Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
positivetennis

Clean energy future and Carbon Tax

Recommended Posts

Hmm, that gives us a lot to think about.

 

Do you have any more of those for us to ponder. I would greatly appreciate it if you did.

I used to visit a website that had a lot of graphs like that but I lost it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, that gives us a lot to think about.

 

Do you have any more of those for us to ponder. I would greatly appreciate it if you did.

I used to visit a website that had a lot of graphs like that but I lost it.

 

The IPCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny. The only outstanding question is why pirates cool the planet. I would have thought they were particularly flatulent and therefore caused warming.... it's puzzling....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting debate. I think its important to be aware of the implications of governments that have a totaltarian globalist view of the world irrespective of envionmental considerations, and there are those type of people on both sides of parlament. There are a lot of things that are happening in Australia right now where the Australian community was not consulted on or had the opportunity to debate (See QLD elections). Everybody wants to have a clean environment but there are many ways to achieve this. My concern from a classic Datsun z view is that many owners have spent thousands on restoring their zeds and I guess you would feel upset if the government one day decided that the ownership and registration of these cars be discouraged. In other words, you can keep your 240z but being able to drive it on a regular basis might become financially prohibitative, which means it becomes a museum piece. Whats, the point of owning a classic if you can't use it. Some say that this will never happen, and I hope not, however I think we should be aware and be ready if and when required to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony  of all this is the governments are pushing people to buy new cars to replace the "old polluting clunkers"

The crazyness of this scheme is that the pollution created from a car made 30-40 years ago has long since been reabsorbed back into the environment but the production of new cars is creating new pollution !!!

Another fact is that the life cycle of the production of a Toyota Prius creates far more environmental pollution and more energy to build run and than recyle than the production life cylce of a gas guzzling Hummer !!

 

the government should be pushing the retrofit of modern fuel efficient engines into old classics rather than the ridiculous "cash for clunkers"scheme pushed by Gillard (another failed policy) that was only designed to boost the car sales (and mostly small imports) , not save the planet is claimed

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[the government should be pushing the retrofit of modern fuel efficient engines into old classics

 

To what extent can an existing engine be upgraded ie computer controlled ignition advance ,we already have hardened valve seats for unleaded fuel. Besides , in SA  you would not be able to get historic registration with a modern engine fitted.

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Gav ... I hadn't seen it.

 

Someone said to me the other day ... if you ask someone the question 'what would it take to convince you that climate change was happening' and they reply 'nothing could' then you should walk away, because then it's about beliefs and not facts.

 

An interesting debate from the BBC

which brings up the 'carbon dioxide is good for plants' argument mentioned above. Carbon dioxide is good for plants and will increase rates of photosynthesis and growth where there is sufficient water and nutrients to allow it. Sadly in most places plant growth is limited by nutrient availability, and plants simply can't grow faster. Even when nutrients can be added drying trends more than counteract any effect of increased CO2.

 

R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people believe that taxing this big companies for producing CO2 emissions will work?  They can either invest shareholder money into reducing CO2 emissions, or, they can pass the added cost onto the consumer.  From a big business point of view, why would they spend money to reduce the emissions, when they are already losing the money through the tax? They could just pass the cost on?  It simply doesn't make sense to me, there is no incentive for them to spend the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could agree, but he doesn't reference his facts at all, so even I find it a bit hard to swallow

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Galileo Movement is an advocacy group ... even it doesn't claim to be a scientific agency. The founders (a chemist and an engineer) are both open about the fact that they oppose the carbon tax due to its economic consequences (their opposition to climate science kind of arose from that).

 

If you are interested in the breadth of opinions, then balance the last youTube video with this one... also from a group of advocates

 

If you are interested in a relatively dispassionate overview then check out...

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&feature=plcp

 

The Galileo Movement video itself is pretty dodgy, from the presenter (a Bachelor of ECONOMICS?? couldn't they do better than that??), through to some of the ratios and statistics (which would make the atmosphere unbreathable, if they were true) right down to the basic premise.... a little bit of something can't do any harm, right?? Except when you are talking about balanced systems, when even a tiny increase in one of the counter-balanced forces can have dramatic effects....

