Carbon tax - extra ACT hit

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parroted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

So I’m to assume that when New Scientist published an editorial by Flannery they were lying about its authorship?

But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” – which is transient – and start talking about the new climate. [Emphasis added]

HenryBG said :

There’s nothing worse the unsceptical people believing the rubbish written by uni drop-outs like Andrew Bolt.
Instead of paying attention to it, read the real predictions/observations made by the real scientists in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report

Why would you do that when you can read a thousand word exposé in an objective, apolitical, scientific journal, like the Spectator or the Australian, for example.

Jethro said :

All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

I haven’t seen the denialists quote any such kind of “alarmist statement” yet in this thread, even though we’ve invited them to do so on numerous occasions since they started to claim that such alarmist statements exist.

That aside, I tend to agree with you that people wishing to debate this issue should quote some sound science.
Not how much Tim Flannery gets paid.
Not how hot it was in 1926.
Not what Andrew Bolt thinks.
Not invented “Tim Flannery quotes”.
Not what 1 random 93-year old hippie fruitcake thinks.
Not assertions as to how the laws of physics don’t apply to CO2.

Read the sound science I liked to above, which explained exactly where we were at with increasing CO2, increasing temperature, rising sea levels and so forth and then tell us what you want to debate.

Erg0 said :

Jethro said :

Man made climate change is real. It is a serious threat. But it’s no use making over-the-top claims about it, as it damages the credibility of the arguments. Have a look at any online conversation about climate change (this one included). All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

+1

I can attest that the highly publicised, over-the-top predictions that appear in the media affected my own viewpoint on climate change for quite a while, until I actually took the time to research it for myself. Most people won’t bother, unfortunately.

So, the fake “predictions by Tim Flannery” that were invented by denialists in order to discredit the science have worked on you then?

You need to be more sceptical about the rubbish you hear in the media.

There’s nothing worse the unsceptical people believing the rubbish written by uni drop-outs like Andrew Bolt.
Instead of paying attention to it, read the real predictions/observations made by the real scientists in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report:

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.

Jethro said :

Man made climate change is real. It is a serious threat. But it’s no use making over-the-top claims about it, as it damages the credibility of the arguments. Have a look at any online conversation about climate change (this one included). All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

+1

I can attest that the highly publicised, over-the-top predictions that appear in the media affected my own viewpoint on climate change for quite a while, until I actually took the time to research it for myself. Most people won’t bother, unfortunately.

Diggety said :

A quote from interview with James Lovelock on ACC alarmism going to far:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

….

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”

Now, that was Lovelock’s mea culpa, something that most scientists must do from time to time if they are worth their bread.

Flannery on the other hand, still communicates invalid and overstated projections and scenarios. He is actually damaging the reputation of climate science, when he didn’t even produce any of it. Climate action will suffer with this idiot at the helm of climate science communication.

So Henry, defend Flannery all you like, but don’t try to guard the inaccuracies he espouses. It just makes you look bad.

I’m going to agree with Diggety.

Man made climate change is real. It is a serious threat. But it’s no use making over-the-top claims about it, as it damages the credibility of the arguments. Have a look at any online conversation about climate change (this one included). All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

Diggety said :

Flannery on the other hand, still communicates invalid and overstated projections and scenarios.

So it shouldn’t be too hard to quote him then.

When you’re ready.

SnapperJack said :

Flannery said in 2007 during the drought that we would never have normal rainfall again, that dams would never fill and that what little rain we would get would sizzle into nothing when it hits the parched earth..

Repeating your lies doesn’t turn them into facts. I notice you still can’t seem to find any kind of evidence that these were Flannery’s “exact words”.

welkin31 said :

Re #118 HenryBG – you quoted lots of BoM sites – which all use adjusted data.

So why would the Climate Commission quote a daytime temperature measure (number of days each year over 35C) from our largest city – without allowing for this effect the BoM have discovered in 2010 ?

I don’t know, Welkin, why would they? Did they? and what do you think “adjusted” data means, exactly?

If I summarise you latest argument thusly,

– Cities are getting warmer faster than the countryside, which is also getting warmer.
– Therefore global warming isn’t happening.

Would I be fairly close to the nub of your latest bit of genius, Welkin?

Diggety said :

A quote from interview with James Lovelock on ACC alarmism going to far:
.

Here’s a challenge for you, Diggety:

Will you get your climate science from
– a 93-year-old who believes the Earth is a conscious living being and who has published very little climate research in his life, none of it recently
– the 1,000s of scientists who are currently active in this field and who all agree that CO2 is increasing, causing heating, and causing sea levels to rise?

Your time starts now, tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic

A quote from interview with James Lovelock on ACC alarmism going to far:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

….

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”

Now, that was Lovelock’s mea culpa, something that most scientists must do from time to time if they are worth their bread.

Flannery on the other hand, still communicates invalid and overstated projections and scenarios. He is actually damaging the reputation of climate science, when he didn’t even produce any of it. Climate action will suffer with this idiot at the helm of climate science communication.

So Henry, defend Flannery all you like, but don’t try to guard the inaccuracies he espouses. It just makes you look bad.

davo101 said :

dungfungus said :

How does one “eat” tofu?

There are plenty of ways. My preference is fried with a crispy outside.

This could be sold as MacTofu perhaps? Couldn’t taste any worse than a big mac.

Re #118 HenryBG – you quoted lots of BoM sites – which all use adjusted data.
But read this BoM media release – Hot Cities –
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20101013.shtml
I quote –
[Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.

Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, said “we’ve known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat’s retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too.”

“But what we didn’t know was whether city day time temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

“We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer,” Ms Campbell said.]

So why would the Climate Commission quote a daytime temperature measure (number of days each year over 35C) from our largest city – without allowing for this effect the BoM have discovered in 2010 ?

dungfungus said :

How does one “eat” tofu?

There are plenty of ways. My preference is fried with a crispy outside.

chewy14 said :

I once heard Tim Flannery say that Australia was going to be engulfed by record floods and bushfires at the same time if we didn’t commit to living in caves and eating tofu burgers.

True story.

How does one “eat” tofu?

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

Ah, yes, the “science” of anti-science: “I saw a thing about it once on TV. Definitely.”

I would have thought that having been caught out peddling your lies about Dr Flannery you would be laying low somewhere. But no, just like a dog that can’t stop returning to its own vomit, you just have to keep coming back with yet more tinfoil-hatted cranky pensioner bull.

Hey HenryBG, you really have to learn to debate without all the invective and bile or fewer people will take you seriously. For the record, I never have.

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

Ah, yes, the “science” of anti-science: “I saw a thing about it once on TV. Definitely.”

I would have thought that having been caught out peddling your lies about Dr Flannery you would be laying low somewhere. But no, just like a dog that can’t stop returning to its own vomit, you just have to keep coming back with yet more tinfoil-hatted cranky pensioner bull.

Henry, are you really as unbalanced and delusional as that or has someone hacked into your account? I sincrely hope the latter. Flannery said in 2007 during the drought that we would never have normal rainfall again, that dams would never fill and that what little rain we would get would sizzle into nothing when it hits the parched earth. The clip has been replayed several times on TV and the soundtrack has been replayed many times on commercial radio. Those are the facts. End of story.

Henry’s rantings are becoming increasingly disturbing and it demonstrates how climate change propaganda is poisoning people’s minds and making them almost zombie-like, snarling and hitting out at those who try and enlighten them with the facts.

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

The only transcript that I can find is this:

Landline, 2007

SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

Doesn’t exactly scream ‘we would never have rain again’…

Of course, if there’s a different source with Flannery’s ‘exact words’, link it here and that should pretty much silence debate.

I once heard Tim Flannery say that Australia was going to be engulfed by record floods and bushfires at the same time if we didn’t commit to living in caves and eating tofu burgers.

True story.

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

Ah, yes, the “science” of anti-science: “I saw a thing about it once on TV. Definitely.”

I would have thought that having been caught out peddling your lies about Dr Flannery you would be laying low somewhere. But no, just like a dog that can’t stop returning to its own vomit, you just have to keep coming back with yet more tinfoil-hatted cranky pensioner bull.

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

I missed it too. Were these the same comments that led to this apology from the Australian?

“The Australian” apologises to
Professor Flannery.

On August 6, 2011, the Weekend Australian published an article concerning Climate Change Commmissioner Professor Tim Flannery and referring to an observation from an ozpolitic.com forum. The article suggested Professor Flannery’s public comments on climate change frightened elderly owners to sell coastal properties to climate change proponents.

The Weekend Australian accepts that Professor Flannery’s comments were never intended this way. The Weekend Australian apologises to Professor Flannery and his family for any hurt and embarassment the article may have caused.

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

No, it was also on the ABC. I remember clearly as I knew at the time that the statement didn’t represent the results we were getting from the modelling. Several organisations put out press releases at the time pointing out that this prediction wasn’t supported by the evidence. I think Sydney Water had calculations that showed there was a 80% chance that Warragamba would spill within 5 years. Interestingly the media chose to run with the dire prediction instead.

