Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Australia is a quarry for China.
Once they have enough of them on line there, we're screwed. Bring on the MRRT while times are good.
.
De_flieger i think Sarcs has it covered. Remember also the idea of the 'tax' is to steadily increase the costs of power... or as Bob Brown put it "close all coal mines"...
i.e. as the company put it "...long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."
De_flieger do you think once the corruption of a 'carbon tax' is introduced that Labore/greens will not increase it ? Do you think once the corruption is in place they will not increase the 'tax' ?
....of course a change of government changes things..
.
via De_flieger #156, ...the link I posted has the quotes from the company where they state, and I quote from the article here
i.e. as the company put it "...long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."
De_flieger do you think once the corruption of a 'carbon tax' is introduced that Labore/greens will not increase it ? Do you think once the corruption is in place they will not increase the 'tax' ?
....of course a change of government changes things..
.
.
Hmmm... then all the company needed to say is they are losing money right now so they will close.... lets hope the many other Oz business owners in a simular situation dont follow suite..
baswell, how much do ya think it costs to set up a smelter ? Being mindfull of what the plant owes them now and of the setup costs fer a new plant would ya keep a currently loss making plant going if yer think the alloy glut is only a temperary thing ?... of course if yer looked forward and noted the stated aim of the puppet master greens is to close all coal mines would yer even bother.
...perhaps they could power the smelter via windmills and solar panels..
"...long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."
.
via baswell;
It's quite a stretch to imagine that the stated $78M a year losses were sustainable for them until the $4M tax showed up.
The smelter was doomed with or without the tax, end of story.
It's quite a stretch to imagine that the stated $78M a year losses were sustainable for them until the $4M tax showed up.
The smelter was doomed with or without the tax, end of story.
baswell, how much do ya think it costs to set up a smelter ? Being mindfull of what the plant owes them now and of the setup costs fer a new plant would ya keep a currently loss making plant going if yer think the alloy glut is only a temperary thing ?... of course if yer looked forward and noted the stated aim of the puppet master greens is to close all coal mines would yer even bother.
...perhaps they could power the smelter via windmills and solar panels..
"...long-term viability would be negatively affected by increasing energy costs and the carbon tax..."
.
baswell old mate you must have come down in the last carbon polluted shower:
...is just another fictional pot of gold that the Labor government have already started to spend. Do you think any agreement involving 'surfer wayne' and the big three mining companies is going to be ridgy didge....sheesh you've got to be kidding!
The MRRT Mark 2 was just a ticket for Girrard to step into the top job....
Bring on the MRRT while times are good.
The MRRT Mark 2 was just a ticket for Girrard to step into the top job....
Last edited by Sarcs; 29th May 2012 at 20:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Folks, Here is a tip from Jaba!
Qantas could listen up here too........
In Government, Taxation has NEVER been the solution to any real or imaginary problem.
or
In business, unless the spending is truly wasteful and unnecessary, the solutions to your problems are not cost cutting, they are revenue raising.
Now some may argue that if revenue raising is the way business should do it why is that not the same as raising taxes? In simple terms Government rely on taxes that are a by product of successful business. Government should be all about encouraging business and individuals and not being an ever increasing burden.
So far not one good thing has come out of the present governments "green" push with insulation, solar panels and now an incredibly stupid tax on a gas that is naturally ocurring and is actually a benefice not a hazzard.
Qantas could listen up here too........
In Government, Taxation has NEVER been the solution to any real or imaginary problem.
or
In business, unless the spending is truly wasteful and unnecessary, the solutions to your problems are not cost cutting, they are revenue raising.
Now some may argue that if revenue raising is the way business should do it why is that not the same as raising taxes? In simple terms Government rely on taxes that are a by product of successful business. Government should be all about encouraging business and individuals and not being an ever increasing burden.
So far not one good thing has come out of the present governments "green" push with insulation, solar panels and now an incredibly stupid tax on a gas that is naturally ocurring and is actually a benefice not a hazzard.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Or'Stralia!
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In business, unless the spending is truly wasteful and unnecessary, the solutions to your problems are not cost cutting, they are revenue raising.
