Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
positivetennis

Clean energy future and Carbon Tax

Recommended Posts

...

The only "inconvenient truth"is that this CO2 tax is all about the political need to balance the budget, rake in more revenue and distribute it to the labour/green voters to buy more votes.

...

 

Al.

  You can't say that Al even if it is the truth, the Labor/Greens voters might get upset...  ;)

 

 

 

The only comments I wish to make are;

Fact - Plants absorb CO2 and H2O (water) and through a process called Photosynthesis produce an orgnic compound (food for the plant) and release O2 (Oxygen).  This one is like the earth being round, it is a scientific fact.

 

Surely with all that extra CO2 all the plants will love it, absorb more light and therefore cool the earth??  Won't that cool the oceans?  But wait, the oceans are supposed to be warming, has anyone told all the plants!!!  ;)

 

"The rate of energy capture by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts,[3] which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4]" - Sourced from here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back onto the topic at hand;

 

I guess I'm concerned that we might get punished for owning an old car by being made to pay more taxes,

Yes - Carbon Tax from July (cost of parts for old cars, fuel will go up despite the government's promises - we know they don't mean much) and there will be more taxes

 

higher rego and green slips,

Yes - Although it's disguised by being the other way around, in that pretend 'green' cars get cheaper rego in some states, and the gap in price will only get bigger

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Registration/FeesFormsAndFAQs/Fees/VehicleRegistrationFees.htm

 

restricted usage,

Yes - Bound to happen.  Just give the media and politicians enough time to brainwash society some more

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if man made global warming is true (which it isn't), I fully endorse it. It's fricken cold in Melbourne already and it's Feb. Where did our summer go?

 

edit: oooops it's March, still... it's cold and I don't like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

 

Yep climate has always changed and always will - but it is about the rates of change. Animals and plants can evolve to deal with relatively slow change and not with high rates.

 

Predicting the actual amounts of warming is difficult - but the climate has warmed since the Industrial Revolution measurably and continues to do so - there will always be variation year to year, but the average trend over time is warming. The last winter was the warmest in Melbourne in 90 years.

 

Please answer this -

When the Carbon Dioxide tax comes into play -

How much will the earths average temperature decrease by and how much much will it cost.? - funny that not one of our lefty politians or a single "climate" scientist will answer that !!!!

 

It will take at least 100 years for CO2 levels to stabilise and then drop. The carbon tax is about trying to reduce the rate of increase. So climate change will continue unless we take much more drastic action than the carbon tax. But personally I'd rather try and reduce the damage we are doing than just ignore it. The estimated costs of climate change are in the Garnaut Report (it was written by an economist after all) - they are in  the ballpark of 100x the cost of the carbon tax.

 

The best estimates are .004 of 1 degree and this may take a thousand years to take effect (confirmed by that fool Tim Flannery who said "it may never rain again" - hence why we have desal plants costing billions which will be never used )

 

I don't quite get the rain and temperature connection here, but ok. Best estimates are a 3.5 deg increase by 2070 for Victoria.

 

The drought of the last ten years was caused by the El nino (the cyclic warming of the Pacific Ocean) - we will now have 10+ years of wet which is caused by La Nina - the now cooling of the Pacific Ocean

 

Yep, droughts aren't climate change. But if you superimpose droughts on a drying climate then things get really scary.

 

BTW - the last volcanic eruption in Indonesia spewed out more CO2 into the atmosphere than what man has put out in the last 100 years.- fact stated in Scientific American journal

 

Can't find anything which Scientific American said like that (remembering Scientific American also isn't a scientific journal). Volcanic eruptions on the scale of Pinataubo in the Phillipines are about the same as one months human sourced CO2.

 

Also - notice the subtle change form the "Global Warming" hesteria to the new term "Climate Change" - this is very convenient way to blame every weather event of man made CO2 emissions ....(and please stop calling it carbon polution as CO2 is not a polutant) .....are you kidding me ???

 

Climate change is what scientists have been calling it for decades. Global warming is a really old term the media like. Climate change for south eastern Australia has been predicting for almost a decade long dry spells (10-15 years) interspersed with extreme wet spells (2-3 years), and changing patterns of rainfall, favouring summer extremes. These patterns were first predicted in 1986. But for other places it won't warm. Poor old NZ is getting cooler and wtter.

 

 

The only "inconvenient truth"is that this CO2 tax is all about the political need to balance the budget, rake in more revenue and distribute it to the labour/green voters to buy more votes. The climate change debate is perpetuated by those who have a vested interest in "green technology" - Al Gore has major shares in wind farms and other major US/UN funded green energy projects - fact.