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

welkin31 said :

I suppose readers are aware of the Climate Commission recent publicity – “Heatwaves, bushfires predicted to hammer NSW”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hammer-nsw/4009006
but do you know how easy it was for rational scientists to examine Sydney temperature data and show that Chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery was cherry picking the recent decades – since 1970 – to get his doomster conclusions.
When you examine all Sydney Observatory data you see that 1926 holds the record for the most days over 35C as shown in the graphic at the Jennifer Marohasy site.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
What are the Climate Commissioners paid to turn out such misleading twaddle ?

This is some of your best work. You critique some work as ‘cherry-picking’ by only covering recent decades and your evidence is a cherry-pick of a single year. More of this please.

welkin31 said :

I
When you examine all Sydney Observatory data you see that 1926 holds the record for the most days over 35C as shown in the graphic at the Jennifer Marohasy site.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
What are the Climate Commissioners paid to turn out such misleading twaddle ?

The misleading twaddle is yours.

You’ve found one record in one place which was set in 1926 and saying, “Look, this record set in 1926 hasn’t been broken yet – therefore there’s no such thing as global warming”.

I’m not sure whether *you*’re stupid, or whether you expect the audience for your twaddle might be.

Either way, stop getting your information from kook-sites on the internet.
Try the Bureau of Met – they collect data from *lots* of sites, then they analyse it *professionally* and present *factual* conclusions, eg:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi

As you can see from this graph, the globe is warming.

quote comment=”406390″]
Henry is accurate when he says co2 levels have risen but it is having no effect whatsoever on the climate.

Another idiot who thinks the laws of physics don’t apply when you get your information from Andrew Bolt.

Here are some more relevant graphs from some people who don’t babble crap on talkback radio, but study data and analyse it professionally:
Warm spell duration:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=WSDI&ave_yr=0
Hot nights:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HN20&ave_yr=0
Cool nights:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=TN10&ave_yr=0
Frost nights:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=CN00&ave_yr=0

As you can see, these graphs all tell a story, and that story doesn’t involve ignoring data before 1997 to draw stupid and amateurish conclusions.

I suppose readers are aware of the Climate Commission recent publicity – “Heatwaves, bushfires predicted to hammer NSW”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hammer-nsw/4009006
but do you know how easy it was for rational scientists to examine Sydney temperature data and show that Chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery was cherry picking the recent decades – since 1970 – to get his doomster conclusions.
When you examine all Sydney Observatory data you see that 1926 holds the record for the most days over 35C as shown in the graphic at the Jennifer Marohasy site.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
What are the Climate Commissioners paid to turn out such misleading twaddle ?

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

I see some people have taken Rupert Murdoch’s word as gospel, or have used his approach to get their point across.

How instead of following sheeplike in the footsteps of the ignorant, reactionary radio shock-jocks by trying to slime the scientists, you deal with the actual facts that are on the table.

ie, the very real facts that we’re still releasing a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, oceans are rising, and the heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA are warning of some very dire consequences if we continue allowing anti-science morons to hijack public policy debate in this area. Fancy dealing with these facts instead of just indulging in (unreferenced and fact-free) character assasinations?

Ah, more irrational and hysterical invective from a climate change true believer. I was disappointed with Henry’s last post when – in his spray – he left out the favourite whipping boy those horrid, bushwacking shock jocks but there they are this time along with the old whipping boy Rupert Murdoch.

Henry is accurate when he says co2 levels have risen but it is having no effect whatsoever on the climate. A brief period of global warming ended in 1997 and since then the temperature has actually fallen. Glaciers and ice caps are not melting, ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are tracking as normal and polar bear numbers have increased in recent years. Sea levels are not rising. And who are these “heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA” giving warnings? More fantasy. More fabrication. A bit like those non-existent “death threats” made to climate scientists at the ANU.

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? He is now regarded as a pathetic comic figure – a latter-day Chicken Little warning that the sky is falling and the public are laughing behind his back and continuing with their lives as normal. He has cried wolf too often and the climate change believers are their own worst enemy upping the ante with their doomsday scenarios. It is a silly “Look at me! Look at me!” attention-grabbing exercise.

The public are growing increasingly tired of being taken as fools by the climate change brigade and their desperate clinging to a now discredited and obsolete approach to the world’s climate. It is not only pathetic and demeaning, it is embarrassing.

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

How instead of following sheeplike in the footsteps of the ignorant, reactionary radio shock-jocks by trying to slime the scientists, you deal with the actual facts that are on the table.

ie, the very real facts that we’re still releasing a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, oceans are rising, and the heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA are warning of some very dire consequences if we continue allowing anti-science morons to hijack public policy debate in this area. Fancy dealing with these facts instead of just indulging in (unreferenced and fact-free) character assasinations?

Ah, I see you haven’t read Tim Flannery’s book entitled The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change

Read that, then read the best available current science and compare.

Sometimes I think he is intentionally trying to make a dick of ACC, rather than advocate action. He just gives deniers a platform to deny. Then on the other unscientific hand, he gives Henry’s a platform to be Henry’s.

Stick with the science old man. It’s our best bet.

P.S. If you’d like to guide the CT back on topic, I’m all keyboard.

Diggety said :

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

I see some people have taken Rupert Murdoch’s word as gospel, or have used his approach to get their point across.

How instead of following sheeplike in the footsteps of the ignorant, reactionary radio shock-jocks by trying to slime the scientists, you deal with the actual facts that are on the table.

ie, the very real facts that we’re still releasing a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, oceans are rising, and the heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA are warning of some very dire consequences if we continue allowing anti-science morons to hijack public policy debate in this area. Fancy dealing with these facts instead of just indulging in (unreferenced and fact-free) character assasinations?

Just going through the comments, I see some have taken Tim Flannery’s word as gospel, or have used his appraoch to get a certain point across.

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

But it’s a bit of a catch 22, let him go and it’s a political defeat, keep him on and deal with the liability.

I think people find it hard to accept that our utilisation of resources to support our way of life can influence Earths’ temperature- I don’t blame them. But if using a figure proposing extreme scenarios based on “what if” models of 25 years ago where ACC was in it’s infancy is counter intuitive and counter productive.

P.S. The carbon tax is pretty sh*t policy for wide variety of reasons, IMO. The following ETS on the other hand could be pretty good with some improvements.

gazket said :

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Are you sure? How exactly do you tell the difference between the troller and trollee?

gazket said :

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

To right! Exactly the same as those laws of thermodynamics–just a big hoax perpetrated by the energy companies to make me buy more of their products.

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

Simple, don’t live near the edges.
Are you by any chance HenryBG’s brother-in-law?

I’m not married. I refuse to get married because of the whole gay marriage thing. I don’t want to get married only to discover that the bloody lefty gummint is gonna force me to be a gay because I’m married. I didn’t fight in all those world wars for my country only for the gummint to turn around and tell me I have to be a gay.

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

Simple, don’t live near the edges.
Are you by any chance HenryBG’s brother-in-law?

I’m not married. I refuse to get married because of the whole gay marriage thing. I don’t want to get married only to discover that the bloody lefty gummint is gonna force me to be a gay because I’m married. I didn’t fight in all those world wars for my country only for the gummint to turn around and tell me I have to be a gay.

lolol

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

Simple, don’t live near the edges.
Are you by any chance HenryBG’s brother-in-law?

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

gazket said :

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

Earth = flat

BWAAAAA HA HAH AHAHA HA

Because henrybg is such a god aweful troll, people are not takeing him seriosly, think the boy who cried wolf but on teh interwebs.

To anyone not taking him seriously in this thread, then i guess that = you are either trolling yourselves or incredibly ignorant/in denial or brainwashed. Global warming is real as proven by scientists. Alan jones, news papers and religious fools are not scientists.

Here you go, 2604:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20120104.shtml

These are the facts. Improve your understanding and avoid embarrassment by reading them instead of secondary sources.

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

Translation: “Why aren’t you gullible enough to change your opinion based upon a single, five-year period of exceptionally hot weather,

The irony of somebody who uses a carefully selected half a sentence from an IPCC document to buttress their opinion then complaining about conclusions being drawn from limited amounts of data is quite delicious.

2604 said :

So tell me, what did human beings do between 2000-2005 or the immediately preceding years that they hadn’t been doing since at least the early 1950s? And why was the increase so sudden? Were 600% more cars on the road all of a sudden?

Who says it’s “sudden”?
Could it possibly look “sudden” to you, because you are – again – trying to draw conclusions based on looking at a single data point?

What I’m taking away from what you’ve written is the you have decided to make it a matter of faith to believe that
– human activity doesn’t cause CO2 to increase
– increased CO2 doesn’t warm the planet
– the planet isn’t warming
– the warming of the planet isn’t accelerating

These beliefs of yours fly in the face of physics and observation and put you pretty much on-par with a flat-earther.

gazket said :

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

Interesting new trolling technique of HenryBG’s – where did he get the idea that “chewy” and “I-filed” are one and the same? Is he sick of responding individually, and has decided to gradually lump everyone together? He’s just adding to my perception that someone with this much time to troll RiotAct is NOT a high income earner.

HenryBG said :

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

Translation: “Why aren’t you gullible enough to change your opinion based upon a single, five-year period of exceptionally hot weather, and to believe that this constitutes an “accelerating trend” that will result in average global temperatures increasing by an average of 0.25 degrees Celsius per year over the next quarter century despite those temperatures having only increased at average rates of between 0.006 and 0.035 degrees per year over the past 100 years?”

