CARBON TAX-It's Started!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest amount of carbon released is caused by wood. Now you blokes all know, that as you fly each day over OZ there are limitless bush fires going at any given time, I believe the CSIRO puts it at around 22,000 a year, add to that millions of cattle and sheep emissions, and then industry, well its pointless only pointing to industry as the villain is it not? Does anybody really believe that simply taxing industry is going to solve the problem? The NT is fired every year always has been, the locals have been doing it for thousands of years, they say Australia has to burn to reproduce flora and fauna, they probably know better than us, and they are probably right, but like everything there is a price to pay, that is a increase in carbon. You OS blokes know everytime you go to a Asian city, (not HKG or NRT et al) there are trucks that are 25 years old and over, there are Put Puts, everybody is on a 2 stroke, the place stinks of diesel, fuel, and exhaust, but we are going to save the world with a tax and they are going to follow, crap, they don't have the money to follow or the inclination. Its fine for people like the Minister for Goldman Sachs (Turnbull) to encourage this crap, he is going to, along with his banker mates, make a motza out of carbon credit trade offs, (you did not really believe he wants to save the birds and bees did you) but for the average Australian worker, already struggling with the cost of living, and the cost of power rising so much, its really going to be a ball tearer this tax, and for what?
As usual the main point is being missed in your post. There is always a carbon cycle, including fires, volcanoes, trees, water, animals etc. The problem comes from the additional carbon coming from the rapid burning of fossil fuels and adding their content into the biosphere. This is the extra carbon moving into the cycle. Deforestation also adds carbon into the cycle which 'wood' otherwise be confined within the vegetation, not to mentioned being consumed for growth. The oceans disolve a lot of the carbon and carbon dioxide to keep a semblence of balance, but this is having its own effect down where we rarely look. (and the view from your fishing rock will not tell you all that needs to be known on that subject) I noticed your views on ocean levels not rising noticeably. The sea level rise will come mainly from simple thermal expsansion in the early stages of global warming. It is not until land based ice caps start to melt significantly that sea level rise will accelerate. But your simple observations seem to convince you that scientists are conspiratorial idiots and finance men are plotting to make their 'motza' from trading in carbon credits. Nothing I say will change your concrete views. Are your objections to science religious? They seem determinedly dogmatic. In the above post and elswhere lies the answers to your query about "the carbon tax being for what?"
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Fox,they told us 2010, we would see a difference, well I am still waiting, now they tell us 2016, I might be dead by then. But please tell me how a tax is going to cure all please? Oh, and tell me how much the tax is going to cut emissions and by when.
The Carbon Credit - a financial derivitive literally manufactured out of thin air. And you don't believe that the financial world isn't salivating at the prospect of getting stuck into them?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Carbon Tax is a good idea.
Good to see a government taking steps to help protect the environment.
The Carbon Tax has caused so much heat, it really shows they have the back bone to see a policy thru to implementation without being bullied by talk-back radio.
Good to see a government taking steps to help protect the environment.
The Carbon Tax has caused so much heat, it really shows they have the back bone to see a policy thru to implementation without being bullied by talk-back radio.
You just have to wonder at stuff like this in that "The Australian" article;
The draft report says "uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".
A little less certainty than just a few years ago with AR4, fellas?
Do I detect a get-out clause here...?
But trust us, it will still happen...eventually...
Honest.
Professor Palutikof said it would take a while for the effects of climate change to become visible. But without action, she said, "gradually, over time, that signal will emerge with resounding clarity".
"If we don't do something now to prevent it, by the time we get to 2070, we will see the impact clearly," she said.
The draft report says "uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".
A little less certainty than just a few years ago with AR4, fellas?
Do I detect a get-out clause here...?
But trust us, it will still happen...eventually...
Honest.
Professor Palutikof said it would take a while for the effects of climate change to become visible. But without action, she said, "gradually, over time, that signal will emerge with resounding clarity".
"If we don't do something now to prevent it, by the time we get to 2070, we will see the impact clearly," she said.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Konstantin, 2070? Thats no bloody good to me, given that I live half way up the Kirra Hill on the Goldie, I was hoping for a waterfront in the next few years. I will be fossil fuel by 2070. They just keep moving the goalposts, as they wait for something to happen, and of course the planet just keeps on keeping on, and very little happens. But hey, once that tax comes in we can all sigh with relief.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In simple terms, what we pay for the carbon tax is what we get back as a bonus from the government at the end of the year
Go and save a whale ryanboxed.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The individual economic impact of the GST was a slap in the face.
The individual economic impact of the carbon tax will be a tickle of a feather.
Those convinced otherwise have been conned. Yes the intellectual right have had the hood of short term self interest placed over their heads. Fair enough. But think of our grand kids. Look at the evidence. With a skeptical open rational mind. For once.
