OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: Graeme M on July 04, 2011, 04:21:16 pm
-
I've been reading a few of the comments at various news sites regarding the Greens taking the balance of power and also the matter of the carbon tax. The overwhelming majority of commenters are against the carbon tax. Julie Gillard appears to have a very low rating in all the current polls. And yet anti-carbon tax rallies are poorly supported. I can only conclude that in fact most people are pro-carbon tax, but they are just unhappy with the way that Gillard's government is managing the matter.
Personally, I have no idea about the carbon tax - I don't really understand it in detail nor do I have a good sense of its likely impact. But as someone who's hobby/passion is pretty carbon intensive, I probably should have a view. My gut feel is that Australia is wrong to move early, given that the rest of the world seems not to be as adventurous, other than the UK. Given that Australia's contribution to reducing CO2 will have no effect on climate change, it would seem more prudent to me to actively promote appropriate strategies on the world stage whilst adopting the position that Australia will not move until the big players have moved.
What's everyone else think? Are you concerned? Are you passionately on-side with the governmment? Or is it just not that big a deal to you? Or should I just go spend more time polishing my NOS RM125 footpegs?
-
Its like this Graeme. Nothing wrong in polishing the NOS peg. Just do it by hand and don't use an electric buff coz you'll use electricity which cops the carbon tax. And I thought the Government said we weren't going to have any new taxes? >:(
-
Frigging Greenies (http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/icons/spam_laser.gif).
It will be like Free Trade - everyone agrees its a good idea, they'll sign up but then introduce protection barriers indirectly by calling them Cultural Grants or something similar.
In this case the French will have a carbon free society with a nuclear waste stock pile to the heavens. Which is the greater evil?
And the govt will be ripped off by every smart arse industry as with the Solar grant and the Pink batt rorts. Industry will go off shore or simply pass on cost. It's a forlorn hope that they'll that they'll suddenly grow a conscience and act 'for the greater good'. They are profit driven organizations with a profit motivation and will go to where they get the greatest profits.
It will be the consumer and Small Man of society who will pay. And Australia will become less competitive in the world, or GNP/per head will decline and we'll all become poorer, in every meaning of the words.
Julia or the Mad Monk? - they both are the most abysmal bottom of the barrel politicians Australia has ever suffered. A pox on both houses - especially in regard to carbon tax/global warming. To both it is just a political football to score points with - "screw Australia if you have to, just win the race to the Lodge".(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/icons/ShakeHeadSigh.gif)
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/icons/shooting.gif)Don't get me started.
-
Meh. Like everything in modern day Australian politics, there's a lot of pointless emotion and very little sensible discussion.
If either side was vaguely competent, then it would be far eaiser to form an informed opinion...
As I see it, a carbon tax is probably a very good way for our society today cut emissions - the old economic rationalist mantra of "user pays". Increasing the price of something is a very effective way of getting people to reassess how/how much they use something.
Problem is that the govt is too chicken shit to say that, so they ponce around telling us that hardly anyone will be worse off. If hardly anyone will be worse off, then the carbon tax won't really reduce emissions.... The same poncing about gives the Mad Monk even more ammunition to use against them.
Also, we're not going it alone as much as you might think.
But its all talk. Gillard and co couldn't sell ice cold beer to a bunch of VMXers on a summer afternoon, so I seriously doubt that they'll get this to fly.
And now that they've exempted petrol from the proposed tax, and are promising rebates and stuff, I can't see it actually making a significant difference to our lives.
-
It's a cash grab... plain and simple. Bet you there was no carbon tax 850 million of years ago when the poles melt back then.
Green house gases have been around since the day dot. which brings me to another point the ice age.
Google "Obliquity" talks about earths axis and degree's and how it alters all by it's self . Now tell me how the hell they plan on fixing this with a Tax.
Come to think of it OZ was under water once. Dah
-
Here is a sane viewpoint of an actual Professor, rather than the politically rancid view point of someone trying to win the Ferals Vote
Subject: Volcano's Carbon Footprint
In any significant battle between nature and people, guess who wins? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree. This is a good summary.
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k224/w418584/augustine-volcano-eruption.jpg)
Volcano's Carbon Footprint
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.
I know it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely, tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax. Give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets from Obama?