"Climate Scientists"are funded by the current government - Scientists who wish to prove the negative and there are many thousands of them, get no funding and are ridiculed as herotics  !

 

Strange that most climate research in Australia was done under the previous right wing government - who actively sought to suppress research findings to the extent of firing scientists from CSIRO. As a scientist I would love to disprove climate change - it would make me much more famous than agreeing with it.

 

There certainly aren't thousands of scientists who 'wish to prove the negative' (which wouldn't be a very good way to approach the science - sounds like some pre-conceptions). Across all areas of science the major scientific bodies put the percentage of scientists who doubt anthropogenic climate change at less than a tenth of a percent. That would be less than a hundred people in Australian science.

 

Now that half the country is under water does any body notice the conspicuous absence of Tim Flannery, Ros Gaunet (spelling) and all the rest of the doomsday profits telling us we will be drinking our own urine in 10 years , not to build dams as they will never fill and to spend billions on desal plants (that consumed massive amounts of electricity thereby pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere !!!!)

 

I don't think very many environmentalists proposed the desal plant. More a political decision, that one. As outlined above the climate predictions for Australia predict extreme wet years - the problem is that we need to plan for extreme dry ones, unless someone can find a magic box to store water in.

 

Some facts

 

It is now raining - and lots of it.

True enough. See above.

 

Sea levels have stabilised and are now falling

Not true. No studies support falling sea levels.

 

Arctic ice may be less than previous years but Antartcic Ice has increased significantly

Not true. Arctic Ice has declined significantly, Antarctic snow pack has increased, areas of ice are within the range of previous years.

 

The Great barrier reef is not dead

Very true. Did anyone say it was going to be??

Average temps on earth have not increased in the last 10 years.

Not true. Global average temps over the last decade are up 0.55 degrees - at the upper end of the worst predictions made a decade ago. 

 

In closing - it is impossible to have a logical deabte on this subject as anyone who disagrees (with the alarmists) and has evidence to prove it is shouted down and ridiculed .

 

Not shouting you down at all - nor am I using inflammatory language like 'alarmists', claiming anyone is saying stuff just because of their political inclinations or bad mouthing any individuals.

 

Happy to have a logical debate, but that means making sure the facts are sound as a basis for that debate. Some of the ones in previous messages are wrong.

 

R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way out of line Saxon, keep your personal opinions to yourself mate, no personal attacks are welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Peter, i am very un pc, i didnt mean to offend you. Ive deleted my post.

 

I still think its a valid point. I dont care what climate change scientists say because their jobs depend on funding from governments, which they only get if they make a lot of noise about the impending apocalypse. And the best and brightest scientists dont become climate change scientists, simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sco_aus I wasn't personally attacking you. When I said "I can't believe there are people out there that are soo blissfully ignorant and unaware of the damage being done to the in environment as we speak." I wasn't directing it at you personally although I can see how you thought that with my post being above yours. Truth be told I hadn't even read your post. I imagine you have noticed damage being done to the environment. My post was partially in reaction to a person I encountered in person who I gave a decent serving too because they suggested that humans have no impact on the environment whatsoever. Being someone who has done research and read many articles from lots of places and studying this exact subject, I felt the need to state some facts. One of which is that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is proven. However it goes beyond that what I focus on is all forms of human damage such as the increases in hard surfaces, water pollution, land clearing etc. There are many people out there [silly alarmists and other people with agenda's eg. "Tim Flannery, Ros Gaunet (spelling) and all the rest of the doomsday profits"- AL] who also do more damage than good by stating nonexistent things such as because of climate change there are soo many cyclones and floods. That is all unproven crap and not science! Also I would like to point out that I disagree with the Carbon Tax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would be great if it didnt get so personal. Why cant people have a logical debate.

 

Its clear both sides have some great points, and until its proven completely i dont think people will change their mind from the views they have.

 

there is another age coming (most likely ice) whether we like it or not. When it gets here is totally up to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise you aren't only attacking me, but the statement was about people in general who have a different opinion, this is a debate, not a fight.  I appreciate your opinion and your reply, but I maintain my position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to all of you who believe in global warming, does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that slowly but surely the big Mining and Manufacturering Industries are taking their work offshore which will cripple our economy. They can do the same thing overseas for half the price due to this global warming tax that has been placed on these companies based on a theory, and the money the government is stealing from them isn't actually going towards helping the issue?

