Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Power Raid]

And here we have the classic case of "I'm not anti-science" followed by bashing of science.

You want to know whether changes are good or bad? Go read some of the scientific literature! See how mass extinction of flora and fauna and massive changes in farming region climates are likely to affect our ability to feed the world. Anybody even considering that the sort of changes projected might be "good" needs their head read and have been completely and utterly brainwashed by climate deniers.

Debate what we should do all you want, but these are some basic scientific facts that need to be acknowledged:

1. The climate is changing faster than ever in recorded history.
2. This is predominantly driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
3. This is causing significant challenges to the long-term livability of the planet in terms of producing the resources humanity requires (ignoring the significant environmental impacts).
and 4. These challenges will be significantly exacerbated without deep cuts in emissions within the next few decades.

Until you acknowledge these things as being true, as acknowledged by the vast, vast, vast majority of the scientific community, you're just putting your head in the sand. You have the temerity to suggest that it's "alarmist positions" (aka the ones who are generally linked with the science) that are preventing action while you trash a working carbon price, complain about vested interests in AGW without doing the same for fossil fuel companies and talk about "all polution not just CO2" as though there is evidence of a challenge remotely as big as climate change out there. You criticise those who take the problem seriously as preventing progress on the issue while consistently refusing to acknowledge the reality of the issue we face. Frankly you've made so many anti-scientific comments in this thread that on this topic you're nothing more than a troll.

Troll?

I'm building a business based on a cleaner future.

All I'm suggesting is people should be proactive and be positive. Arm waving alarmists and lobby groups simply get in the way of action.

What camp do you sit in? action or arm waving?

 

[awaremind]

Project management will tell you a large endeavour must be taken step by step, and it may be only at the completion of the project the benefits are able to be reaped. The later you start the project the later it will finish. In our case, with such problems as the acidification of our oceans we don't have time to hesitate as the potential impacts are sooo much greater than hard economic times. See how desparate people on small pacific islands are for global action on cc.

 

[pokerspiv]

See how desparate people on small pacific islands are for global action on cc.

Climate Alarmists predicted those Islands should have been reclaimed by the sea about 15 years ago.

 

[awaremind]

Practical steps should be taken, its just the indecision of the politicians that is annoyingly stupid. The can all agree its a good Idea to bomb the middle east quick smart, but when it comes to action towards efficiency and cleanliness there is a stupid debate over what to do if anything at all and we may miss our best chance to be world leaders in an emerging industry.

 

[awaremind]

Climate Alarmists predicted those Islands should have been reclaimed by the sea about 15 years ago.

Even if its in 200 years, it hardly matters, I dont want my great grandkids living in a planet size rubbish dump.

 

[pokerspiv]

Even if its in 200 years, it hardly matters, I dont want my great grandkids living in a planet size rubbish dump.

Have we changed the subject?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Good question

no, it merely highlights the disingenuousness of your train of thought.

 

[awaremind]

Have we changed the subject?

Ok then I don't want to open the pandora's box that would be poisoning our water and affecting our atmosphere, by not trying to reverse the trend of ever increasing carbon emission. not to mention the pollution and short term economic thinking of an unsustainable civilisation. I guess if you are not concerned about biodiversity on the planet or the survival of the species, sure theres no problem.

 

[pokerspiv]

no, it merely highlights the disingenuousness of your train of thought.

There's nothing disingenuous about what I'm saying. A tax doesn't magically make climate change go away. There is absolutely no "settled science" on what, if any, effects a global tax would have, even if it's assumed that China and India sign up (which they almost certainly won't).

So the people who push for a tax without even really having an argument for it are basically just doing it for the same reason they want to tax everything else. It's got stuff all to do with Climate, and the Australian carbon tax will accomplish nothing.