-
isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change”
Ha, yes I noticed that and was wondering why the change in rhetoric had occured. (Not that I'm implying this guy is right either).
Tex
-
Fact #1: Both the liberals and labour campaigned on a no-carbon tax platform. This implies that apprx 90% od Australians are against the carbon tax.
Fact #2: Carbon, although a greenhouse gas (and human activity produces about 7% of carbon, excluding the volcano example above) it is not the major greenhous gas. That honour goes to water vapour. Guess how much of the planets water vapour human activity produces? Didley squat!
Fact #3: Is the climate changing? Are we witnessing a temporary deviation from the average or is it a major change? We don't know. Consider 300 years ago the River Thames froze over in winter for several winters in sucsession.
-
A new adage; 'Truth is the first victim in a political debate'. ;) :'(
-
And the cycle goes round and round
(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab106/JAP454/Climate.jpg)
FWIW
Foss
-
- the old economic rationalist mantra of "user pays".
What school of economics is that from?
I though User Pays was political/bureaucrat talk for 'we'll tax them to build it and charge them to use it' ::).
Increasing the price of something is a very effective way of getting people to reassess how/how much they use something.
My school boy economics tells me the theory of Supply and Demand is a lot more complex than that.
And besides, you are talking about controlling price in Australia and yet our economic welfare is dictated by the world economy as much if not more than the Australian economy.
-
A bit long winded, but work the effort. Decide for yourself
How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?
Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.
The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.
On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Q1. What % of the air is CO2?
Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.
Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?
Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.
Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.
The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.
We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!
Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.
Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.
The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.
• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.
1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.
2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.
3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.
• Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.
• The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.
Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page.
The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.
The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate
It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are expiring now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.
For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update
and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/another-dalton-minimum/
The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.
Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.
Polls on Climate Change
Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!
Popular beliefs are not fact
The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.
A Carbon Tax
Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.
Gregg D Thompson
Climate Researcher
Astronomer
Environmentalist
Author of two science books
Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
Author of science magazine articles
Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
Nature photographer
Has a great interest in most sciences
Loves creating innovation in art
-
Stand up before its to late!! US russia and china do 70%of the worlds pollution and guess which 3 countries dont belong to keoto or what ever carbon tax rip off
-
Climate Change Scepticism always reminds me of the old saying about unhappy families being unhappy in their own way.
In particular, the whole "its part of a natural cycle, let's go to the pub" line, without any further thought about the implications, betrays the desire to avoid change.
I'm not a sceptic (although I am loathe to call myself a believer, because that implies a degree of religious fervor, which I definitely lack).
But really, for me, its far more about reducing our appetite for resources, particularly the non-renewables. Even if Climate change is a total fabrication (and not even Abbott claims its a total fabrication), I hope that it could/would be the issue that forces western society to think of the future, rather that blindly depending upon the extremely wobbly, vague notion that it will all work out in the end.
-
I lived for 20 years using no electricity . I,ve done my bit. Well I have done more that the people who accuse me of being a polluter.
We had 1500acres of trees and the government said we were not allowed to cut them down.
The reason the trees were there was because we did NOT cut them down.
Had we cut them down then we would NOT have had a problem with the new green laws.
Ironic.
We were punished for doing the right thing. (The green rules scared buyers and we got a Lower price at sale )
The carbon tax won,t change a thing because there is no viable alternative.
I don,t want to wreck the planet so give me an alternative and I,ll use it.
Until then piss off.
-
Nathan, to some extent that is true - it would do us well to be more circumspect about non-renewable resources. But also to some extent, these things ARE being dealt with, and in particular are driven to some extent by supply and demand market forces even without carbon taxes.
It seems to me that as resources become harder to find and/or harder (more expensive) to produce, then those products become more expensive and there is then a pressure to find cheaper or more sustainable alternatives. As well, people are far more informed about environmental matters and will (are) exerting pressure on governments and industry to improve practices. We can see that in practice with the efforts worldwide to clean up industry and more effective controls over a range of environmental activities.
-
We can banter on here as much as we like, but the bone heads in Can bear ah are hell bent using this to raise money .... a new form of tax.
As with rotten John and his GST we had to have...... And the Next government will dream up a new tax and so on.