The individual economic impact of the carbon tax will be a tickle of a feather.
Those convinced otherwise have been conned. Yes the intellectual right have had the hood of short term self interest placed over their heads. Fair enough. But think of our grand kids. Look at the evidence. With a skeptical open rational mind. For once.
I'm a big supporter of the carbon tax.
Not because I think it will do a whole lot to actually clean up the environment directly, but because it will encourage innovation in the field of clean energy. Hopefully resulting in this country being a leader in the field, which in my opinion will be big business in the future.
Anybody crying poor over this tax because they're going to be "worse off" is getting their knickers in a knot over nothing as we're all in the same boat, and therefore nothing about your lifestyle is going to be any worse off relative to anybody else in the country.
Not because I think it will do a whole lot to actually clean up the environment directly, but because it will encourage innovation in the field of clean energy. Hopefully resulting in this country being a leader in the field, which in my opinion will be big business in the future.
Anybody crying poor over this tax because they're going to be "worse off" is getting their knickers in a knot over nothing as we're all in the same boat, and therefore nothing about your lifestyle is going to be any worse off relative to anybody else in the country.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RATpin
And it's finished. Leaked report from the IPCC."The Australian friday 18 Nov"
Originally Posted by konstantin
A little less certainty than just a few years ago with AR4, fellas?
New Report: "It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas..."
IPCC AR4: "likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity; less confidence in global decrease of tropical cyclone numbers"
New Report: "Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase...low confidence in tropical cyclone frequency"
Similarly, there is no remarkable difference in drought predictions between the new report and AR4.
But trust us, it will still happen...eventually...Honest.
At the moment it appears that we humans might have a small amount of extra breathing space in which to start adapting or mitigating on top of what scientists originally thought. But to draw comfort from this is like drawing comfort from the locomotive driver when he says "oh it's not as bad as you think - that train on the collision course with us is actually 20km further away than I initially calculated, and he's only doing 80 km/h, not 90 km/h. So rest easy mate. She'll be right."
People get bogged down in the details and end up using ridiculous arguments a bit like "well heck first you said 20 years and now you say 30 years, so that just proves it's all bunkum and I don't need to believe anything you say". There are many parallels with the smoking/cancer argument. For example, are you going to start suffering the effects at the age of 50 or 60 or 70? Well heck, do you really care? Really? Yeah sure, highlight the uncertainties. Emphasise the fact that doctors can't pin down exactly when your lung cells will start turning cancerous and everything is just an estimate. But nothing.....absolutely nothing.....you say is going to change the fact that the research shows that you're "very likely" to eventually start suffering regardless!
Without getting into a line-by-line rebuttal of the article in The Australian, there is another article published in Nature which discusses the summary released by the IPCC. This article is available here to read: Climate panel says prepare for weird weather : Nature News & Comment and it also makes available the actual summary for those who are interested in going to the source data from which The Australian has taken its quotes. For background, Nature is one of the worlds most respected general scientific journals and has been published since 1869 (before Teresa Green even picked up a fishing rod 
). The statements made in The Australian bear little resemblance to either the summary or the analysis by Nature. It looks like The Australian has cherry-picked those particular areas of weather/climatic effects that have been identified as having weak or moderate strength conclusions, while ignoring those that are identified as strong or near-certain conclusions.
Nature begins with "Extreme weather, such as the 2010 Russian heat wave or the drought in the horn of Africa, will become more frequent and severe as the planet warms, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns in a report released today. Some areas could become “increasingly marginal as places to live in", the report concludes."
This is completely and utterly different to The Australian's headline of "Review fails to support climate change link". The remainder of the article continues in a similar fashion, and ultimately finishes with almost a footnote of "The draft IPPC summary said if the century progressed without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts would come to dominate. It said it was "very likely" that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heatwaves, would continue to increase over most land areas.". This is at odds even with their own headline which suggests that the IPCC review fails to support the overall idea of climate change.
To continue with the smoking analogy, The Australian has effectively created an article that states "Smoking - no link to negative health effects. Here is our analysis of the Surgeon Generals report: Eardrums - no negative effects observed. Toenails - continue in robust good health. Knee joints and cartilage - no reported ill effects. Other health concerns are still being monitored". While individual parts are technically true it gives a misleading view of the overall picture and ignores or minimises those elements that disagree with the point that the author is attempting to make.
The Nature article finishes with a quote from the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri "Despite all uncertainties, it is crucial for policy-makers to remain aware of the scientific reality of climate change, If science is not given the primacy it deserves it is unlikely that any of the actions will be taken that this report is begging of.”. This is entirely different to the politicised spin that The Australian has put on their interpretation of the report.