Now some may argue that if revenue raising is the way business should do it why is that not the same as raising taxes? In simple terms Government rely on taxes that are a by product of successful business. Government should be all about encouraging business and individuals and not being an ever increasing burden.
Now some may argue that if revenue raising is the way business should do it why is that not the same as raising taxes? In simple terms Government rely on taxes that are a by product of successful business. Government should be all about encouraging business and individuals and not being an ever increasing burden.
I run a small software business, 98%(literally) of our sales are exports... so far I haven't found anyone that can tell me (the website the gov pointed me to is full of spin and links that go in circles) how my business will be compensated for higher costs imposed as a result of the carbon tax (and no I can't use any less electricity than I do now).
I can't pass it on to our customers any more than I can the GST or my losses due to the high aussie dollar (software is typically priced in US dollars in the market I sell to).
This government is driving small business to the wall with red tape and taxes. Small business is where most people in Aus are employed.. there's a major recession coming.. only a matter of time.
This "carbon" is nothing more than poorly disguised socialist wealth distribution.. just like all the other failed schemes juliar and her cronies have conceived. Pity it won't make the tiniest bit of difference to the environment.
Bring on the election (oh and I wish the liberals would dump abbot.. but that's another matter!).
.260
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.260,
I'm pretty sure you and I were looking at the same website. I realised after a little while, that the guvmint didn't want me to work out what were going to be my added costs, and that they'd prefer I closed up shop so they could import 1700 more to do my job at a cost even lower than the minimum wage than I am at already.
Current Battle is with QBE (workcover insurance) to get the policy stopped. I no longer have employees, and as a sole trader I'm not obliged to pay workcover. No matter of phone calls, letters has been able to put a stop to the Demands via phone, mail and legal threats. Even the Office of Small business can't help past advising me to inform them in writing.
Shoe....i can't even get my former bin company to come collect their sh*t!
It just gets better and better.
I'm pretty sure you and I were looking at the same website. I realised after a little while, that the guvmint didn't want me to work out what were going to be my added costs, and that they'd prefer I closed up shop so they could import 1700 more to do my job at a cost even lower than the minimum wage than I am at already.
Current Battle is with QBE (workcover insurance) to get the policy stopped. I no longer have employees, and as a sole trader I'm not obliged to pay workcover. No matter of phone calls, letters has been able to put a stop to the Demands via phone, mail and legal threats. Even the Office of Small business can't help past advising me to inform them in writing.
Shoe....i can't even get my former bin company to come collect their sh*t!
It just gets better and better.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Or'Stralia!
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure you and I were looking at the same website. I realised after a little while, that the guvmint didn't want me to work out what were going to be my added costs, and that they'd prefer I closed up shop so they could import 1700 more to do my job at a cost even lower than the minimum wage than I am at already.
If things get any worse with the carbon tax I'll just shut up shop and my employees will be looking for work (as will I, I'm burning cash just keeping the company going at the moment). Unfortunately for them we're in Canberra, the public service is where most of the jobs usually are, but since the guvmint is shedding jobs life will be difficult.. but then the gen-y's that work for me have never known a recession or had trouble finding work.. a life lesson may coming.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far not one good thing has come out of the present governments "green" push with insulation
There is an enormous amount of spin regarding the insulation scheme but none of it ads up when you do the numbers. The main sticking point has been the number house fires following installation. Just like if you have enough flights, some of them will eventually crash, if you install enough insulation, some houses will catch fire.
The only thing that really matters is the ratio of installs to house fires. And under the scheme, which in many states for the first time regulated that industry, safety has actually been higher, much higher than before the scheme when you would just call any local cowboy to do it.
The CSIRO gets HIP to debunking media hysteria | Pollytics
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baswell, you need to take the blinkers off occasionally.
It's alturistic statements like yours that got Labor into trouble in the first place.
SOME insulation, can reduce energy costs in SOME homes. As kids, we lived in a non-insulated, non-air conditioned home with several kids in each bedroom. Care to elaborate how insulation would have reduced our energy costs. What you and the government fail to realize is that every home is different.