HenryBG said :

2. Your idea that “humans start doing” something in 2000-2005 would be reflected in data from the period 2000-2005 seems fairly unrealistic.

But given the link between human activity and global warming, which is obviously a sacrosanct concept, this sudden increase (like global warming generally) must have been caused by human activity. So tell me, what did human beings do between 2000-2005 or the immediately preceding years that they hadn’t been doing since at least the early 1950s? And why was the increase so sudden? Were 600% more cars on the road all of a sudden?

HenryBG said :

3. You seem to think that a long-term increase of 0.006 degrees per year is “laughable” – is that a scientific measurement?

Laughable: not a scientific measurement. 0.006 degrees per year (one degree every ~166 years): definitely a scientific measurement.

HenryBG said :

4. You seem to fail to be able to contrast 0.006/year with 0.035/year, figure out this is a 600% increase, and correctly appreciate the significance of this and the scale of the acceleration of the warming trend.

Oh I can see the increase. I just don’t agree that a single five-year period constitutes a trend. It certainly isn’t a sound basis for concluding that a permanent and life-threatening warming trend is underway.

HenryBG said :

5. You haven’t deferred to any expert opinions to help you understand the data.

The data seem pretty straightforward to me. What expert opinions have you drawn upon?

HenryBG said :

All in all, the selective quoting makes me doubt your integrity, while the rest of it makes me doubt your ability to learn from your mistakes and your capacity to ever use sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis.

Speaking of using sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis – remind me again which tax cuts will be available for people earning $80,000-plus as compensation for the carbon tax, given your analysis that the on-costs of the carbon tax would be “offset by lower taxes on all of us”?

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

chewy14 said :

Actually if you could read what I wrote I said “I don’t think anyone seriously posited that”. Apologies if some people did, you can take that issue up with them.

Oh, I will! It would just be nice if the people who aren’t loons would stop encouraging the people who are loons. They don’t really help your argument much, for starters, let alone contribute to adult discussion.

I’d like to potentially apologise in return to you for getting it wrong about Tim Flannery’s salary – according to this:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F5957d555-d5af-406a-9d73-21b790a8d86d%2F0004%22
he has been put on the equivalent to an SES Band3, pro rata’d down to 3 days per week.

As I understand it, SES3 should cover 230-280K. Pro rata’ing that down gives a max of 168K. So it doesn’t seem to add up either way you look at it. I suspect the “he’s SES band 3” is more likely to be wrong than the “he’s on $180k/year”. Normally, it’s a safe bet that whatever you read in The Australian is wrong, but perhaps this is one of those rare occasions where they got it right.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I can take it round the long way. Is Mr Flannery still being paid, what, $180,000 for an average of two days work a week? Is that still the case?

Mr Comley : On the question of the remuneration of Professor Flannery, nothing has changed from the previous evidence we have provided, which is that Professor Flannery is paid equivalent to a deputy secretary position on a pro rata basis, which is expected to be around three days per week.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: What does that mean in actual figures? What does a deputy secretary get?

Mr Comley : There is a range, but in terms of the figure you have quoted, that number of around $180,000 a year is correct.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That has changed, though, since we last spoke about it?

Mr Comley : No. I am saying there has been no change in the remuneration arrangements of Professor Flannery since we last discussed this at estimates.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That equates to three-fifths of a relevant deputy secretary’s salary.

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

I am not entirely convinced your “belief” is particularly well-informed, when all you have to do is read one more line of that document:

The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)

Now, think about it: you have two 100-year-long linear trends. By adding a mere 5 years’ data to obtain the second one, you have increased the slope of the trend by 25%.

That’s because the temperature increase was so laughably minimal between 1900-2000 – 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, on average. The increase between 2000-2005 only works out at around 0.035 degrees Celsius per year – hardly something to write home about.

Incidentally, if it was such a big increase, what did humans start doing between 2000-2005 to precipitate such catastrophic global warming that they hadn’t been doing between 1900-2000?

There are 5 problems with your response.

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

2. Your idea that “humans start doing” something in 2000-2005 would be reflected in data from the period 2000-2005 seems fairly unrealistic.

3. You seem to think that a long-term increase of 0.006 degrees per year is “laughable” – is that a scientific measurement?

4. You seem to fail to be able to contrast 0.006/year with 0.035/year, figure out this is a 600% increase, and correctly appreciate the significance of this and the scale of the acceleration of the warming trend.

5. You haven’t deferred to any expert opinions to help you understand the data.

All in all, the selective quoting makes me doubt your integrity, while the rest of it makes me doubt your ability to learn from your mistakes and your capacity to ever use sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis.

HenryBG said :

I am not entirely convinced your “belief” is particularly well-informed, when all you have to do is read one more line of that document:

The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)

Now, think about it: you have two 100-year-long linear trends. By adding a mere 5 years’ data to obtain the second one, you have increased the slope of the trend by 25%.

That’s because the temperature increase was so laughably minimal between 1900-2000 – 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, on average. The increase between 2000-2005 only works out at around 0.035 degrees Celsius per year – hardly something to write home about.

Incidentally, if it was such a big increase, what did humans start doing between 2000-2005 to precipitate such catastrophic global warming that they hadn’t been doing between 1900-2000?

HenryBG said :

Chewy is wrong, again:

grump said :

…….. while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

See, there are loons posting here who state exactly what you say nobody has stated.

The fact that those loons approve of the thoughts *you* are sharing with us speaks for itself, too….

Actually if you could read what I wrote I said “I don’t think anyone seriously posited that”. Apologies if some people did, you can take that issue up with them.

And you’re making a serious logical fallacy by suggesting that my arguments are wrong because some people who agree with them have posted other incorrect material.

Anyway, you’re obviously not going to accept that there is legitimate debate here, so have fun beating up on the climate sceptics. I’m sure you’ll enjoy yourself.

Chewy is wrong, again:

grump said :

…….. while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

See, there are loons posting here who state exactly what you say nobody has stated.

The fact that those loons approve of the thoughts *you* are sharing with us speaks for itself, too….

Chewy exposes his wrongness, again:

I-filed said :

Allow me to correct you. Flannery is paid $180,000 for three days a week, 40 weeks a year. More like $200 an hour, actually.

I’m tempted to ask, “Is that true, or did you read it in the Australian?”. but that would be cheating, because I already know that it is what was reported in the Australian and I already know that it is also untrue.

Flannery is paid $180k *pro rata*. Obviously the concept of *pro rata* is beyond your average mathematically-challenged denialist, but perhaps if you put just a little effort in, you might end up better informed than The Australian was planning on you being.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax.

No they haven’t.

There have only been four general classes of objections to the carbon tax here in this thread.

1/ Big Bad tax will cripple the economy and send us back to the stoneage

2/ Climate change isn’t happening/isn’t caused by CO2/can’t be stopped/etc…

3/ Australia doing its share of the effort won’t fix the entirety of the problem so why bother at all

4/ Why should we do something if somebody somewhere else doesn’t do it first

None of these are valid arguments. They are all one or more of factually-challenged, logically invalid, and/or ethically corrupt, if not downright childish.

Henry,
now you’re just changing other people’s arguments to suit your own.

1. No of course the carbon tax won’t send us back to the stone age. I don’t think anyone seriously posited that it would.
I did see a few people say that even if we decarbonised our economy back to the stone age that it wouldn’t make a difference to climate change. This is completley correct.

2. Not a serious argument. All current evidence shows that climate change is happening and is caused by man made emissions.

3. The argument is that why should we handicap our economy if it won’t make any difference to climate change which is one of the stated aims of the carbon tax?
If people want to make the argument that the carbon tax is good for the country because it will encourage growth in new technologies and reduce reliance on fossil fuels then they should make that argument.
But any argument that the carbon tax will make a difference to climate change is wrong. It’s complete symbolism.

4. The argument relates to 3. Why should we do anything when the world’s biggest emitters China, USA and India are increasing their emissions greater than our total amount yearly? Without a global agreement our efforts are futile.
There may be some symbolic and diplomatic value in being able to pressure other countries to change their behaviours because we’ve already enacted change but I personally think that value would be minimal.

+1

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax.

No they haven’t.

There have only been four general classes of objections to the carbon tax here in this thread.

1/ Big Bad tax will cripple the economy and send us back to the stoneage

2/ Climate change isn’t happening/isn’t caused by CO2/can’t be stopped/etc…

3/ Australia doing its share of the effort won’t fix the entirety of the problem so why bother at all

4/ Why should we do something if somebody somewhere else doesn’t do it first

None of these are valid arguments. They are all one or more of factually-challenged, logically invalid, and/or ethically corrupt, if not downright childish.

Henry,
now you’re just changing other people’s arguments to suit your own.

1. No of course the carbon tax won’t send us back to the stone age. I don’t think anyone seriously posited that it would.
I did see a few people say that even if we decarbonised our economy back to the stone age that it wouldn’t make a difference to climate change. This is completley correct.

2. Not a serious argument. All current evidence shows that climate change is happening and is caused by man made emissions.

3. The argument is that why should we handicap our economy if it won’t make any difference to climate change which is one of the stated aims of the carbon tax?
If people want to make the argument that the carbon tax is good for the country because it will encourage growth in new technologies and reduce reliance on fossil fuels then they should make that argument.
But any argument that the carbon tax will make a difference to climate change is wrong. It’s complete symbolism.

