Skip to toolbar

Aussies Living Simply

The Carbon Tax Debate

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 254 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #501087
    Hummer HumbugHummer
    Keymaster

    Airgead post=317833 wrote:

    You are, of course, quite right. As usual this thread has been hijacked into the old is it/isnt it debate and those who are here to debate the merits of the carbon tax are sitting there bored out of their skulls.

    I shouldn’t have let the thread move that way. I fell into the “what’s the harm in responding to one little post…” trap.

    Can I ask, respectfully, that the debate on whether or not climate change is real, be moved to a new thread or continued via private messaging. And yes, I knowe I’m one of the main offenders. Mea Culpa.

    The majority of people participating in the thread are her to debate the carbon tax, not the reality of global warming.

    I know threads on is it/isn’t it tend to get closed down pretty quickly but I am prepared to let one live provided it follows the rules of debate that this thread follows…

    Cheers

    Dave

    Can I just say, although I have not participated in this thread, I have been following it with some interest.

    Can I ask that another thread be started so I can continue reading ?

    #501088
    porgeyporgey
    Member

    This is how I am summing up political attempts to reduce atmospheric carbon;

    Julia Gillard is trying to do the Right Thing the Wrong Way and Tony Abbott is doing the Wrong Thing the Right Way.

    Sadly, Tont Abbott is wining hands down as popular support has swung his way, sadly in a large part due to poor political choices and bizzare strategic blunders by Labor.

    Both political leaders and parties are to blame so like usual the environment and society are the real losers. As we cant expect our “leaders” to do anything proactive from there gutter then its up to like minded people, like folk on this site, to be proactive and walk the walk.

    #501089
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    Humbug post=317838 wrote:

    Can I just say, although I have not participated in this thread, I have been following it with some interest.

    Can I ask that another thread be started so I can continue reading ?

    OK. New thread created. I did toy with moving the off topic posts to the new thread but Its a lot of work (ie: i’m lazy) so I’ll leave them here for now. If people want me to move them to clean this thread up then I will.

    Cheers

    Dave

    #501090
    BootstrapperBootstrapper
    Member

    The true constituency of big government, is big business. You can rest assured that no big business interests were harmed, in the making of the Carbon Tax. However, economics as currently practiced, is a ‘zero-sum game’. If someone wins, someone else loses.

    I wonder who loses?

    #501091
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Interesting commentary, on the Coalition’s Direct Action plan, by Ben Elton at this post on ABC’s The Drum. I don’t know if Ben Eltham has a political bias, but he certainly sticks the boot into Tony Abbott’s Direct Action plan.

    In part, he points out:

    In its Red Book briefing for the incoming government, the Treasury stated bluntly that when it comes to cutting carbon emissions, “direct action initiatives alone will not do the job.” Its Blue Book, prepared for the Coalition should it have won government, was even blunter. “A broad based market mechanism which prices carbon,” Treasury wrote, “…is the only realistic way of achieving the deep cuts in emissions that are required.”

    That comes down to a credibility contest between Treasury and Tony. I pick Treasury.

    #501092
    bluesnipbluesnip
    Member

    Oh good work Owlbrudder I was just about to post that. Its an interesting read.

    I’ll note that the commentary is written by Ben Eltham though 😛 :whistle:

    #501093
    GgangGgang
    Member

    all those vitriolic carbon tax opposers should read it :tup: if you do you will find the media is doing the brainwashing and turning people against the tax …….. not the reverse as you continually accuse 👿

    plus a summary of Abbott utterings

    The take-home message is simple. The Coalition’s plan is based on incomplete science, dubious economics and breath-taking political expediency. It will be hugely expensive. It won’t cut carbon emissions. It won’t even lead to lower taxes. And it will still introduce a shadow price for carbon.

    #501094
    SurvegalistSurvegalist
    Member

    Silent post=317835 wrote: This was even easier than I had first thought. Two things helped with that.

    1) You cherry-picked the data before I warned you not to and why it is a bad idea.

    2) This isn’t your argument (it’s not even an argument) but simply bait thrown into the water to draw me out.

    Well, the first point (although it seems belittling because you have, by now, rewritten your stance to counter what you know is about to hit) is to reiterate the dangers of incomplete data (the cherry-picking error you walked into).

    I went through those e-mails and found some great ones which support my side too (I stuck them at the bottom if you are interested but they are nothing more than examples to highlight the fact that I can make your error work in my favour and that is why cherry-picking is considered an error). Picking and choosing data is not the way to do things. I am truly surprised that this error was made by one who wants the proof and the whole proof (your exact words elude me).

    If you don’t trust the work of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University and the Independent Climate Change Email Review then you can go through all the emails yourself and draw your own conclusions. There was no fraud, there was no misconduct.

    Of course, by going against the majority in this matter, you double your workload in the debate. Not only must you justify why you disagree with climate science but you must also justify why you go against the reports which cleared those involved of fraud and misconduct during Climategate

    But this logic error of yours is largely irrelevant. You would not have used such a weak position without good reason. Point 2 still stands….it’s a trap.