Tell that to the families that lost homes..."Your home was expendable! Too bad, so sad!"
Why don't you put some facts out rather than rehashing PR garbage from a Labor government trying desperately to keep the Greens onside?
is absolute BS!
If you have poorly trained people applying foam insulation too thickly because they're in a rush, and not in layers with stipulated set times between reapplication, THEN you'll get house fires. It's a matter of when, not if. (BTW, many foam insulation products are byproducts from the petroleum industry.) There is no need for accepting any house fires if the products are applied properly.
Additional insulation also requires additional investment in many homes. Often, the air conditioner has to be downsized to increase run times and reduce humidity, otherwise the homeowner will have mold issues in the future. Who pays for this and how often does this actually occur? Five years ago, insulation gurus were recommending to encapsulate the entire home. Mold issues developed quickly. Recommendations now are for adequate and appropriate venting. Tell that to the people who had insulation applied five years ago and still aren't aware that they might have mold growing steadily and aggressively.
It's critical that the roof doesn't leak with foam insulation. Is this checked? In the future, Australians are going to be paying dearly for poorly installed insulation. It has the possibility of creating so many problems that many houses will need to be renovated with a chainsaw. It's a good product if applied properly as per the directions and with an holistic energy use approach to the whole house. Rebates encouraged honest energy assessments and moral installations and weeded out all the scammers. (Written with a heavy dose of sarcasm.)
I saw rebates applied to solar attic fans in our area. The good ones that worked well were expensive. There was a $100 rebate applied to each attic fan. The rebate drove homeowners to the cheapest models that didn't work
and away from the models that did work well. Installers adjusted their product lines to suit demand. What a crock that turned out to be!
What was the reporting process prior to regulation?
But this is off the topic of aviation...
It's alturistic statements like yours that got Labor into trouble in the first place.
Insulation cuts energy costs by a greater factor than it costs to install, there is no denying that.
The only thing that really matters is the ratio of installs to house fires.
Why don't you put some facts out rather than rehashing PR garbage from a Labor government trying desperately to keep the Greens onside?
...if you install enough insulation, some houses will catch fire.
If you have poorly trained people applying foam insulation too thickly because they're in a rush, and not in layers with stipulated set times between reapplication, THEN you'll get house fires. It's a matter of when, not if. (BTW, many foam insulation products are byproducts from the petroleum industry.) There is no need for accepting any house fires if the products are applied properly.
Additional insulation also requires additional investment in many homes. Often, the air conditioner has to be downsized to increase run times and reduce humidity, otherwise the homeowner will have mold issues in the future. Who pays for this and how often does this actually occur? Five years ago, insulation gurus were recommending to encapsulate the entire home. Mold issues developed quickly. Recommendations now are for adequate and appropriate venting. Tell that to the people who had insulation applied five years ago and still aren't aware that they might have mold growing steadily and aggressively.
It's critical that the roof doesn't leak with foam insulation. Is this checked? In the future, Australians are going to be paying dearly for poorly installed insulation. It has the possibility of creating so many problems that many houses will need to be renovated with a chainsaw. It's a good product if applied properly as per the directions and with an holistic energy use approach to the whole house. Rebates encouraged honest energy assessments and moral installations and weeded out all the scammers. (Written with a heavy dose of sarcasm.)
I saw rebates applied to solar attic fans in our area. The good ones that worked well were expensive. There was a $100 rebate applied to each attic fan. The rebate drove homeowners to the cheapest models that didn't work
and away from the models that did work well. Installers adjusted their product lines to suit demand. What a crock that turned out to be!
And under the scheme, which in many states for the first time regulated that industry, safety has actually been higher, much higher than before the scheme when you would just call any local cowboy to do it.
But this is off the topic of aviation...
Last edited by Lodown; 31st May 2012 at 02:51.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Carbon Tax is not some socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it is designed to discourage use of carbon-intensive energy sources.
Rather than legislating to slow carbon usage, increasing the price will discourage it less directly and encourage the development of alternatives.
This is similar to the tax on tobacco a couple of decades ago, which was a very successful public policy and saved a generation of people from smoking-related diseases.