 

[Long Live HFC]

There is absolutely no "settled science" on what, if any, effects a global tax would have

what nonsense. taxes are a tool that curb or alter behaviour. I can list any number of examples supporting this claim. the US study I linked to earlier showed the increase in electricity generation/delivery efficiencies made during the course of that program.

even if it's assumed that China and India sign up (which they almost certainly won't).

uh huh.

http://www.afr.com/p/world/china_brings_forward_carbon_permits_lW858UnFxEI5OAEeXmfXgJ

 

[Power Raid]

what nonsense. taxes are a tool that curb or alter behaviour. I can list any number of examples supporting this claim. the US study I linked to earlier showed the increase in electricity generation/delivery efficiencies made during the course of that program.



uh huh.

http://www.afr.com/p/world/china_brings_forward_carbon_permits_lW858UnFxEI5OAEeXmfXgJ

the problem with that is some places in OZ need to alter behaviour and have alternatives whilst others have no alternatives. So do we implement a clumsy tax that treats all jurisdictions the same or do we seek optimal outcomes by jurisdiction?

 

[Long Live HFC]

the problem with that is some places in OZ need to alter behaviour and have alternatives whilst others have no alternatives. So do we implement a clumsy tax that treats all jurisdictions the same or do we seek optimal outcomes by jurisdiction?

i don't really care to be honest. i expect people with far better understanding than i to make these decisions. that's what i elect governments for.

 

[Power Raid]

Non - diverse economies are more at the mercy of macro-environmental factors damaging the economy, see Russia and its dependence on its oil and gas revenues. plus once we have sold all that is profitable to sell, what then? Why wait to prepare for the future?

I trust when you say we have sold everything we have to sell you mean privatising government corporations.

is it better to have 100% of the profit but tie up and risk 100% of the capital; or
release 100% of the capital, allocate that capital to something else and retain 40%

 

[Power Raid]

i don't really care to be honest. i expect people with far better understanding than i to make these decisions. that's what i elect governments for.

I wish that was the case

Rudd, Gillard and Abbott haven't performed. The carbon tax and mining taxes are pretty easy to get right if you start with a common sense objective. Unfortunately both require co-operation of the states to be structured properly and unfortunately the feds just want a power grab rather than respecting the commonwealth.

 

[awaremind]

I trust when you say we have sold everything we have to sell you mean privatising government corporations.

is it better to have 100% of the profit but tie up and risk 100% of the capital; or
release 100% of the capital, allocate that capital to something else and retain 40%

I actually meant Natural Resources, not that that will happen that soon, but it will happen.

 

[awaremind]

I trust when you say we have sold everything we have to sell you mean privatising government corporations.

is it better to have 100% of the profit but tie up and risk 100% of the capital; or
release 100% of the capital, allocate that capital to something else and retain 40%

To answer that other question I would say it depends on the inherent risk of the investment.

 

[Power Raid]

I actually meant Natural Resources, not that that will happen that soon, but it will happen.

let's worry about that in a few thousand years.

In the mean time lets sell our resources at a profit; collect the corporate tax, payroll tax, the GST, the mining royalties, the rates and shire taxes, the franking deficits taxes, the WHT, the CGT all whilst providing employment directly and indirectly and letting the mining companies build roads, power stations, desal plants, railways and port infrastructure and providing the indigenous groups 1-2% of revenues, employment, health and education opportunities.

Or we can not sell it and protect it by force.


I guess it comes down to the practical question of whether Australians are more deserving of the earth's resources than others. Some would see we are on this planet together and should co-operate. Others see themselves as privileged and superior.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Troll?

I'm building a business based on a cleaner future.

All I'm suggesting is people should be proactive and be positive. Arm waving alarmists and lobby groups simply get in the way of action.

What camp do you sit in? action or arm waving?

Yes troll. A quick look through your posts in this thread shows that you're not "proactive and positive" at all. You take any opportunity at all to slander those who promote scientific reality as "alarmists", complain that those who are pushing for action are just "pom-pom wavers" and any solution given is never good enough. The end result is you criticise every effort to tackle climate change while always playing down the actual problem we face. Sure you cloak it in a veneer of "I just want us to do the right thing" but in reality you're actively campaigning against meaningful action.