    You have used Climategate as bait. I have obliged you by biting.

    PS: are you going to respond to the earlier comments I made? Especially the one about the IPCC’s modelling.

    My version of cherry-picking:

    I suggest a more explicit mention of conclusions with regard to the Medieval Warm period in recent work on this topic. The first statement in this section doesn’t provide (I don’t think) explicit evidence to back itself up. p33

    For issue (Bii), I would suggest being explicit that it is incumbent upon authors to provide some evidence to support their speculation. What evidence can the author provide to support his speculation concerning the role of the THC in the Medieval Warm period? Rather than explicitly stating this is not a likely mechanism, I would contrast the speculation he has offered on this topic to the stronger (in my opinion) evidence provided by modeling[sic] studies to support the idea of the importance of radiative forcing. p33

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23678260/Climate-Gate-Emails

    EDIT: Sorry Airgead. Just saw your post. You are right we have drifted off the topic. I’ll shut up now.

    Arrrh,

    Okay Silent,I may be a bit slow on the puter,I may be a bit low on the edumafication side too but,the link I gave you was the ol’ Profs words..Not mine,I didn’t cherry pick anything.In fact everything I put in my posts were relevent to my stance on a carbon tax..No Proof,no need for a tax.I’m not sure that the majority of ppl on this thread agree with a CT and even if they did,the majority of Australia sure don’t..the polls show that.

    Your timely joining of the forum..Mmm,well it is interesting to me.What sort of gardening are you into?One would hazard a guess that Green is your agenda,take some time to visit other parts of this site and offer some input.

    Silent,we are obviously on different sides to the debate question,probably on differen’t sides of the “PROOF” as well.Some have stated there can not be absolute proof,I knew that..You know that,the difference between us is that I need absolute proof befor I’m led to the slaughter and you don’t mind telling people it’s allright to go.Maybe you are the one that dosen’t see the bigger picture of the carbon tax after all every lifeform on this planet owes it’s existence to carbon in one way or the other,not taxs that are pushed apon us by a system that relies on growth and consumerism to survive.If the percieved problem AGW was infact the dire straights for the PLANET that these global controlers were sprouting,then maybe it wouldn’t be organised,manipulated and implemented by ecconomists.The IPCC was and is a group put together by the UN for the UN and their agenda,payed for scientists that didn’t get the modeling right from the start and failed to deliver(Thanks to real inderpendant scientists).In your thoughts I “Cherry Picked”,well if I did it was from the tree it’self.Prof.Phil Jones own words.If he was as incompented enough to say what he said,he’s not someone that I would have confedence in.

    #501095
    DocDoc
    Member

    Are we there yet :whistle:

    Not sure about global warming or the carbon tax but it sure is getting warm in here.

    Let us try and keep the personal stuff out of the ‘debate’

    Hint, hint :angry:

    Doc 😉

    #501096
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Just read this opinion piece on The Drum, by Brendan O’Neill. It explains how the carbon tax / ETS will result in us ensuring a lower standard of living for people in the countries from which our polluters will be buying about two thirds of their carbon credits.

    I have been uncomfortable about the fact that Julia’s plan will not see us actually reduce our own emissions and the piece in The Drum reinforces that uncomfortable feeling. In principle, I support the ETS, but I really think we are not going far enough, or fast enough. Our present standard of living is unsustainable, but I guess we are too addicted to it to be able to downscale any time soon. Not a good reflection on our so-called ‘civilisation’.

    #501097
    AnjaAnja
    Member

    I think all we can do is wait and see. Hopefully if it starts going wrong, the policies will be ‘tweaked’. Hopefully it will go according to plan. Hopefully it’s a step in the right direction, albeit a small step. I think all we can do is wait and see….

    #501098
    ahningahning
    Member

    owlbrudder post=318365 wrote: Just read this opinion piece on The Drum, by Brendan O’Neill. It explains how the carbon tax / ETS will result in us ensuring a lower standard of living for people in the countries from which our polluters will be buying about two thirds of their carbon credits.

    I have been uncomfortable about the fact that Julia’s plan will not see us actually reduce our own emissions and the piece in The Drum reinforces that uncomfortable feeling. In principle, I support the ETS, but I really think we are not going far enough, or fast enough. Our present standard of living is unsustainable, but I guess we are too addicted to it to be able to downscale any time soon. Not a good reflection on our so-called ‘civilisation’.

    I certainly agree that Australians need to reduce our own emissions, but still I think that Drum piece is wrong about the effect of buying credits from overseas. Two reasons:

    1. The developing world doesn’t need to take the same fossil fueled route to better living standards as the West did. The money they earn from carbon credits can be used directly to build renewable power generation and transportation systems, which could mean they get to something approaching a genuinely sustainable high standard of living before the West does.

    2. The fact that big emitters can buy carbon offsets doesn’t mean that they want to. They’ll do that if they think it’s the most cost effective way for them to pay for the carbon they emit, but the carbon price is still an incentive to reduce emissions because if they don’t emit they don’t have to offset and they don’t have any cost.