This is the sort of policy commonly suggested in economics and public finance text books and is a responsible path for the government to take.
The science behind global warming and climate change has been proven and tested for twenty years. The government is showing good leadership by taking this move to do something about it.
Rather than legislating to slow carbon usage, increasing the price will discourage it less directly and encourage the development of alternatives.
This is similar to the tax on tobacco a couple of decades ago, which was a very successful public policy and saved a generation of people from smoking-related diseases.
This is the sort of policy commonly suggested in economics and public finance text books and is a responsible path for the government to take.
The science behind global warming and climate change has been proven and tested for twenty years. The government is showing good leadership by taking this move to do something about it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOME insulation, can reduce energy costs in SOME homes. As kids, we lived in a non-insulated, non-air conditioned home with several kids in each bedroom. Care to elaborate how insulation would have reduced our energy costs. What you and the government fail to realize is that every home is different.
Tell that to the families that lost homes..."Your home was expendable! Too bad, so sad!"
Why don't you put some facts out rather than rehashing PR garbage
* Read Crikey; they are critical of BS no matter which party sprouts it.
What was the reporting process prior to regulation?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Or'Stralia!
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Carbon Tax is not some socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it is designed to discourage use of carbon-intensive energy sources.
Rather than legislating to slow carbon usage, increasing the price will discourage it less directly and encourage the development of alternatives.
Rather than legislating to slow carbon usage, increasing the price will discourage it less directly and encourage the development of alternatives.
BS. How does a tax encourage a company to INVEST in the development of cleaner/greener/whatever technology
If the government are serious about cleaning up carbon, then THEY should be investing or providing INCENTIVES rather than imposing taxes. It takes money to develop new technologies, which means being profitable in the first place... the more tax they impose the less likely that is to happen.
All the carbon tax will achieve is that it taxes companies (the so called rich), and provides hand outs to the poor (sorry, low income earners). If companies are not able to pass the tax on the the consumer (exporters like myself), we have to wear the costs.. less profit = less jobs = no investment in new technologies. It just doesn't add up. All this tax will do is ruin an already struggling (despite what juliar & co say) economy and make Australia businesses noncompetitive in the world market (say goodbye to any manufacturing).
And lets not forget exactly what the impact on the environment this tax will have.... 0.00000000000% of bugger all. Indonesia emits more CO2 from the deforested peat bogs every day that Australia does in 1 year.
(to keep this aviation related, the carbon tax will ruin general aviation too!)
.260
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had an interesting conversation with my mum the other day about the carbon tax,
She ,along with most of my family are hook through the nose labor voters, was surprised when I said the gas they're taxing is carbon dioxide, yes mum ,the stuff plants breathe in,,,,oh she says ,so if we wanted to get rid of a lot of carbon dioxide we could perhaps plant a lot of trees,,,,,,yeh, but that doesn't fit in with Juliars wealth redistribution plan,,,,,,cheers comrades
She ,along with most of my family are hook through the nose labor voters, was surprised when I said the gas they're taxing is carbon dioxide, yes mum ,the stuff plants breathe in,,,,oh she says ,so if we wanted to get rid of a lot of carbon dioxide we could perhaps plant a lot of trees,,,,,,yeh, but that doesn't fit in with Juliars wealth redistribution plan,,,,,,cheers comrades
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM2,
agreed!.
I think back to my schooling days, basic science, tree's LOVE C02. by my way of thinking, we are providing trees with food.
At the end of the day, this tax isn't going to help the environment, not a damm thing.
Compare the worlds reaction to Carbon Vs CFC's
The whole world jumped on the CFC bandwagon quickly........
agreed!.
I think back to my schooling days, basic science, tree's LOVE C02. by my way of thinking, we are providing trees with food.
At the end of the day, this tax isn't going to help the environment, not a damm thing.
Compare the worlds reaction to Carbon Vs CFC's
The whole world jumped on the CFC bandwagon quickly........
Well...HERE IT ARE...!!!
The following rec'd Friday arvo 1/6/2012.......