). The statements made in The Australian bear little resemblance to either the summary or the analysis by Nature. It looks like The Australian has cherry-picked those particular areas of weather/climatic effects that have been identified as having weak or moderate strength conclusions, while ignoring those that are identified as strong or near-certain conclusions.Nature begins with "Extreme weather, such as the 2010 Russian heat wave or the drought in the horn of Africa, will become more frequent and severe as the planet warms, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns in a report released today. Some areas could become “increasingly marginal as places to live in", the report concludes."
This is completely and utterly different to The Australian's headline of "Review fails to support climate change link". The remainder of the article continues in a similar fashion, and ultimately finishes with almost a footnote of "The draft IPPC summary said if the century progressed without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts would come to dominate. It said it was "very likely" that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heatwaves, would continue to increase over most land areas.". This is at odds even with their own headline which suggests that the IPCC review fails to support the overall idea of climate change.
To continue with the smoking analogy, The Australian has effectively created an article that states "Smoking - no link to negative health effects. Here is our analysis of the Surgeon Generals report: Eardrums - no negative effects observed. Toenails - continue in robust good health. Knee joints and cartilage - no reported ill effects. Other health concerns are still being monitored". While individual parts are technically true it gives a misleading view of the overall picture and ignores or minimises those elements that disagree with the point that the author is attempting to make.
The Nature article finishes with a quote from the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri "Despite all uncertainties, it is crucial for policy-makers to remain aware of the scientific reality of climate change, If science is not given the primacy it deserves it is unlikely that any of the actions will be taken that this report is begging of.”. This is entirely different to the politicised spin that The Australian has put on their interpretation of the report.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Morobe
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is white man in Port Mosbi, he is trading with land owners to keep forest from been cutting down.
He pays them from money buying carbon offset.
Guess he is middleman for carbon trading.
Must be good for PNG keeping forests instead malaysian man cutting ol down.
He pays them from money buying carbon offset.
Guess he is middleman for carbon trading.
Must be good for PNG keeping forests instead malaysian man cutting ol down.
Seasonally Adjusted
This is entirely different to the politicised spin that The Australian has put on their interpretation of the report
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah The Australian's track record is bad. Very bad. Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at UNSW keeps track of the egregious errors and misreporting by The Australian on the status of climate science. He is up to The Australian's War on Science #73 so far. I have no doubt this latest article might qualify as #74 soon.
The lengths that The Australian will go to in order to protect its political slant on science reporting were demonstrated when it totally misrepresented CSIRO scientist Phil Watson's research paper on sea level rise earlier this year. Even letters from Watson's own Department and statements from Watson himself that it had been misrepresented made no difference and did not lead to any corrections. All this from the newspaper which gives prominence to sceptics like Australia's very own Dr Bob "if you can't see it, it won't hurt you" Carter - a reference to his continual and quite ridiculous claim that because CO2 is colourless and odourless, it must by default be harmless and benign. He thus demolishes a couple of centuries worth of accumulated knowledge of chemistry and gas properties in favour of the "ostrich principle", to The Australian's delight.
The "tobacco" analogy, incidentally, extends even further, such as the protracted war being waged against the science by industrial interests. This is the exact same stuff we saw start during the 1950s, when the link between tobacco smoke and lung disease was becoming recognised as scientific evidence and research advanced. The evidence became conclusive in the 70s and 80s, but the industry still resists education and controls, and the odd person or two still lives in compete denial right up until their diagnosis! Now if they just accepted the blindingly obvious evidence and simply stated "yes but I don't care", I wouldn't mind so much. But some still go out of their way to convince themselves it doesn't exist.
It's a stark demonstration of the sometimes fragile nature of human intelligence.
The lengths that The Australian will go to in order to protect its political slant on science reporting were demonstrated when it totally misrepresented CSIRO scientist Phil Watson's research paper on sea level rise earlier this year. Even letters from Watson's own Department and statements from Watson himself that it had been misrepresented made no difference and did not lead to any corrections. All this from the newspaper which gives prominence to sceptics like Australia's very own Dr Bob "if you can't see it, it won't hurt you" Carter - a reference to his continual and quite ridiculous claim that because CO2 is colourless and odourless, it must by default be harmless and benign. He thus demolishes a couple of centuries worth of accumulated knowledge of chemistry and gas properties in favour of the "ostrich principle", to The Australian's delight.
The "tobacco" analogy, incidentally, extends even further, such as the protracted war being waged against the science by industrial interests. This is the exact same stuff we saw start during the 1950s, when the link between tobacco smoke and lung disease was becoming recognised as scientific evidence and research advanced. The evidence became conclusive in the 70s and 80s, but the industry still resists education and controls, and the odd person or two still lives in compete denial right up until their diagnosis! Now if they just accepted the blindingly obvious evidence and simply stated "yes but I don't care", I wouldn't mind so much. But some still go out of their way to convince themselves it doesn't exist.
It's a stark demonstration of the sometimes fragile nature of human intelligence.