Just to name a few that have been introduced in the last four budgets .
Mineral tax
student tax
Petroleum resource rent tax
and so on raising $45 billion dollars.
Are any of you familiar with the " Henry tax review''
-
As well, people are far more informed about environmental matters and will (are) exerting pressure on governments and industry to improve practices. We can see that in practice with the efforts worldwide to clean up industry and more effective controls over a range of environmental activities.
Here here !!! Long live the vegie patch,rain water tank and a good rifle ;D
cheers A
-
We produce a poofteenth of the worlds polutants but as we are one of the worlds most prosperous nations I agree we should be setting an example to the rest of the world and reducing our extravagant use of resources.
The biggest problem we face as a nation is that Bob Brown and his team of Watermelons are driving the bus and the chinless & spineless Juliar and her party of dimwits are sitting up the back.
-
Here here !!! Long live the vegie patch,rain water tank and a good rifle ;D
cheers A
Sorry mate that,s not allowed.
Here here !!! Long live the vegie patch,rain water tank ;D
cheers A
Sorry mate Sunwater owns that water .
Here here !!! Long live the vegie patch;D
cheers A
Nitrate can be used as an explosive so you can,t use that either.
Good luck with the veges. ;D
-
I'm not sure I know how we become less extravagant. The whole basis of our society is exactly that. We'd have to accept a contraction of the economy to achieve it as we stop consuming for the sake of it. Who will be the first to lower their standard of living?
-
A bit long winded, but worth the effort (I think :P). Decide for yourself.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55155713/Reply-to-Climate-Change-Denier-Gregg-D-Thompson
It still remains, will the Carbon Tax address the issue (I doubt it) and do we need to be in the vanguard (our absolute contribution is minimal).
-
I lived for 20 years using no electricity . I,ve done my bit. Well I have done more that the people who accuse me of being a polluter.
We had 1500acres of trees and the government said we were not allowed to cut them down.
The reason the trees were there was because we did NOT cut them down.
Had we cut them down then we would NOT have had a problem with the new green laws.
Ironic.
We were punished for doing the right thing. (The green rules scared buyers and we got a Lower price at sale )
The carbon tax won,t change a thing because there is no viable alternative.
I don,t want to wreck the planet so give me an alternative and I,ll use it.
Until then piss off.
That's a big part of the point. If "the market" is left to its own devices, we'll be at crisis point as cheap supplies of coal/gas/petrol run out, and then suddenly we'll realize we're deeply in the pooh. The would wreak far more economic and social havoc than any realistic tax on carbon emissions.
The idea is to do something before crisis point. In the absence of any serious effort from the highly polluting industries, then a carbon tax (or ETS) is the most effective and financially efficient way for a government to push toward reduced emissions/consumption.
-
I'm not sure I know how we become less extravagant. The whole basis of our society is exactly that. We'd have to accept a contraction of the economy to achieve it as we stop consuming for the sake of it. Who will be the first to lower their standard of living?
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/icons/cooltu.gif)+1
And if you don't use dirty crass Capitalism to decide what mechanism do you use to decide the have's and the have not's?
-
That's a big part of the point. If "the market" is left to its own devices, we'll be at crisis point as cheap supplies of coal/gas/petrol run out, and then suddenly we'll realize we're deeply in the pooh. The would wreak far more economic and social havoc than any realistic tax on carbon emissions.
The idea is to do something before crisis point. In the absence of any serious effort from the highly polluting industries, then a carbon tax (or ETS) is the most effective and financially efficient way for a government to push toward reduced emissions/consumption.
You might notice it's already happening without Carbon Tax ;).
And you might notice today the Retailers Association is wringing it hands because there has been a .6% down turn in sales - it means jobs will go ::).
-
I'm pretty sure that history will remember the post WW2 era as the time the human race lived dramatically beyond its means.
I think a decline in apparent living standards is inevitable - but taking real steps now will make the areas where we have to make compromises much less painful than pretending we can keep the pedal to the metal forever and slamming into the wall at the end....