"A Carbon Price will be applied to the use of Aviation Fuels through the current Excise Tax system.
Effective 1st July 2012, the Excise Rate of Aviation Fuels will increase by the deemed cost of the Carbon content of the fuel.
The Government has advised the following Cents per Litre increase in the Excise Rate for the first 3 years -
Aviation Turbine Fuel 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14
Base Excise 3.556 3.556 3.556
Carbon Content 5.98 6.279 6.604
New Excise 9.536 9.835 10.16
Aviation Gasoline
Base Excise 3.556 3.556 3.556
Carbon Content 5.06 5.313 5.588
New Excise 8.616 8.869 9.144
As advised by the Gov. following the transition to a trading system, the Excise Rate increase will all be adjusted twice yearly based on the average Carbon Price over the previous 6 months.
For those of you who actually voted 'Labor' ......thanx for nuthin'....
Bah Humbug!!!
p.s. Sorry guys and gals - I had it all nicely 'tabulated' in my set out.
You'll just have to 'line up' the lines......
The following rec'd Friday arvo 1/6/2012.......
"A Carbon Price will be applied to the use of Aviation Fuels through the current Excise Tax system.
Effective 1st July 2012, the Excise Rate of Aviation Fuels will increase by the deemed cost of the Carbon content of the fuel.
The Government has advised the following Cents per Litre increase in the Excise Rate for the first 3 years -
Aviation Turbine Fuel 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14
Base Excise 3.556 3.556 3.556
Carbon Content 5.98 6.279 6.604
New Excise 9.536 9.835 10.16
Aviation Gasoline
Base Excise 3.556 3.556 3.556
Carbon Content 5.06 5.313 5.588
New Excise 8.616 8.869 9.144
As advised by the Gov. following the transition to a trading system, the Excise Rate increase will all be adjusted twice yearly based on the average Carbon Price over the previous 6 months.
For those of you who actually voted 'Labor' ......thanx for nuthin'....
Bah Humbug!!!
p.s. Sorry guys and gals - I had it all nicely 'tabulated' in my set out.
You'll just have to 'line up' the lines......
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 2nd Jun 2012 at 03:01.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burning coal to feed the carbon tax.
Why don't we have more renewable energy in this country?
We seem insistant on just digging up more coal and shoving it into the power stations.
Wind farms solar generation just don't seem to get a chance here. Build more but not in my backyard they cry.
i stumbled across a British newspaper called 'The Guardian Weekly' 1/6/12 edition. We have a similar publication here called the 'Epoc Times', they seem to publish articles that the rags owned by Murdoch and his mates don't even consider.
Digest these figures from Germay.
German Solar Plants produced a record 22gigawatts of electricity- equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity- through the midday hours of last Friday and Saturday. Now add the power generated by their wind farms.
Also add this, Germany's Govt decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, closing 8 plants immeadiately and shutting the remaining 9 by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources.
Would we really need a carbon tax if we got off our butts and and really used all that sunshine we have here?
If only I were 'da king'
We seem insistant on just digging up more coal and shoving it into the power stations.
Wind farms solar generation just don't seem to get a chance here. Build more but not in my backyard they cry.
i stumbled across a British newspaper called 'The Guardian Weekly' 1/6/12 edition. We have a similar publication here called the 'Epoc Times', they seem to publish articles that the rags owned by Murdoch and his mates don't even consider.
Digest these figures from Germay.
German Solar Plants produced a record 22gigawatts of electricity- equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity- through the midday hours of last Friday and Saturday. Now add the power generated by their wind farms.
Also add this, Germany's Govt decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, closing 8 plants immeadiately and shutting the remaining 9 by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources.
Would we really need a carbon tax if we got off our butts and and really used all that sunshine we have here?
If only I were 'da king'
Last edited by fencehopper; 4th Jun 2012 at 01:41.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
PeterC
You are smoking something weird, you are completely wrong. If the idea it was going to discourage the use of CO2 emitting fuels, well they need to look at a couple of failed experiments over the last 20 years in Europe....Carbon Tax applied, discouraged nothing! In fact the rate went up
If you really think they wanted to discourage fuel use they would need to ramp up the price somewhat aggressively, not several cents a litre but dollars. This is exactly what happened with cigarettes, the price hikes were huge relatively, and look....the % is down a bit, but volume has remained. So while you might argue it worked on smokes, it only sort of did, but the price hikes were huge.
