disintegrate and as dust can obscure light and Sunrays too
Most living organisms produce CO2 even O2 producing trees at night use oxygen.

Coal, Crude Oil are of finite quantities and longer we make it to last the better for future generations.
Should we be able to replace them with other sources of energy the better.

Problem is that for some stupid reason, we are fixated with growth (it is Ponzy thinking), sooner we replace Growth with “Sustainable Existence” the better.

If our planet can comfortably support 10 or 20 billion of people or whatever, OK we can grow to get there before we have to change our ways if it is only 1, 2 or 5 billion we have to assign specific numbers to every country and get there sooner or later.
 

FACT 1974 the very same scientists were saying we were heading to an Ice Age http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


FACT Did not seem to stop Al Gore from spreading the "science" of it all whilst his carbon trading company made billions.

FACT: China is planning a carbon scheme ... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/china-plans-carbon-trading-pilot-scheme-20110718-1hl9z.html
Click to expand...

FACT: The Chinese are introducing a "pilot scheme" for a few cities only. The report gave no timetable or other specifics on how the system would work.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ngate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

You mean the IPCC that has been discredited as when they claimed that 2,500 "climate scientists" all agreed that the earth was warming and it turned out that it was actually 12 people in total and that one of them was a British "green activist" who occasionally writes as a freelance for The Guardian and The Independent.


FACT: I agree with you on this matter. Australia is using more wind and solar than ever before. We are heading in this direction already. DYOR
 

My apologies So_Cynical for my poor choice of words. I should have been aiming at more of the abundance of the quango departments set up to coordinate this mess rather than have my intentions misread into that I was implying that the departments had been recently setup to handle this salmagundi we are going to find ourselves in once we get a carbon tax thrust upon us (which by according to the polls that 67% of people do not want)

Hope that has cleared it up for you and me both.
 
trainspotter said:
FACT 1974 the very same scientists were saying we were heading to an Ice Age http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Click to expand...

A few scientists (definitely not the same scientists) forecast global cooling based on a slight cooling from the mid 40s to late 60s but most dismissed this view and were still forecasting global warming. I'm old enough to remember the cooling hypothesis being pooh poohed back then.

This argument (they were forecasting another ice age in the '70s) crops up time & time again these days but it was never taken seriously by the majority of climate scientists even back then.
 

That's not how I remember it. There was a real scare about us all freezing out @sses off!
 
According to this article, trading carbon credits is not going to make any difference to co2 in the atmosphere. I have asked Derty to comment on one of the other threads.

This article is discussing "carbon offsets" (aka "carbon credits", "abatements" - as I understand it but still learning). This paragraph is found near the end of the article by Ben Eltham:

"What we do know is that many Australian banks are already gearing up to arbitrage and speculate on carbon markets, including the Macquarie Group. We also know that Australia’s own emissions will actually increase. As economist Frank Jotzo pointed out this week, Australian domestic emissions will rise by 12 per cent to 2020 on 2000 levels, with all of our greenhouse gas "reductions" coming from the purchase of international credits. "​

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/14/black-hole-labors-carbon-tax

I have heard figures of around $3-4 BILLION per annum could be the cost of abatements and yet it appears it does not alter atmospheric co2. If this is so, surely this sort of money should be kept in Australia to research alternative power sources instead of HOPING alternative power will magically appear out of nowhere and be fully reliable, affordable and readily available.

IMO, no power stations should be shut down until alternative energy is proven. But that's not how this government works.

They seem to shoot from the hip, look around to see if there's any damage and, if so, shoot again.
 
wayneL said:
That's not how I remember it. There was a real scare about us all freezing out @sses off!
Click to expand...

Well that's the popular press for you, isn't it? They employ 'science reporters' who know sweet fa about science but can whip up scary headlines that sell newspapers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...