 

There are much better counter-arguments to climate change than this one.... and I haven't found the one of those that has convinced me yet either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people believe that taxing this big companies for producing CO2 emissions will work?  They can either invest shareholder money into reducing CO2 emissions, or, they can pass the added cost onto the consumer.  From a big business point of view, why would they spend money to reduce the emissions, when they are already losing the money through the tax? They could just pass the cost on?  It simply doesn't make sense to me, there is no incentive for them to spend the money.

 

Look at it this way.

Government IS a business.

They have shareholders (the country itself and other players that control/elect the current 'board of directors')

They have Consumers (us)

They have a product to sell (whatever interest or agenda is on the table)

 

To sell the product and make revenue that is done through taxes and fees, EVERYONE pays taxes, including other companys that want to operate in the country, then those companies become consumers of the government too.

By 'selling products' (read, carbon tax, schemes cooked up by them, whatever ect) to the company the government makes more revenue through taxes.

the company has higher running costs, at which point they pass onto their consumer (us) and we pay more.

But wait, we pay GST on that as well, so the government makes more revenue.

 

From a big business point of view, why on earth would you do it any other way???

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) this is a fudamental underpinning of a functioning economic society. it will never change. ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda missing your point, why would business do what any other way?  Why wouldn't they pass on the costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was more along the lines of "we, the little people, will get screwed by everyone allways."

roll with the punches...

 

I wasnt having a go at anyone in particular

 

I agree with you that there is no incentive for them to do it any other way, it amazes me that people think that there would be.

Government is out to make money, this is another revenue stream for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to buy into this topic I just wish it will go away but it obviously will not. Anyway I will say my bit ,climate research has been totally discredited by the deceptive activities of the Uni of East Anglia climatic research unit ( see 'Climategate')  anyone who 'believes' or 'disbelieves' climate change or global warming is ignorant , science does not allow belief only a considered opinion based on supporting evidence. Global warming has only effected the northern hemisphere the southern hemisphere has been stable over the last 100 years or even falling in some places ie New Zealand. In my ill informed opinion the published graph of CO2 increase is too straight and tidy to be credible. People will believe what they want to believe ,it is called religion. In science one inconvienient fact can destroy an entire theory and this is very much the case with climate change/global warming, science does not run on consensus.

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS A MUCH WATCH.

 

 

Note the references are listed.  Check them yourself.  Don't just believe what you are told.  Check what you can and then consider what you can't.

 

SHE wants to reduce CO2 so she taxes it.  On the same day the CO2 tax comes in (presumably to get us all to do more to reduce "Global warming" oops I mean "Climate Change" - it got colder so they had to quickly spin it for us - SHE is cutting the solar rebate.  The rebate that was encouraging thousands to reduce their load on the power grid and thus reduce the amount of coal we burn and the costs of more power infrastructure.

 

You have to ask yourself - if SHE was fair dinkum about reducing CO2 why would SHE attempt to profit from it rather than reduce the encouragement to covert to cleaner power sources?

 

Remember any business with an increased cost due to CO2 Tax will simply pass that increased cost onto the consumer.  This increased cost with then attract GST!!!  SHE..2  Aussies...0

 

REALLY WATCH THE VIDEO - EVEN IF YOU ARE SICK TO DEATH OF CLIMATE CHANGE PROPAGANDA BULL SHIVER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same segment linked to above and my response to it stands.

 

Seriously, that segment is an embarrassment to the people who promote debate on climate change from any part of the spectrum. There are some serious critiques of climate science that should be looked at (as long as people are ready to look at the other side as well), but don't just look at this one, it's insulting to everyone's intelligence. The source isn't a credible one, the spokesperson isn't credible and the facts in it are simply wrong (do the calculations, if they were true, you couldn't actually breathe the atmosphere!!).

 

Informed debate is good, but this isn't information, it's propaganda.

 

R   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
} };