Right that is a good idea......believe some silly idealogical socialist text book
What rubbish! Twenty years is not even on the climate scale for a start. REAL climate scientists refer to a blink of an eye in climate terms as 30 years for a start.
Simple facts for you to contemplate, and one simple question. CO2 in the atmosphere has been on the rise for a long time, man made content in the last 50 years also. Nobody on either side disputes this. So by coincidence for a period of 20 years (out of the last 30) there was also average temperature rise. No disputes there either. So the theory is that the man made CO2 was the driving force and as CO2 increased temperature would thus continue. How could it not?
Ohhhh but it did, the last 10 temps declined, yet CO2 levels rose, some naturally and some man made. So the question is, if CO2 is such a significant driver of temperature and that man made CO2 was so much a player, how on earth is it possible that over the following ten years temperature went the other way while CO2 climbed even higher?
While you think about this, consider this, you can have a hypthesis tested a thousand times with a positive result, but it only takes one negative to debunk it.
A few more questions for you to contemplate instead of just believing greenie and left wing scare mongering & propoganda.
Ships sailed the north west passage.....powered by sails! Not much man made CO2 then. Why was Greenland called Greenland? Why did they find all sorts of warm climate begitation in ice core samples? Why did we not have catastrophic global warming when CO2 levels were 4500ppm (over 10x todays level) ?
The Carbon Tax is not some socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, it is designed to discourage use of carbon-intensive energy sources.
If you really think they wanted to discourage fuel use they would need to ramp up the price somewhat aggressively, not several cents a litre but dollars. This is exactly what happened with cigarettes, the price hikes were huge relatively, and look....the % is down a bit, but volume has remained. So while you might argue it worked on smokes, it only sort of did, but the price hikes were huge.
This is the sort of policy commonly suggested in economics and public finance text books and is a responsible path for the government to take.
The science behind global warming and climate change has been proven and tested for twenty years. The government is showing good leadership by taking this move to do something about it.
Twenty years is not even on the climate scale for a start. REAL climate scientists refer to a blink of an eye in climate terms as 30 years for a start.Simple facts for you to contemplate, and one simple question. CO2 in the atmosphere has been on the rise for a long time, man made content in the last 50 years also. Nobody on either side disputes this. So by coincidence for a period of 20 years (out of the last 30) there was also average temperature rise. No disputes there either. So the theory is that the man made CO2 was the driving force and as CO2 increased temperature would thus continue. How could it not?
Ohhhh but it did, the last 10 temps declined, yet CO2 levels rose, some naturally and some man made. So the question is, if CO2 is such a significant driver of temperature and that man made CO2 was so much a player, how on earth is it possible that over the following ten years temperature went the other way while CO2 climbed even higher?
While you think about this, consider this, you can have a hypthesis tested a thousand times with a positive result, but it only takes one negative to debunk it.
A few more questions for you to contemplate instead of just believing greenie and left wing scare mongering & propoganda.
Ships sailed the north west passage.....powered by sails! Not much man made CO2 then. Why was Greenland called Greenland? Why did they find all sorts of warm climate begitation in ice core samples? Why did we not have catastrophic global warming when CO2 levels were 4500ppm (over 10x todays level) ?
via fencehopper; ...We seem insistant on just digging up more coal and shoving it into the power stations...
Solar power is a far far more expensive power option that still needs coal power backup. Coal power dont need any backup..
.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fencehopper
German Solar Plants produced a record 22gigawatts of electricity- equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity- through the midday hours of last Friday and Saturday. Now add the power generated by their wind farms.
Also add this, Germany's Govt decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, closing 8 plants immeadiately and shutting the remaining 9 by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources.
Also add this, Germany's Govt decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, closing 8 plants immeadiately and shutting the remaining 9 by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources.