March 19, 2011 at 7:03 pm #254695
If enterprises create Kyoto-compliant foresty or carbon sinks they are issued with carbon credits which they can sell to companies that are using more than they have credits for.
so, when the government is locking up farmers land under the lands act, for carbon sequestering, the government is recieving carbon credits for land they have stolen off farmers. how is this fair?March 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm #492998
I am not convinced that this carbon pricing is not a government money maker. check out this part of the white paper about the auctioning. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/cprs/white-paper/~/media/publications/white-paper/V1009Chapter-pdf.ashxMarch 20, 2011 at 9:39 am #492999
yes it is all somewhat of a rort, devised in the minds of government and science in bed together, reckon a grade 5 kid would work out it is all poppy cock.
lenMarch 20, 2011 at 10:32 am #493000
That’s a 32 page document, since there is such deep seated criticism in the previous posts, in this thread and others, on said white paper regarding “Auctioning of Australian carbon pollution permits”, etc, etc, how ’bout you’ll provide your learned (and legible) critiques in summary?March 20, 2011 at 11:20 am #493001
well as science has never proven this carbon assumtion in any tangable way, and as there are those out there who know nothing of applying sense or common sense before making a decision these threads will continue to go around in circles with one side inferring how much more educated they are than others, so maybe they are saying the less educated ones don’t have a right of opinion. yet those of espoused scientific minds who feel they must talk for the majority want answers and we get none. we do not want hypothetical conjecture derived from mathematical pat on the back peer pressure science.
the obvious is how can the purchase of carbon credits created by a private forest or grass land reduce the levels of this carbon stuff in any tangable way i the world stage, let alone how will it have a positive effect in the country that buys the credits seeing that they are thousands of kilometeres away? and the forest/grassland over here is it not already sucking up this carbon? does that mean that if someone pays for it, it will then suck up more carbon???
like i say no common sense or sense in any of it, good thing my forebears had common sense or places like witta would never have been settled.
at least we aren’t getting smothered with tomes of cut and paste text that is all conjecture. someone suggested carbon tax imports yep great thought hey that will push up the price of imports guaranteed just as the carbon rites will, and of course nearly all aussie manufacture is off shore hey?
lenMarch 20, 2011 at 12:08 pm #493002
gardenlen post=307581 wrote: at least we aren’t getting smothered with tomes of cut and paste text that is all conjecture.
Did I just read your conjecture…?
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information : conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied | the purpose of the opening in the wall is open to conjecture.
– an unproven mathematical or scientific theorem : the Goldbach conjecture.
– (in textual criticism) the suggestion or reconstruction of a reading of a text not present in the original source.
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information : he conjectured the existence of an otherwise unknown feature | many conjectured that she had a second husband in mind.
– (in textual criticism) propose (a reading).March 20, 2011 at 12:26 pm #493003
well there ya go hey? science conjecure is the same as us uneducated peoples?? only our conjecture is not going to make peoples lives miserable to fix the scientific conjecture. won’t make any money for someone either.
we can all refer to a dictionary all we need now is common sense fact to come into the equation.
lenMarch 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm #493004
gardenlen post=307587 wrote: science conjecure
Yep, it’s rife, it’s called pseudo science, it’s in the media, on the web, in forums and its paid for, people bought by mining interests.March 20, 2011 at 1:06 pm #493005
yep all of it corrupted science in the interest of those so involved, whether in bed with oil mining magnates or polititians they all corrupt, dishonest and want to manipulate their beliefs onto the unsuspecting masses. all been said before the magnates are in bed with the pollies as well, so one in all in becomes the same club.
lenMarch 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm #493006
Bullseye you deserve a medal 😉March 20, 2011 at 4:50 pm #493007
Bullseye, this wasnt supposed to be a thread about whether climate change exist or carbon causes it etc, it is simply a link to the “white paper” guidelines, policy, rules etc that will be used for the carbon tax. it is actually a lot longer than 32 pages but I would think considering the time spent arguing that it was money well spent ,people here would want to know what the whole deal was.
so right or wrong, for better or worse , this is the carbon tax as it will be conducted.
it does not mean carbon does or doesn’t cause climate change , it is just the financial and social facts associated with the tax.March 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm #493008
I repost mine as you clearly didn’t understand that I was referring to the white paper on “Auctioning of Australian carbon pollution permits”
The section you referred to and that I specifically referred contains 32 pages…
That’s a 32 page document, since there is such deep seated criticism in the previous posts, in this thread and others, on said white paper regarding “Auctioning of Australian carbon pollution permits”, etc, etc, how ’bout you’ll provide your learned (and legible) critiques in summary?
So as asked previously, maybe those criticising it could summarise your key problems with “Auctioning of Australian carbon pollution permits”?March 20, 2011 at 5:49 pm #493009
Ggang post=307596 wrote: Bullseye you deserve a medal 😉
I hear they aren’t what they’re cracked up to be.
Serve the man a medallion of beef thanks – marinated beef tenderloin preferably. 😛March 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm #493010
you don’t have one without the other surely, seems to be a condition for the believers that the way they view it there is no hand in glove.
lenMarch 20, 2011 at 6:57 pm #493011
Bullseye post=307616 wrote:
Bullseye you deserve a medal 😉
I hear they aren’t what they’re cracked up to be.
Even so, you deserve one for your efforts.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.