 

Do you feel good knowing that even if Australia suceeds in reducing its carbon production by forcing all the big companies elsewhere, that it will be a piss in the ocean compared to the amount of carbon produced by countries such as China or India.

 

So we all suffer due to a lack of jobs and poor economy. Our kids grow up hearing what a prosperous country Australia "used to be" while India and China continue doing what they do, and the world runs out of food and we all die before anything we've done to contribute to 'saving the planet" even has time to take effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to all of you who believe in global warming, does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that slowly but surely the big Mining and Manufacturering Industries are taking their work offshore which will cripple our economy.

 

Being from Gladstone I thought you might know a little better the situation we have up here. Mining is going nuts at the moment and there are some astronomically huge projects that are impending. I work as an urban planner in Rockhampton and our areas and further west in CQ are just going off. Most people would be pretty astonished to be driving out so far west and arrive in a town with a brand new thousand lot development that looks like some new estate of an middle/upper class of a city sprawl suburb. I think mining is here to stay. We have many hundreds of years coal left in us to go. The only crippling is to those regions with FIFO's because Council's response to housing demand has been inept. As for manufacturing going offshore, it's been recognised as in danger long before the boom and carbon concerns.

 

They can do the same thing overseas for half the price due to this global warming tax that has been placed on these companies based on a theory, and the money the government is stealing from them isn't actually going towards helping the issue?

 

I'm not in support of the tax, but there is still a fundamental need to address the concerns of people that live in the areas they call home and have raised families for years before these kinds of mines came to town. No different to a developer building a few units on an allotment. The developer pays for the infrastructure, pays for the connection to the existing infrastructure, and is essentially paying for the burden of additional loads to sewerage, reticulated water, traffic, etc. Mines are equally responsible for their loads to infrastructure. Every coal train moving along carries $3m worth of coal inevitably heading offshore. We're kidding ourselves if they can't afford to contribute something. No doubt some of them have in some form or another (eg. built roads, local services like gyms, town water infrastructure, etc) but often because it is in their own interest. The issue is to their extent of obligation to contribute to the community living in the area they are pillaging.

 

Do you feel good knowing that even if Australia suceeds in reducing its carbon production by forcing all the big companies elsewhere, that it will be a piss in the ocean compared to the amount of carbon produced by countries such as China or India.

 

Many countries look to Australia to set precedence for environmental matters. I'm not sure why as we historically one of the biggest environmental vandals around. However, we have succeeded already in China admitting and planning to reduce carbon with both a tax and a trading scheme. I'd like to think we had some part in their decision. And since the writing is on the wall for these carbon intensive industries. It's those guys who are pouring large amounts of money into the 'renewable' energy projects like solar and thermal.

 

So we all suffer due to a lack of jobs and poor economy. Our kids grow up hearing what a prosperous country Australia "used to be" while India and China continue doing what they do, and the world runs out of food and we all die before anything we've done to contribute to 'saving the planet" even has time to take effect.

 

I'm not sure about the lack of jobs thing. It really depends where you are willing to go to have a job. Interestingly, we are experiencing something in Aus we haven't seen before, the generational unemployed. They've grown up in unemployed families and have grown up in welfare living, are uneducated and unwilling to work, but whinge like no other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think its a valid point. I dont care what climate change scientists say because their jobs depend on funding from governments, which they only get if they make a lot of noise about the impending apocalypse. And the best and brightest scientists dont become climate change scientists, simple as that.

 

You would be hard pressed to find any scientist call themselves a climate change scientist. They are climate scientists and being scientists are interested in facts. Thankfully some scientists are funded by government, but unfortunately not enough. Government would rather be out building third world demountables, installing flammable pink batts, and paying off hookers.

 

It's going to be hard to deny climate change when it's not only argued by climate scientists, but also chemists, geophysicists, etc. And not to forget the average Joe who is living on a Pacific island where his people have lived for hundreds of years and have a deep understanding of seasons and weather patterns and are now watching their islands slowly "sink".

 

And to counter your point about government funded scientists (which I argue they should be doing anyway), what about those skeptics caught out funded by industry / some of the largest companies in the world? It's nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mining is fairly low in energy consumtion so it will always be around, but look at what we are mining and where we are sending our products. Its going overseas to be used in high carbon producing industries.

 

Now if the govenment actually cared, they would stop exporting these minerals to countries that arent making an effort like we are.

 

If this occured they wouldnt be able to tax the sales and they wouldnt have as much money in their deep pockets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. >:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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  

×