4. The argument relates to 3. Why should we do anything when the world’s biggest emitters China, USA and India are increasing their emissions greater than our total amount yearly? Without a global agreement our efforts are futile.
There may be some symbolic and diplomatic value in being able to pressure other countries to change their behaviours because we’ve already enacted change but I personally think that value would be minimal.

chewy14 said :

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax.

No they haven’t.

There have only been four general classes of objections to the carbon tax here in this thread.

1/ Big Bad tax will cripple the economy and send us back to the stoneage

2/ Climate change isn’t happening/isn’t caused by CO2/can’t be stopped/etc…

3/ Australia doing its share of the effort won’t fix the entirety of the problem so why bother at all

4/ Why should we do something if somebody somewhere else doesn’t do it first

None of these are valid arguments. They are all one or more of factually-challenged, logically invalid, and/or ethically corrupt, if not downright childish.

2604 said :

I am not sure how realistic the six degree figure is given that the total (not annual) increase between 1906-2005 was only 0.74 degrees Celsius. It beggars belief that the global temperature will increase by almost 8 times this amount in only 23 years.

It would be pretty pathetic if the chief economist of the International Energy Agency were making statements based on nothing more than reading a single line in the introduction to an IPCC report.

Or do you think that whatever expert professional advice the IEA has taken can be disbelieved by simply reading a single line in the introduction to an IPCC report?

I am not entirely convinced your “belief” is particularly well-informed, when all you have to do is read one more line of that document:

The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)

Now, think about it: you have two 100-year-long linear trends. By adding a mere 5 years’ data to obtain the second one, you have increased the slope of the trend by 25%.

What does that say to you? Yes? “The trend is accelerating”, maybe? Well done!

I have no idea whether 6 degrees in the mentioned period is realistic, and it would be a complete fool who would decide to arrive at a conclusion based on such a very thin selection of data but as I am not an expert professional working in this area, it stands to reason that the expert professionals working in this area are *vastly* more likely to be correct than any belief you or I may have about it.

And I would trust the Chief Economist of the IEA is being professional about this.

If there is *any* risk of 6-degree warming, then this would be a global emergency. But the denial machine creaks on……

pajs said :

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

I am not sure how realistic the six degree figure is given that the total (not annual) increase between 1906-2005 was only 0.74 degrees Celsius. It beggars belief that the global temperature will increase by almost 8 times this amount in only 23 years.

HenryBG said :

Roundhead89 said :

Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch.

And there you have it: “Sea levels are not rising”.

I told you these sorts of discussions are always derailed by nutters who can’t even accept the most basic facts in our current reality.

The more subtle of them leave the anti-facts at home and try other arguments, like, “BIG BAD TAX”, “Back to the stoneage!!” but underneath they’re all on the same anti-science crusade as the numpty I’ve quoted.

Of course if Thumper wishes to not grapple with the issue of anti-science lunatics telling lies, he can continue with his tone-trolling. It’s an admission of sorts.

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax. Just because some people who also disagree with the carbon tax post crazy ideas, doesn’t mean that all people against the carbon tax believe those things.
Someone so fond of science and evidence shouldn’t make that mistake. It’s as bad as people claiming that all those who support the carbon tax are tree hugging hippies who worship mother Gaia.

carbon tax . The only sure thing it will do is see Australians loose jobs, put Labour on the endangered list and The watermelon greens die a miserable death.

HenryBG said :

I-filed said :

HBG, you keep boasting about your supposed high pay -….

I’m sorry for lobbing that one over your head, let me be more explicit for you: I wasn’t “boasting” about anything, I was drawing attention to the fact that Dr Flannery is not being paid much all.

$180,000pa is $86.50/hour.

Find me just *one* other consultant in Canberra who works for that little.

Allow me to correct you. Flannery is paid $180,000 for three days a week, 40 weeks a year. More like $200 an hour, actually.

Roundhead89 said :

Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch.

And there you have it: “Sea levels are not rising”.

I told you these sorts of discussions are always derailed by nutters who can’t even accept the most basic facts in our current reality.

The more subtle of them leave the anti-facts at home and try other arguments, like, “BIG BAD TAX”, “Back to the stoneage!!” but underneath they’re all on the same anti-science crusade as the numpty I’ve quoted.

Of course if Thumper wishes to not grapple with the issue of anti-science lunatics telling lies, he can continue with his tone-trolling. It’s an admission of sorts.

A few here have commented international co-operation to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions has failed, a few have commented Australia’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions are pointless, and a few have commented larger countries are doing little to reduce their GHG emissions.

The meeting in Copenhagen in 2009 was partially successful and international co-operation is continuing post Kyoto, Australia’s reductions will make a difference, and many large countries are also aiming to reduce their GHG emissions (China, USA, most of Europe, Japan, Russia).

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

More needs to be done to reduce GHG emissions, by Australia and other countries, and Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme may not be perfect, but finally we are starting to take action.

pajs said :

It’s not a matter of climate change ‘belief’. It’s science. Keep the ‘belief’ language for threads about religion.
/[/quote>

+ however many scientists there are in the world.

Roundhead89 said :

HenryBG said :

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

Ah yes, the usual MO of climate change believers. Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch. Please, this sort of thing lost its impact long ago and you – and the last remaining remnants of the climate change brigade – are now just p*ssing in the wind.

It’s not a matter of climate change ‘belief’. It’s science. Keep the ‘belief’ language for threads about religion.

As for your claim that it has been proven that sea levels aren’t rising, I wonder where you get this idea from? If you can find a peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows the trend data on sea level isn’t showing a rise, I’d appreciate hearing about it. Or maybe just have a look at the 20 year trend in the sea level data here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

HenryBG said :

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

Ah yes, the usual MO of climate change believers. Use a scare tactic (rising sea levels when it has been proven that sea levels are not rising), abuse climate change realists (“nutcases”, “inane”, “cranks”) and bash Rupert Murdoch. Please, this sort of thing lost its impact long ago and you – and the last remaining remnants of the climate change brigade – are now just p*ssing in the wind.

And I can’t recall where I mentioned the stone age, or indeed made any comment regarding a carbon tax, positive or negative, on this thread.

But thanks for amply illustrating my point.

If people want to emit crazy-arsed nonsense, I will call them on it and I don’t think anybody should ever have to apologise for outing liars.

If people seriously wanted to discuss these issues, we wouldn’t even get past square one, because some of these nutcases won’t even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that sea levels are in the process of rising, which is why these threads end up in a never-ending circle of those with commonsense having the serially re-refute the same old inane talking points provided to the cranks by Rupert Murdoch’s dishonest and politically-motivated media empire.

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

The problem is that naturally the earth takes in and puts out carbon, breths in and out, if the earth naturally breaths in and out the same amount. then the 97% in irrelivent.

But if it doesn’t then your sum is even more scary.

humans make 3%
Aussies make 1.4% or 3%
=
0.042%
we will cut our emission by 5%
total cut to global emissions by Australia’s carbon Tax
=0.0021%

not much really given China and India are increaseing by more than Australia’s total each year

grump said :

therein lies the crux of the argument – unless the big guys implement something we’re cutting off our nose etc – show that it will make a difference and you might get people to believe why we need it and how it will work – if what we do makes no difference to the overall situation in the absence of global change, then why change???? While some bask in self satisfied smugness while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

So, Australia should not do anything at all about anything unless it has a significant effect on the whole world?

HenryBG said :

grump said :

….while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age ….

So a 0.7% increase to CPI is going to make us “descend in to thew next stone age”?

Thumper and Dungfungus and Welkin: your criticisms would flirt with credibility if you weren’t such blatant hypocrites as to ignore this breathless nonsense being emitted by the tinfoil-hatted global-warming denier brigade.

“Back to the stoneage”????

That is batshit-crazy insane, and if you three can’t see it, it’s because you’re in the same club as the other loon.

I believe when they mentioned the stone age, they were referring to the fact that if we literally went back to the stone age hypothetically and renounced all fuels and manufacturing etc completely, it would still make no difference in the scheme of things in terms of carbon emissions.

I think you interpretted it to mean that the carbon tax would put us back into the stone age literally.

grump said :

….while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age ….

So a 0.7% increase to CPI is going to make us “descend in to thew next stone age”?

Thumper and Dungfungus and Welkin: your criticisms would flirt with credibility if you weren’t such blatant hypocrites as to ignore this breathless nonsense being emitted by the tinfoil-hatted global-warming denier brigade.

“Back to the stoneage”????

That is batshit-crazy insane, and if you three can’t see it, it’s because you’re in the same club as the other loon.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG,
so the benefits of the Carbon tax bribes don’t actually apply to you even though you said they did?

Of course they apply to me. I am affected by the economy, and a well-designed system will have positive effects on me. If all the poor people have an extra $10/week, then the carbon tax will boost the economy, as it did when they introduced one in British Columbia.

grump said :

pajs – if that is the case – don’t link the tax to a being a global white knight in the fight against high carbon levels – that’s a blatant misrepresentation in my view, and many others I suspect – just call it an environmental tax and direct it to appropriate areas or none at all – selling it as a global panacea to climate change, when as most would agree I suspect, our efforts will achieve a big fat global zero, is total rot!

Who has sold the climate change as being a global panacea to climate change?

