Jump to content


Photo

Clean energy future and Carbon Tax


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41 BobsYourUncle

BobsYourUncle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, SA

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:30 AM

It's going to be hard to deny climate change


I don't think anyone here is denying climate change, just questioning the impact of human civilization on said change. The climate is always changing - it's been both significantly cooler and significantly warmer in the past than it is now. Of course it'd be ridiculous to suggest that mankind has no impact on the Earth's climate, however the magnitude of this impact is still being debated.

It's a shame that something that should be a scientific discussion turns into something resembling an argument about religion, with words like "believer" and "denier".

Personally, I think we're rushing into this, and think that the carbon tax is a socialist wealth-redistribution scam that will cost jobs and harm our economy.

FWIW I've done a PhD (though not in a relevant field), and have read some of the literature.

#42 620Z

620Z

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,710 posts
  • Location:VICTORIA - Rowville

Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:44 AM

Wow I never read this post till now. Man the endless debate. I'm not getting into it but will make one statement.
Climate has been changing on earth since the dawn of time, hundreds of millions of years. Do you really think things have changed massively in the last 50-100 years? Maybe it's just a cycle? 10-12 years of drought and all the dooms dayers said it would never rain again. Well the last 2 years have proved that to be a load of crap. But I am glad we have a 28 billion dollar desal plant that will never be turned on. Show me the money. But we will pay.
The Australian Labour Government and many others around the world are simply spreading lies about climate to suit their own agenda's.
Carbon Tax has only been intorduced in Aust because Labour has to introduce yet another Tax to try and make one of their promises to bring our books into positive territory after throwing all our money down the drain. Sadly it won't happen even with this tax.
I am sorry to say but climate change has nothing to do with caring for the world but more to do with politics and money. Since Labour passed their bill (revenure raiser) they haven't said another word about the state of our climate.
Don't get me wrong. I am a greenie. I am all for not chopping down rain forests. But for different reasons other than introducing new tax's.
We will all pay the price and the temperature here in Australia won't change from the average. Don't be conned. Shutting down our coal power stations here in Aust for Carbon will do nothing while we still mine it and send billions of tons of the stuff overseas each year. We suffer the tax while the rest of the world benefits and polutes using our coal. Why not just tax what we send over seas to pollutant countires and use that tax to subsidise, what used to be our great lucky country. But if we really cared about Carbon and coal why wouldn't we stop or reduce the coal mining here for export? Oh more MONEY for Australia!
But don't get me started........................ Ha Ha  Over and out. >:(

#43 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:55 AM

I've contributed all I can usefully contribute to this debate ... clearly people are getting angry and starting to throw abuse around rather than keeping the debate clean and useful.

If anyone wants some more information about this stuff, feel free to pm me.

R.

#44 260Coupe

260Coupe

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:10 AM



At last the media is talking sense !

                     
It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change:
by  Andrew Bolt


Tim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew Bolt.

TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can't think of a better man for the job.
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission..

His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.
This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.
He's had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.
Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery's predictions, we're now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.
And we're also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.
So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record.

Ready?

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney 's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney 's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems .... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane 's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.  So let's check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming .

"In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

One premier, Queensland 's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned. (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.)

Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam. "There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.

"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."

Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin , the very area Flannery recommended.. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.
The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't.
One of Geodynamics' five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.

The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further "delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region".
The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it's no surprise the company's share price has almost halved in four months.

Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.

His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to "provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community" and "build the consensus about reducing Australia 's carbon pollution".

That, translated, means selling us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery's hot-rocks investment.

See why I say Flannery is the right man for this job? Who better to teach us how little we really know about global warming and how much it may cost

Incidentally he [Tim Flannery] is on $3,600 a week of our taxpayers money for working just three days a week making up more bullshite.

BTW

Tim Flannery is a mammalogist and paleaontologist, how he claims to  be some form of expert on climate change is truly incredible  - and he was names "Australian of the year" in 2007 for his Nostrodamous like predictions  by Krudd........go figure.





















#45 Jimbo

Jimbo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Location:Omeo

Posted 08 March 2012 - 07:20 PM

Great work Alan!!!! :) :) :)

#46 260Coupe

260Coupe

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:59 AM

One last thing then I'll shut up

It should also be noted that all of Flannery's predictions were apparently based on climate modelling by the CSIRO.............supposedly the best brains in the business  ::)
It has been proven time and time again that the computer modelling is flawed and that extrapolations cannot be made based upon data from the past 50 years...........it is however in CSIRO's best interest to perpatuate the hysteria as their funding has skyrocketed in the past 5 years.

This CO2 tax (yes they have now found a way to tax the air we breath !) will do absolutely zero to reduce temps  - the hypocrisy by Gillard and Co is astounding - lets tax the crap out of our power industry and still promote the export of coal to China - do they think we are  stupid and do not see through there socialist policies ?

BTW

the biggest form of polution that is emitted from Coal Fired power stations (and one that is never mentioned) is sulfur dioxide  (S02) - this turns to sulfuric acid in the atmosphere and falls as acid rain killing vegetation - no one hears the Greenies complaining about that !!!
The forests of southern Europe were decimated prior to the shutting down of the old and dirty UK power stations (now replaced by nuclear power) .....but no lest not talk about S02 that is a true polutant, let's call an inert gas C02 a polutant instead.

And whilst I'm on a roll - C02 makes up less than 0.04 % of all gasses in the atmosphere so let's keep things in perspective

,


#47 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 09 March 2012 - 01:35 PM

All kinds of awesome Al

#48 RB30X

RB30X

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,981 posts
  • Location:Gladstone QLD

Posted 09 March 2012 - 02:16 PM

Dont even get me started on power stations ;D

We're not allowed to build nuclear power stations here because the waste is dangerous...............but we can charge other countries to let them store their nuclear power station waste in our country??????

Vote 1 Bob Katter ;D ;D

#49 saxon

saxon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:38 PM

Ehhh dont vote independents, that's why we're in this mess

#50 gav240z

gav240z

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 12,621 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com
  • Location:Sydney NSW
  • Tagline:Jack of all trades, master of none.

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:17 AM



BBC's Hot Planet.

#51 DAZDA

DAZDA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • Location:Datsun Mafia Headquarters (Canberra)
  • Tagline:Brap Brap Brap

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:15 AM

The reason for climate change...

Attached Thumbnails

  • 29099_12b78a5de0f06965f3b77c1f207fab2863abca6b.jpg


#52 RB30X

RB30X

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,981 posts
  • Location:Gladstone QLD

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:58 PM

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.

#53 saxon

saxon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 27 March 2012 - 03:59 PM

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.

#54 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:30 PM

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....

#55 positivetennis

positivetennis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Tagline:New Member

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:53 AM

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.

#56 260Coupe

260Coupe

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:19 AM

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.

#57 fluegel

fluegel

    Advanced Member

  • Donating Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Adelaide South Australia
  • Tagline:New Member

Posted 09 April 2012 - 12:46 PM

[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

#58 gav240z

gav240z

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 12,621 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com
  • Location:Sydney NSW
  • Tagline:Jack of all trades, master of none.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:31 AM

http://www.ted.com/t...ate_change.html
I think this is highly relevant.

#59 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:33 AM

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.

#60 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:40 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users