Take the carbon tax. By any standard it's clearly the best policy to tackle climate change we've ever implemented. Perfect? No. But up until it was removed it was doing everything we'd want that sort of policy to do with very few negatives. Yet all you see are the negatives. Nobody who takes climate change seriously would look at that policy and only find negatives. The fact you do shows that you've got no interest in tackling climate change. Your constant complaints are all one way. Saying you're "proactive and positive" doesn't change from the truth that in reality you're constantly negative about climate change action and will come up with any excuse for action not to be taken. Either you're paid to push this sort of propaganda or you're a troll.

 

[Power Raid]

Yes troll. A quick look through your posts in this thread shows that you're not "proactive and positive" at all. You take any opportunity at all to slander those who promote scientific reality as "alarmists", complain that those who are pushing for action are just "pom-pom wavers" and any solution given is never good enough. The end result is you criticise every effort to tackle climate change while always playing down the actual problem we face. Sure you cloak it in a veneer of "I just want us to do the right thing" but in reality you're actively campaigning against meaningful action.

Take the carbon tax. By any standard it's clearly the best policy to tackle climate change we've ever implemented. Perfect? No. But up until it was removed it was doing everything we'd want that sort of policy to do with very few negatives. Yet all you see are the negatives. Nobody who takes climate change seriously would look at that policy and only find negatives. The fact you do shows that you've got no interest in tackling climate change. Your constant complaints are all one way. Saying you're "proactive and positive" doesn't change from the truth that in reality you're constantly negative about climate change action and will come up with any excuse for action not to be taken. Either you're paid to push this sort of propaganda or you're a troll.

that's certainly one way of choosing to look at it.

The other would be to say, we could achieve more if we were positive and had objectives. A carbon tax simply can not work unless it is jurisdiction focused. After all how can it work if it is not tailored to promote an identified solution? Unless of course it was just about buying votes by being seen to be doing something and collecting revenues.

I also don't see the obsession with CO2, as all pollution should be reduced where possible.

I also don't see the value of exporting our pollution as the carbon tax has already achieved and can not be unwound. Worse, the pollution we have exported will be repaid to planet earth with interest as industry has shifted to higher polluting nations.

but hey some people simply aren't into common sense or achieving objectives. Some are just satisfied with a clumsy tax.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I also don't see the obsession with CO2, as all pollution should be reduced where possible.

probably because it's a global issue that has the potential to impact everywhere?

 

[Power Raid]

probably because it's a global issue that has the potential to impact everywhere?

So you are suggesting we can ignore all other pollutants? or do you agree we should reduce all pollutants where possible?

 

[Long Live HFC]

So you are suggesting we can ignore all other pollutants?

of course i'm not saying that just that it's a 'big deal' because it has far more far-reaching implications across the globe than acid rain in eastern europe or nuclear radiation in japan.

 

[medusala]

what nonsense. taxes are a tool that curb or alter behaviour.

Depends on price elasticity of demand

i don't really care to be honest. i expect people with far better understanding than i to make these decisions. that's what i elect governments for.

Lol, Penny Wong! Humour

Take the carbon tax. By any standard it's clearly the best policy to tackle climate change we've ever implemented.

The ALP version was hopeless. It was dependent on an international trading scheme that didn't exist!!

Of course they could have done something simple and beneficial like reintroduction of cpi indexation to petrol but that was beyond them.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Depends on price elasticity of demand

well duh.

Lol, Penny Wong! Humour

really? i wasn't aware she was still a minister? clearly i wasn't speaking in specifics nor showed any party bias. idiot.

 

[medusala]

really? i wasn't aware she was still a minister? clearly i wasn't speaking in specifics nor showed any party bias. idiot.

Right so you trust Wong when she was in power, now you trust Greg Hunt despite the parties having completely different policies

An interesting approach to take