I don’t remember anybody ever doing that, ever.

pajs – if that is the case – don’t link the tax to a being a global white knight in the fight against high carbon levels – that’s a blatant misrepresentation in my view, and many others I suspect – just call it an environmental tax and direct it to appropriate areas or none at all – selling it as a global panacea to climate change, when as most would agree I suspect, our efforts will achieve a big fat global zero, is total rot!

grump said :

as Welkin says “Australia could decarbonise back to the stone age – would not be noticed in global emission totals.”

therein lies the crux of the argument – unless the big guys implement something we’re cutting off our nose etc – show that it will make a difference and you might get people to believe why we need it and how it will work – if what we do makes no difference to the overall situation in the absence of global change, then why change???? While some bask in self satisfied smugness while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

Our standard of living (not to mention quality of life) won’t go backward because of a price on carbon. What will happen is a slightly lower rate of increase in GDP than would otherwise be the case if we persisted in dumping emissions into the atmosphere with no attempt to price that externality. Nothing to get too hung up on. We’ll still be a rich country, living it easy.

And with a price in place, Australia is in a better situation to lobby and advocate for responsible action with and by large emitters. I’d much rather start now, slowly and smoothly, with carbon pricing in Australia than get to a crunch point in ten or twenty years time and have to start major change.

as Welkin says “Australia could decarbonise back to the stone age – would not be noticed in global emission totals.”

therein lies the crux of the argument – unless the big guys implement something we’re cutting off our nose etc – show that it will make a difference and you might get people to believe why we need it and how it will work – if what we do makes no difference to the overall situation in the absence of global change, then why change???? While some bask in self satisfied smugness while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

First – top marks to #60 Thumper
I am reminded of the old expression “A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down”
On to emissions facts.
#64 pajs has mentioned South Korea – “…has just passed (in a bi-partisan vote) legislation for their emissions trading scheme. Things are rolling along on this with our trading partners and we need to be on board.”
Rather than speculate about what South Korea will ever do about an ETS – I am more impressed with their actual carbon dioxide emissions compared to Australia.
Here are numbers for 2008-2009-2010 (from the CDIAC spreadsheet linked below)
in million metric tonnes carbon dioxide. They tally numbers from coal, oil, gas, cement and gas flaring – do not include figures re landuse changes.
Note that just the South Korean increase 2008-2010 is way larger than our decrease.
Australia, 2008 – 399, 2009 – 401, 2010 – 365
South Korea , 2008 – 509, 2009 – 515, 2010 – 563
China, 2008 – 7029, 2009 – 7461, 2010 – 8239
A Graphic of China emissions in million metric tonnes carbon dioxide to 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_dioxide_emissions_due_to_consumption_in_China.png
Australia could decarbonise back to the stone age – would not be noticed in global emission totals.
Sources
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems
Excel spreadsheet for download – compare for yourself the scale of Chinese emissions.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prelim_2009_2010_estimates.html

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types

their fear of science

Is it malice or just stupidity?

he could have jumped on the Gina Rhinehardt/Rupert Murdoch/Heartland gravy Train

got paid for spinning up bullshit designed to “undermine the teaching of science”

you crank halfwits

just jealous of others who have an intellect and an education

your insane gibberish

excellent demonstration of the kind of intellect that is attracted to climate denialism.

witness the numbnut nonsense about Flannery above

they are not fit people to be representing Australians

Kooks

Rupert “Unfit to run a Public Company” Murdoch

dishonest media organization

Heartland with its “undermine the teaching of science” objective

Did Andrew Bolt tell you to think this?

it’s reassuring to see that you have faith in 20-year-old science and 20-year-old scientific modelling

you should probably leave its interpretation to those of us who are literate, numerate, and capable of logic and reason

the usual cranks and whingers

Still feel the need to panic?

Chicken Little?

utter buffoons

Ah tolerance, something that seems somewhat lost in some cases.

I’ll leave it there and await my flaming.

And of course, this comes from a person who believes, due to some sort standing or entitlement, that he should be exempt from jury duty.

But hey, I may be wrong, Henry could be a nice, tolerant, calm and rational person, willing to discuss issues.

Henry’s only fault is that he persists in breathing.

chewy14 said :

pajs said :

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

You seem to be conflating the Carbon Tax with Climate Change.

The carbon tax will not make one lick of difference to the rate of climate change without getting the world’s major emitters (by size) to take action also.

Without a global agreement, our actions are mere symbolism.

Chewy, there is a link between what we do and what other major emitters do. We have already seen the Chinese use the Australian approach when planning their regional-scale trials of different ways to price carbon.

The more countries with carbon prices and compatible approaches to trading, the better chance of finding lower-cost (and not dodgy) abatement. Yes, a big, global agreement would be great, but the risk of waiting to act until that happens looks pretty unattractive to me.

The South Korean parliament has just passed (in a bi-partisan vote) legislation for their emissions trading scheme. Things are rolling along on this with our trading partners and we need to be on board.

pajs said :

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

You seem to be conflating the Carbon Tax with Climate Change.

The carbon tax will not make one lick of difference to the rate of climate change without getting the world’s major emitters (by size) to take action also.

Without a global agreement, our actions are mere symbolism.

HenryBG,
so the benefits of the Carbon tax bribes don’t actually apply to you even though you said they did?

Maybe it’s worth stepping back from name-calling a bit on this thread. Have a look at what Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (a pretty conservative bunch) said about the warming we are currently on track for.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/04/379694/iea-world-11-degree-warming-school-children-catastrophic/

Six degrees is not something we can wait around to see if people and natural systems can deal with.

HenryBG said :

people running around claiming a much smaller tax will do so are utter buffoons.

But … didn’t you hear … it’s a GREAT NEW BIG TAX!!!

dungfungus said :

Thirdly, there will be a compounding effect eg the price of diesel will increase at the pump

Are you *sure* the carbon tax applies to fuel?

Hmmm?

dungfungus said :

so the goods delivered to the supermarkets will increase in price as will the cost of electricity etc. to keep them in the freezer etc.

Power is about 2% of a typical business’s overhead.

Still feel the need to panic, Chicken Little?

dungfungus said :

The carbon tax (and a tax is all it is) will devastate what is left of the economy that this dysfunctional government inherited.

What is it with cranky tinfoil-hatted pensioners and superlatives like “devastate”?

The carbon tax will have a fraction of the effect that the GST had. The GST didn’t “devastate” anything, so people running around claiming a much smaller tax will do so are utter buffoons.

I-filed said :

HBG, you keep boasting about your supposed high pay -….

I’m sorry for lobbing that one over your head, let me be more explicit for you: I wasn’t “boasting” about anything, I was drawing attention to the fact that Dr Flannery is not being paid much all.

$180,000pa is $86.50/hour.

Find me just *one* other consultant in Canberra who works for that little.

Gooterz- did you get those talking points from an old Tim and Debbie LP?

Just take no. 5- when you raise ocean levels, you cover land, ie any arable land that gets covered is lost, under salty water, so it probably won’t be growing anything except seaweed.

Or no. 6- some 70% of the earth is covered by oceans already; the relatively small areas that would get covered won’t change this figure by much. Evaporation will increase because the temperature of the ocean surface will increase. But there is nothing to suggest that this extra water will fall on deserts. That is, unless prevailing weather patterns encounter some kind of ‘tipping-point’ change, in which case we’ll all be in for some unpredictable ‘interesting times’.

Or 3. (one of Ian Plimer’s favourites). Yes- atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher in the past, but we can’t make straight comparisons because other factors haven’t remained constant. For example, during one of these high CO2 periods (Late Ordovician), the sun’s radiation was weaker than it is today, so temperatures did not rise to the same extent.

I have to wonder how many of the carbon/greenhouse effect’ers were the ones to say the world was going to end on Dec 31 1999….

The carbon cycle is simple you just have to follow the rules:
1. No more carbon on planet earth has been put there by humans.
2. Many previous times in the earths history there has been a huge amount more carbon in the atmosphere.
3. Plants use carbon dioxide to photosynthese.
4. More carbon means more plant growth, bigger plants with less work. Lots of healthier plants means less crop space and thus more forrests.
5. A slight rise in temperatures may effect the ocean levels but this would mean we have more arable land.
6. More land is covered by water so evaporation increases. Deserts will get more rain.
7. As a whole more energy is captured by planet earth, plants are bigger and we store more energy. This makes wind turbines more efficient.
8. Advantages in genetically modified foods will mean more carbon is used as stuff will be bigger and grow in more places.

HenryBG said :

It’s well under what *I* get paid –

HBG, you keep boasting about your supposed high pay – but elsewhere on this topic you have referred to yourself as reaping tax benefits under the carbon tax arrangements! Nothing about you or your posts is redolent of a high income earner! I’m calling you on being a b***s***-artist!

@HenryBG, attitudes like yours are how Idi Amin started out.

HenryBG said :

rhino said :

The figure for the carbon tax effect is over a year and is their conservative estimate of how much prices will rise for you based purely on the tax, not the other factors that would be raising prices anyway.

Right, so what do we pay for goods over the course of the year? $40,000?
0.7% of $40,000 = $280
And what are we getting back? $800?

Shall I panic now? Or leave it until later when the full impact of coming out $10/week better sinks in?

Apologies if these numbers are very rough – the impact on my life of the carbon tax will be absolutely minimal, so I haven’t bothered thinking about it.