    The more I look at this package the better it seems. Getting 500 big polluting companies, especially electricity generating companies, to pay for their carbon emissions means that the people who can make the biggest difference by reducing emissions have an incentive to do so. Because their products – power, steel, aluminium – are fundamental to our way of life any reductions they make automatically mean reductions for all of us. That’s not an excuse for individuals to end their own efforts, but the point is to protect the planet and at this stage big corporate polluters can do more than individuals can.

    Hope that makes you feel better?

    Ahning

    #501099
    MetuMetu
    Member

    We just got through funding the industrial revolution, now we we have to fund a new green technological age of the future?

    Here’s the ironic rub to it all: generating technological solutions is what started killing the planet in the first place. It gave people the idea they didn’t need to limit anything they did (or even understand it) they just had to dream bigger. Guess what we’re doing now?

    Only this time the grand economic dream modelling, is meant to save the planet. The same market forces which gave us industrialised solutions – subsequently starving local economies and decimating eco-systems, are now going to get their hands on the price per tonne of Carbon, emitted in Australia. That’s what will happen once the government hands the Carbon Tax over to the markets, which they said they will do at a later date.

    No more subsidies to protect the poor when that happens either. The government says they will act to help the environment, instead they act to hand more control mechanisms to the market. We live in a democracy, that’s how things get done. What happens when the market changes it mind and decides the price per tonne should be downgraded, like gold has done in recent times? Back up the emissions go! Paying money in good faith doesn’t mean delivery of service.

    Just as the industrial era forced consumers to dream big and buy more, so will the new green market economy of the future. You can still dream big and buy more, just as long as you’re paying for a new green technological solution! It will probably come at the expense of another poor overseas country too, just so you can pay a competitive price. :tup:

    If enough concerned citizens kick-up a stink about that reailty, the government may invent a whole new economy again – telling you it will fix all the unfair goings on in the world, while you just sit back and enjoy the lifestyle you’ve grown accustomed to.

    I predict, the public will become as use to Carbon Trading as they did with the introduction of the GST. No public upheval. No social collapse. It may even boost the economy as promised. Once again though, it will become the market forces which dictates peoples choices, and all we’ll think about is how we divy out the money we earn to our debtors. We’ll have no more dealt with the issue of why we got in this mess with the planet, than we did before.

    If anything could be learned from the global economic crisis and the insurance debarcle leaving many Queensland Flood victims without a way to recoup their assets, it’s that when it comes to facing responsibility, individuals will get hit before markets go under. Individuals will lose everything before corporations go into receivership.

    Bearing all this in mind, notice how Julia wants us to help support positive action for the climate, by segregating the “big polluters” from us. The PM said they have been able to pollute the atmosphere for free in the past. Well what she conveniently left out of her address, was so have you! How many billion of us are there around the world now? Only it’s easier to slug a big, nameless corporation in the name of saving the planet (and win support) than it is to hit the voters up with their “free” polution of the atmosphere too.

    In theory a Carbon Tax sounds nice, but take a look at economic history to realise fads have come and gone. The one consistency has been the markets ability to drive consumers, due to their very poor understanding of the markets influence – or it’s limitation to actually fix anything but provide an inferior product!

    Markets love advertising “theirs” is better than the next guys, even if you don’t necessarily understand what it is they’re selling you. It’s just better, greener, cleaner, and YOU want it – you know you do…go on, the Jones’ in the EU are doing it and they have the best of everything. You simply don’t have it yet, get it and you won’t be yucky any more – save the planet!

    Umm..yeah…I’m getting over the markets influence and realising there’s no silver bullet to save the planet. That’s the inconvenient truth. There’s no solution coming forth from a market controlled by money. They will find a way to cut costs which means living things will have to pay the price, even if they haven’t made the documentary to tell you all about it yet.

    Sadly, once we start paying this Carbon Tax, emissions will be relegated to the boring chore of economic rationalisation. The hippies of the 60’s will be joined by the middle income families of the early millenium. We all wanted to do something positive to save the future, ulitmately though, we just funded the next round of market exploitations.

    Welcome to the future folks, it’s just the same as the past…only BIGGER! :clap:

    #501100
    pennypenny
    Member

    RM Williams and the Govt have just bought a station over here to specifically develop a carbon sink. They are going to remove cattle, replant with native plants. RM williams wants the carbon credits and I think it will be interesting to watch.

    I am not going to argue about the science of it all as we seem have people on both sides of the fence.

    This raises another aspect of carbon capture, how much land can we afford to use this way given the need for food production. Perhaps kangaroos on the property for meat might be the way to go? They are suited and native to the area so the property might be able to do both.

    #501101
    AirgeadAirgead
    Member

    I looked at that RM Williams development as well. Very interesting.

    My understanding is that the land in question is badly degraded and barely able to support cattle anyway. I believe the intention is to return cattle to the property in a managed way once it has been restored and that once restored the property should be able to support many more head/acre than now.

    If the land was left in production the land would degrade further and the food production from that land would drop anyway.

    There are also schemes looking at doing this in salt affected land in the Murray/Darling which sounds like a fantastic idea.

    Cheers

    Dave

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 254 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.