Considering it’s taken all of about 8 years for my power bills to double in size without any carbon tax being involved, I know the usual cranks and whingers are going to blame everything under the sun on this virtually unnoticeable impost on CO2 polluters.

If you believe that equation you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
Firstly, Combet said it would be a “one off 0.7% increase in the CPI” How can you have a “one off” when the tax is going to be charged on every transaction every day on 1/7/12 AND after 1/7/12?
Secondly, despite Combet insisting GST will not be charged on “the carbon tax”, the cost of the tax paid by the “500 biggest polluters” will be added to the cost of taxable supplies and services so the 0.7% will increase accordingly at the end of the purchase cycle.
Thirdly, there will be a compounding effect eg the price of diesel will increase at the pump so the goods delivered to the supermarkets will increase in price as will the cost of electricity etc. to keep them in the freezer etc.
The carbon tax (and a tax is all it is) will devastate what is left of the economy that this dysfunctional government inherited.

JC said :

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

S
But people generally don’t chuck their rubbish out on the street, because they agree that the environmental costs of doing so are unacceptable and the cost of avoiding this environmental damage – putting rubbish in a bin – is low.

Bulldust. People put their rubbish in the bin because garbage collection is a non optional ‘tax’. Sure as shit if you gave people the option of opting out of garbage collection there would be a lot of people who would happily forgo the cost of the collection and dumo where ever they like. Just take a look at all the people who dump items at charity bins or in the parks or bush that they would otherwise have to pay for. In fact rubbish collection is a good example of where for the most part a compulsory tax works, so too with the carbon tax.

You can’t compare municipal rubbish collection with the carbon tax. The former is a low-cost, proven, direct means of reducing pollution. The latter is a high-cost, speculative, indirect means of reducing climate change. People are happy to pay for rubbish collection because it costs so little and is proven to work. They are unhappy about the carbon tax because it has neither of these advantages.

HenryBG said :

In any case, revenue collected from carbon emitters who are currently dumping their pollution in the atmosphere for free will be offset by lower taxes on all of us.

“All of us” earning less than $80,000 p.a.

rhino said :

The figure for the carbon tax effect is over a year and is their conservative estimate of how much prices will rise for you based purely on the tax, not the other factors that would be raising prices anyway.

Right, so what do we pay for goods over the course of the year? $40,000?
0.7% of $40,000 = $280
And what are we getting back? $800?

Shall I panic now? Or leave it until later when the full impact of coming out $10/week better sinks in?

Apologies if these numbers are very rough – the impact on my life of the carbon tax will be absolutely minimal, so I haven’t bothered thinking about it.

Considering it’s taken all of about 8 years for my power bills to double in size without any carbon tax being involved, I know the usual cranks and whingers are going to blame everything under the sun on this virtually unnoticeable impost on CO2 polluters.

HenryBG said :

rhino said :

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system.

And yet I still paid stamp duty last time I bought a house…..one of the taxes that was supposed to have been removed….

And as pointed out, its effect will be a fraction of the effect that the GST had on the economy.

They had to make some compromises towards the end to get the GST through and satisfy the Democrats. So probably a few taxes remained out of compromise unfortunately. I agree that stamp duty does seem to be excessive and fairly unnecessary.

But as I asked in my previous post, how do you determine the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effect of the GST? That CPI figure? That was a brief spike due to people expecting prices to soar and so they rushed to buy things before the tax. Because of unprecendeted demand, prices went up. They settled again afterwards. In the longrun it made little difference. It also was intended to be roughly revenue neutral as they lowered some taxes and raised others etc. The figure for the carbon tax effect is over a year and is their conservative estimate of how much prices will rise for you based purely on the tax, not the other factors that would be raising prices anyway.

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

but this ignores the human nature aspect of why we need governance and regulation in the first place: for example, why do we need parking inspecors, or disabled spots at all, if all drivers were genuinely considerate and law abiding? the market will not work in all circumstances, so relying on individual action is bound to fail…

welkin31 said :

CSIRO research in 1992 showed that the Australian landmass absorbed our emissions from industry and land clearing.
“Implications of the Globally Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Temperature for the Australian Terrestrial Carbon Budget: Integration Using a Simple-Model”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm
Quote from the Abstract – [The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined.]

So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.
Nino Cullotta was right.

Um, how did you get from “similar magnitude” to “no net CO2 emissions”? Did Andrew Bolt tell you to think this?

Although it’s reassuring to see that you have faith in 20-year-old science and 20-year-old scientific modelling, you should probably leave its interpretation to those of us who are literate, numerate, and capable of logic and reason.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

How can something as common as carbon be considered a pollutant?

By understanding what ‘pollutant’ means. A thing doesn’t need to be hazardous or toxic tobe a pollutant. The wrong amount of something, in the wrong place, at the wrong time can be a pollutant. Think about noise as an example. Or how you can pollute a river, killing off a lot of species, by releasing water into it from the base of a dam where the temperatures are too low (thermal pollution). Or ozone. Ozone in the stratosphere is a good thing, but ground level ozone is air pollution.

So, stuff can be a pollutant if it is as rare as noise, water, ozone or CO2.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

Not aware that the word “common” has any part to play in the definition of the word “pollutant”.

But we know you’re not raising a genuine concern, you’re just repeating some anti-science fluff as generated by Rupert “Unfit to run a Public Company” Murdoch and his dishonest media organisation and Heartland with its “undermine the teaching of science” objective.
More fool you.

rhino said :

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system.

And yet I still paid stamp duty last time I bought a house…..one of the taxes that was supposed to have been removed….and everytime anybody asks me for money they give me the option of paying a smaller, GST-free amount, or of getting an invoice. So much for “simpler” and “fairer”.

In any case, revenue collected from carbon emitters who are currently dumping their pollution in the atmosphere for free will be offset by lower taxes on all of us. It’s not aimed at being a net revenue raiser, so it’s not going to have much impact: by increasing taxes on CO2-emitters and handing that revenue back to the consumers, the consumers have the option of paying for the increased prices OR paying for cheaper alternatives.

And as pointed out, its effect will be a fraction of the effect that the GST had on the economy.

dtc said :

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

Well, not really – my point was that unlike the majority of other commodities, the price can be artificially driven up/overshoot due to the actions of investors. Carbon credits will share many aspects of a normal commodity, but will also have many (imo dangerous) characteristics of a financial instrument.

I realise that economic theory posits that cap and trade is more efficient as it allows abatement by the least cost avoider, but due to the risk of irrational bubbles, I think the safer and more pragmatic outcome is the tax (with a flexible tax rate to target set caps).

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

The carbon price (under a cap and trade system) is fundamentally different from the GST. This is because the price of a tonne of carbon will be set by markets, not the government.

The real risk associated with carbon trading is when the futures markets become sufficiently deep and liquid, and the speculators get involved.

People whinged and moaned before the GFC when the short-sellers started targeting capital-strapped financial entities and effectively forcing sell-downs. The difference is, equity markets don’t have a *direct* effect on the real economy.

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation).

Hopefully there will be an active market in shorting the carbon credits but often there aren’t enough counterparties to even allow complete hedging for people that need the credits, let alone enough shorters to stop speculative bubbles emerging.

But I just console myself with the fact that if it all goes to hell I won’t be the first one over the cliff.

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Instead of scratching your head perhaps you should spend some time reading up on the carbon cycle.

CSIRO research in 1992 showed that the Australian landmass absorbed our emissions from industry and land clearing.
“Implications of the Globally Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Temperature for the Australian Terrestrial Carbon Budget: Integration Using a Simple-Model”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm
Quote from the Abstract – [The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined.]

So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.
Nino Cullotta was right.

HenryBG said :

As pointed out above, the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effects of the already-introduced GST.

I disagree with this. That was based on the CPI at the period immediately after the release of the tax. If you look at the graph of the CPI at the time of the GST release, it spiked heavily for a very short period and then settled back to normality. Is that estimate (with a lower spike figure) a peak spike level or the actual medium to long term estimated increase in CPI? I suspect it would not be an equivalent figure. That spike is fairly irrelevant in the scheme of things, as it is just the adjustment to the new tax, not the lasting effect of the tax.

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system. This made administration for all of the hundreds of thousands of businesses in Australia and the ATO much easier and therefore made conducting business more efficient and so our society more productive. Things like bread and milk are not taxed, which is nice. And it taxes consumption (on things other than the bare necessities of food), rather than just income. It allows funds for the states in an organised manner.

HenryBG said :

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Of all the garbage in Australia, Canberra produces 1%.

Of that, *your* street produces 0.1%.

So why do we bother collecting garbage from *your* street?

/scratch head?

If we could reduce our emissions and make Australia immune to any climate issues through our own local action then that would be equivalent. But it’s more like everyone in canberra is dumping their rubbish on your front lawn every day so you try to reduce the amount of your own rubbish that you dump there.

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 2: is it being caused by humans?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 3: should we worry?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 4: should we do something about it?

Don’t know. This is the point where we leave the confines of science. Science can give us information about the feasibility of trying to do something, how much it would cost, how much it would save, the chance of success, etc, but it tells us nothing about if we should bother to try and do anything.

PantsMan said :

Question 5: what should we do about it?

Once again don’t know. The safe option would be to try and avoid the problem because our understanding of the consequences is limited but equally, perhaps, we could just leave it to future us to worry about.

PantsMan said :

Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

Bit of a pointless question as the carbon tax is only an interim step on the way to an emissions trading system so it only has a limited life anyway.

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

The only ‘debate’ is about questions 5 and 6.

Sadly, the ‘debate’ has been hijacked by nutsacks who keep dragging us back to question 1, so nothing gets done.

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

The way to understand this is to think about the natural carbon cycle. For example, plants decay and emit greenhouse gases, but new plant growth can take that up. The emissions cycle through the biosphere. Kind of like having a fishpond where the evaporation from the pond matches a trickle in of new water. The pond level stays the same.

What happens when you do things like release fossil carbon into the atmosphere is you add extra carbon that the natual carbon cycle can’t handle, leading to carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere. In the case of the fishpond, you’ve turned up the flow rate into the pond. Sooner or later, the pond overflows.

Australia is part of turning up the flow rate ane we need to do our bit to reduce emissions.

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

Wailing about “Surfdom”, “the Antichrist” and accusing Tim Flannery wanting “power over us” are not questions and are not reasonable.

Or was this florid gem meant to be reasonable:

three thousand delegates flying in on CO2-spewing, Gaia-killing, death machines known as “planes”.

The problem with kooks is they take their nutty ideas so very seriously.

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Of all the garbage in Australia, Canberra produces 1%.

Of that, *your* street produces 0.1%.

So why do we bother collecting garbage from *your* street?

/scratch head?

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

S
But people generally don’t chuck their rubbish out on the street, because they agree that the environmental costs of doing so are unacceptable and the cost of avoiding this environmental damage – putting rubbish in a bin – is low.

Bulldust. People put their rubbish in the bin because garbage collection is a non optional ‘tax’. Sure as shit if you gave people the option of opting out of garbage collection there would be a lot of people who would happily forgo the cost of the collection and dumo where ever they like. Just take a look at all the people who dump items at charity bins or in the parks or bush that they would otherwise have to pay for. In fact rubbish collection is a good example of where for the most part a compulsory tax works, so too with the carbon tax.

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

pandaman said :

So HenryBG, do you have any specific thoughts on the carbon tax, and whether you think it will deliver a good deal for you personally? There’s a lot of confusion about the potential effects of the tax among the community as a whole, and by your tone, you seem to have a very well defined set of views. Care to take the time to expound those views of a Sunday morning?

As pointed out above, the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effects of the already-introduced GST. SO I’m not particularly concerned about it being a “good deal” for me, or not, when it should be obvious to Blind Freddy that ending CO2-emitting industries’ ability to externalise the cost of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is a sensible thing to do.

More interestingly, though, with a long string of wars having been fought over access to fossil fuels since 1914; with one proper big oil crisis under our belts; with the last decade-and-a-half of rampant price increases and price volatility in the energy sector; and with the concentration of ownership of energy producers and distribution, I think it is decidedly in our interest as a community to invest in and promote alternative means of producing energy.

The chief reason there is such a massive PR-effort aimed at disseminating lies about the science, lies about renewable technologies, personal vilification of the scientists (witness the numbnut nonsense about Flannery above), and destabilising governments who fail to toe the Murdoch line is because by definition, an energy-producing industry that doesn’t rely on a tightly-controlled supply-chain of fuel, is an industry that is democratised: all you have to do as an individual, a community, or a local government is buy the infrastructure and install it, and the corporations that make so much money supplying the fuel are entirely cut out of the loop. They are petrified at the idea of their impending obsolescence and their future inability to manipulate governments to start profit-generating wars over fossil fuel deposits.

I think it’s interesting that the world’s biggest defender of the “climate change is crap” lie is Rupert Murdoch: officially now a person who is, “not a fit person” to be running a public company.
That description can be extended to anybody associated with Heartland: they are not fit persons to have their opinions taken into account in the public policy debate over the future of energy generation and how we will address the effects of climate change.
That description should also be extended to Tony Abbot, Nick Minchin, and any of the rest of them who have let politics get in the way of commonsense on this issue: they are not fit people to be representing Australians in either of our houses of parliament.

PantsMan said :

Supposed solution: tax people back into povery. Sound’s like surfdom to me. Would Flannery, Combet, Parkinson et al still support a carbon tax if they did not get power over other people from it?

Are you referring to the “UN Plan 21”, which aims to gain total control over all world governments and then kill everybody?

The problem with Surfdom is it only works down the coast, so the UN can’t touch us here in Canberra, especially if we put our hands over our eyes and shout very loudly, “I can’t see it, therefore it’s not happening!

Thanks for the excellent demonstration of the kind of intellect that is attracted to climate denialism.

I-filed said :

Speaking of cows – it’s a little-known fact that the breathtakingly opportunistic Tim Flannery was until recently in the (considerable) pay of Meat & Livestock Australia as a consultant on “sustainable cattle farming”!

Ye Gods! Somebody got a job as a consultant? I don’t believe you!

I-filed said :

Presumably in a PR spin capacity.

Sure. Or – just maybe – Dr Flannery has some expertise which people are willing to pay for.
Seems like others in the business agree with him –
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/finance/flannery-backs-farm-animals-in-fight-against-carbon/1681075.aspx

I-filed said :

Flanner described himself only this morning on radio as a mere biologist whose career was “discovering new species in PNG and environs”, and speculating on Indigenous prehistory, until he jumped on the climate change gravy train.

How very unselfish of him – he could have jumped on the Gina Rhinehardt/Rupert Murdoch/Heartland gravy Train like Bob Carter did and got paid for spinning up bullshit designed to “undermine the teaching of science” (direct quote from their strategy documents) instead.

I-filed said :

If one didn’t know his modus operandi, one might have wondered on what Tim Flannery’s new-found expertise on cattle husbandry could possibly be based.

Oh, I don’t know, how does his extensive post-graduate research and publications in the field of zoology including the descriptions for 29 new species of Kangaroo compare with *your* expertise in the field?

I-filed said :

Why are our tax dollars paying this show pony $180,000 p.a. part-time, three days a week? What is he delivering?

It’s well under what *I* get paid – and most of my peers, and I have never written anything even remotely as good as Dr Flannery’s extensive publications (“Throwim Way Leg” being my personal favorite).

I assume you crank halfwits are just jealous of others who have an intellect and an education that others are willing to pay for. I accidentally caught a minute or two of Andrew Bolt’s woeful TV show again today – clearly nobody would pay *him* $180,000 pro-rata for his “expertise”, which he gained from dropping out of uni and then…writing bollocks for the next 30 years.

Additionally, you might want to back off from the retarded reactionary crankism for a minute and figure out what “pro-rata” means – you can then explain it to Sen. MacFarlane (who proved unable to grasp it in Senate estimates shortly after Dr Flannery was employed) as well as Joanne Codling from whom you clearly get your insane gibberish.

Labour = incompetent fools.

The only reason they want a carbon tax is to cover thier arses from the mismanagement of the tax payers /our money.

Elizabethany said :

Our cows fart (methane)

Speaking of cows – it’s a little-known fact that the breathtakingly opportunistic Tim Flannery was until recently in the (considerable) pay of Meat & Livestock Australia as a consultant on “sustainable cattle farming”! Presumably in a PR spin capacity. Flanner described himself only this morning on radio as a mere biologist whose career was “discovering new species in PNG and environs”, and speculating on Indigenous prehistory, until he jumped on the climate change gravy train. If one didn’t know his modus operandi, one might have wondered on what Tim Flannery’s new-found expertise on cattle husbandry could possibly be based.

Why are our tax dollars paying this show pony $180,000 p.a. part-time, three days a week? What is he delivering?

switch said :

mr reason said :

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

When will this meme go away? We’re not even in the top ten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

From that page… “Countries are ranked by their metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per capita in 2008. The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation.”

and

“The carbon dioxide emissions of a country are only an indicator of one greenhouse gas. For a more complete idea of how a country influences climate change, gases such as methane and nitrous oxide should be taken into account. This is particularly so in agricultural economies.”

We mine, farm and log, none of which are included in that list. Our cows fart (methane), and plowing releases nitrous oxide from our soils. We cut down our forests and build pulp mills. Our resources are used around the world to release even more CO2 equivalent gases. And the main problem with the carbon tax is that it dosn’t include these sources eirther (can’t hurt the farmers!)

Personally, I think the human race has left its environmentalism run a bit late, and with the growth of politics of divisiveness (on both sides in ALL major demorcarcies), and it is too late. We will hit warming with seriously unpleasant effects. It is time to work on dealing with what is to come, rather trying to prevent it.

We should stop kidding ourselves. Changes to energy generation and consumption that will actually have a meaningful impact will come at great cost, and will significantly reduce the standard of living that we enjoy in this country. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but pretending that we make a few little changes and everything will be fine is naive in the extreme.

I-filed said :

chewy14 said :

mr reason said :

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

Firstly, no we aren’t the worlds biggest per capita emitter and secondly do you think Australia enacting a carbon tax is going to force the USA, China and India to do likewise?

Without a global agreement the Carbon tax is completely useless.

The carbon tax is not going to make a jot of difference to “climate change” – ever. It’s up there with Earth Hour as a nonsense – only Earth Hour doesn’t do any harm. Not only are we not in the top ten emitters per capita, as a nation of 20 million our overall “emissions” total a minute percentage of those even of Third World polluter China.
ABC interviewed Tim Flannery this morning, and how’s this for an indication of just how shonky the climate change fear-mongers are: Flannery compared Sydneysiders’ fear of sewage pollution along its beaches, and the subsequent building of out-to-sea sewage outlets as a solution, with the carbon tax as a “solution” to climate change. What the? At least he didn’t describe himself as a “climate scientist”, which he did in the last interview I heard.
Re the impending Budget, people will be laughing to themselves: “Hey, i’m pocketing 800 smackeroonis (without even a GFC reason!) from this government and I’ll STILL be voting Julia out at the next election!”

Let’s not forget that in first world countries people only have arroudn 2.3 (or some such) children, while in poor countries people have many more than that, leading to population growth and “unsustainable consumption”. Supposed solution: tax people back into povery. Sound’s like surfdom to me. Would Flannery, Combet, Parkinson et al still support a carbon tax if they did not get power over other people from it?

chewy14 said :

mr reason said :

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

Firstly, no we aren’t the worlds biggest per capita emitter and secondly do you think Australia enacting a carbon tax is going to force the USA, China and India to do likewise?

Without a global agreement the Carbon tax is completely useless.

The carbon tax is not going to make a jot of difference to “climate change” – ever. It’s up there with Earth Hour as a nonsense – only Earth Hour doesn’t do any harm. Not only are we not in the top ten emitters per capita, as a nation of 20 million our overall “emissions” total a minute percentage of those even of Third World polluter China.
ABC interviewed Tim Flannery this morning, and how’s this for an indication of just how shonky the climate change fear-mongers are: Flannery compared Sydneysiders’ fear of sewage pollution along its beaches, and the subsequent building of out-to-sea sewage outlets as a solution, with the carbon tax as a “solution” to climate change. What the? At least he didn’t describe himself as a “climate scientist”, which he did in the last interview I heard.
Re the impending Budget, people will be laughing to themselves: “Hey, i’m pocketing 800 smackeroonis (without even a GFC reason!) from this government and I’ll STILL be voting Julia out at the next election!”

I’m confused.

Doesn’t the Kyoto Protocol expire in about 6 months? Hasn’t Canada withdrawn from it, saying “Kyoto is dead”? Wasn’t Copenhagen a shonks and wonks festival that totally failed, despite over three thousand delegates flying in on CO2-spewing, Gaia-killing, death machines known as “planes”. Hasn’t the US adopted those evil “direct action” tactics to address climate change, but also to enhance its energy security? Is the mooted “price on carbon” being flagged for possible adoption by Chinese municipal governments around $1-2 dollars? Isn’t China planning to reduce its energy use per unit of GDP (which is growing at around 8 per cent per annum), not its actual energy use? And aren’t they doing this by knocking over old, small, inefficient coal-fired power stations and replacing them with bigger more efficient coal-fired power stations burring Australian coal?

Maybe I should ring the people (soon to be employed in the “clean economy of the future” [mega looooolz]) at the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to find out answers to these questions, or will they breach the APS Code of Conduct and refuse to provide me factual information about the policy and programs they are going to nontheless take my money with?

mr reason said :

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

Firstly, no we aren’t the worlds biggest per capita emitter and secondly do you think Australia enacting a carbon tax is going to force the USA, China and India to do likewise?

Without a global agreement the Carbon tax is completely useless.

mr reason said :

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

When will this meme go away? We’re not even in the top ten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

“100 Tons of CO2 are produced by all humans breathing per second! (makes up about 10% of total human emissions.)

Half a ton a year per person. $11.50 or $60 if the greens get their way.
Can’t wait till they start taxing us when we breath. Perhaps those largest will have to pay extra, or perhaps those sporty types they produce a fair amount of CO2.”

Is this just a classic riot act troll, or are you just so completely misinformed? There would be no point in taxing anyone for breathing. The whole point of the carbon price is to make carbon intensive forms of energy more expensive relative to low carbon sources.

“No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.”

No, we’re the world’s biggest emitter per capita. If we don’t do anything, why should anyone else.

HenryBG said :

So, using the same model, we should all just chuck our rubbish out on the street and individuals who are concerned about the environment can tidy it up for us?

But people generally don’t chuck their rubbish out on the street, because they agree that the environmental costs of doing so are unacceptable and the cost of avoiding this environmental damage – putting rubbish in a bin – is low.

There is nowhere near that level of consensus in relation to renewable energy. People either aren’t sufficiently convinced about the environmental costs of fossil fuel use or find the costs of alternatives too high. The fact that only about 10% of Qantas travellers are prepared to pay to offset the carbon emissions associated with their travel is an example of how few people are concerned enough about environmental issues to reach into their own pockets to address them.

HenryBG said :

Why on earth do you think that industries should be able to externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities? Is it malice or just stupidity?

Industries will continue to “externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities” under a carbon tax, by passing those costs on to consumers. They will also bear significant compliance costs which will also be passed on to consumers. Some of these costs can be minimised (switching to green energy etc) but again those costs will be passed to consumers.

Speaking of “malice”, you might want to turn the megaphone down a notch or two. Refraining from calling people you don’t agree with “stupid” and invoking Tony Abbott at every opportunity would be a good start.

HenryBG said :

So the GST was a three-and-a-half-times-bigger marxist plot than the Carbon tax then?

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types, with their fear of science, don’t you? Until they all vote for Tony Abbott next year. That’s not so funny.

No, you have to laugh at the people who think the Carbon tax is going to make any lick of difference whilst the worlds biggest emitters are.doing sweet FA. Fantastic policy.

HenryBG said :

So the GST was a three-and-a-half-times-bigger marxist plot than the Carbon tax then?

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types, with their fear of science, don’t you? Until they all vote for Tony Abbott next year. That’s not so funny.

Well, It’s an interesting thought as to whether the carbon tax is a marxist device or not. The carbon tax is a socialist attempt at using a distinctly capitalsitic method of market manipulation to achieve a goal, to whit, a significant increase in the uptake of green energy sources. The stated goal of the whole thing being revenue neutral is total bullshit of course, as the bureaucracy of implementation and administration will incur a significant overhead. It’s distinctly socialist in that the government is using this piece of market manipulating legislation as a wealth re-distribution scheme, punishing the upper middle class to deliver large subsidies to the “working classes”. Dude, if only they had the media nouse to capitalise on it properly, it’d be a vote spinner for sure. But, unless the ALP can pull a serious rabbit out of the hat to effectively neutralise the negative PR effects of the Slipper and Thompson scandals along with half a dozen other spotfires, we appear to be doomed to the Honorable Tony Abbott MP, becoming the Right Honorable at some point next year. Fuggit, what a way to become PM, as a borderline intellectual deficient voted in due to even greater idiocy on behalf of the other lot, after they’ve managed to get a seriously interesting and potentially effective piece of legislation through.

So HenryBG, do you have any specific thoughts on the carbon tax, and whether you think it will deliver a good deal for you personally? There’s a lot of confusion about the potential effects of the tax among the community as a whole, and by your tone, you seem to have a very well defined set of views. Care to take the time to expound those views of a Sunday morning?

HenryBG said :

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

So, using the same model, we should all just chuck our rubbish out on the street and individuals who are concerned about the environment can tidy it up for us?

Why on earth do you think that industries should be able to externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities? Is it malice or just stupidity?

100 Tons of CO2 are produced by all humans breathing per second! (makes up about 10% of total human emissions.)

Half a ton a year per person. $11.50 or $60 if the greens get their way.
Can’t wait till they start taxing us when we breath. Perhaps those largest will have to pay extra, or perhaps those sporty types they produce a fair amount of CO2.

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

Right, because that’s been working really well for the world so far…

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

So, using the same model, we should all just chuck our rubbish out on the street and individuals who are concerned about the environment can tidy it up for us?

Why on earth do you think that industries should be able to externalise the costs associated with their polluting activities? Is it malice or just stupidity?

SnapperJack said :

mr reason said :

the carbon tax will have a 0.7 per cent impact on CPI at the most. the GST resulted in a 2.5 per cent increase. no big deal. the qld floods had a bigger increase than the carbon tax will.

The Qld floods were a one-off. The carbon tax is forever.

And remember, the defacto government (ACT and Cth), The Greens, want the $23 per tonne increased to $120 per tonne.

mr reason said :

the carbon tax will have a 0.7 per cent impact on CPI at the most. the GST resulted in a 2.5 per cent increase. no big deal. the qld floods had a bigger increase than the carbon tax will.

The Qld floods were a one-off. The carbon tax is forever.

So the GST was a three-and-a-half-times-bigger marxist plot than the Carbon tax then?

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types, with their fear of science, don’t you? Until they all vote for Tony Abbott next year. That’s not so funny.

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

the carbon tax will have a 0.7 per cent impact on CPI at the most. the GST resulted in a 2.5 per cent increase. no big deal. the qld floods had a bigger increase than the carbon tax will.

Yes, I noticed that. When did the ACT Government find out?

Doesn’t matter though. Come July, we’ll all be dancing in the nirvana of our “clean energy future” with all those unemployed Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency looking for “clean energy jobs of the future”.

Is it too late to call this Marxist plot to nationalise industry a bad idea?