-
I think both of those posts pro and anti CO2/global warming are about as misleading as each other. The bottom line is that none of us here know enough about radiative physics to be able to make a really informed choice - most of us will decide based on our gut sense.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it's been accepted for over a century that it is a major player in heating the atmosphere. In simple terms, most of the atmosphere lets the sun and heat through to the surface, where it warms and then radiates heat back up from the surface in long wavelengths. Greenhouse gases absorb that heat, warm up and reradiate heat back to the surface. In effect, it slows the rate at which the earth cools and thereby raises the effective temperature . However, CO2 on its own doesn't have that big an effect, it's the claimed positive feedback from water vapour that causes the potential for significant warming.
The degree to which these two things combine is called the climate sensitivity, and the IPCC claim that is fairly high, while sceptics suggest the IPCC claim is exaggerated.
My view - gut sense wise - is that the sensitivity is low. I think the fact that so many of the claimed likely effects are nowhere near as severe as have been suggested, or predicted, is good observational evidence in favour of that.
-
I'm pretty sure that history will remember the post WW2 era as the time the human race lived dramatically beyond its means.
I think a decline in apparent living standards is inevitable - but taking real steps now will make the areas where we have to make compromises much less painful than pretending we can keep the pedal to the metal forever and slamming into the wall at the end....
Different subject, different cause.
And I agree. There are a lot of changes we collectively have got to make to live sustainably and happy amongst ourselves and with the environment.
I think most of the changes that are mooted for CO2 are the same changes needed for sustainability as well. But that doesn't make Carbon Tax a good idea.
-
It also surprises me that where once the very industries that give us our economic success and our standard of living were viewed as significant contributors to our country's well-being are now called 'big polluters' on the basis of their CO2 emissions. CO2 may indeed be a problem but it is hardly pollution. And those industries are not wilfully polluting, at least not in terms of CO2.
-
My view - gut sense wise - is that the sensitivity is low. I think the fact that so many of the claimed likely effects are nowhere near as severe as have been suggested, or predicted, is good observational evidence in favour of that.
My view is similar. I think there are various academics and professionals who are prepared to use a half truths, scare tactics, guilt and emotions, to force changes which they deem or belief necessary and for the greater good of 'unthinking' masses.
I think the total rational, objective and definitive isn't part of the public debate yet. And indeed, I'm sure some of the solutions such as Carbon subquesting is BS.
-
Here here !!! Long live the vegie patch,rain water tank and a good rifle ;D
cheers A
You're on our page , A , wood stove, big vegie patch, fruit trees, rain-water tanks , solar power in me shed , two feral pigs and five feral goats cut up and in the freezer in the shed, EA is as good a shot as me , fish from the River 50 meters away, rabbits from paddock as we want them, heaps of birds visit our garden , Wedgies soaring around the mountain across river, grouse river gorge type country for E and I to roam in , a few bikes to play with, go to a few Dirt Track meetings a year , doesn't get much better !!
Foss and EA
-
I reckon we should all go on a pilgrimage to Foss's Nirvana, the spiritual leader of classic dirt trackers.
But that would ruin it for them, I'm jealous.
-
Anytime ya wanna come, Slides, anytime
Foss
-
Its all good for us ;D,,,,but its not making the silver city polliess any money buy growing our own. :P
If they can make laws and tax's on such as mentioned above why cant they inforce people to have rain water tanks and some sort of greenery in the back yard...
money money money. ::)
Actually Im glad this topic is not about the live export trade and the governemnt trading there or ............. :-X
cheers A
-
I read recently that when the "wall" collapsed all the Gucci socialists moved, en masse, to the greenie movement. The just found another cause with which they could attempt to control us.
-
Someone has to say it so it may as well be me. ;D
Any greenie worth his/her salt would/should suicide to save the planet.
-
Any greenie worth his/her salt would/should suicide to save the planet.
If you eat this chicken I shan't kill that chicken?
-
Any greenie worth his/her salt would/should suicide to save the planet.
If you eat this chicken I shan't kill that chicken?
More like .
Don,t tell me how to do something , show me!
-
Any greenie worth his/her salt would/should suicide to save the planet.
If you eat this chicken I shan't kill that chicken?
More like .
Don,t tell me how to do something , show me!
Nah it's a philosophical argument. AliG used it in one of his shows.
-
I am a (not extreme hardcore ) greenie. . I would love to stay here and do a bit more for the planet , if I may
And there I was thinking you were just another Wally.
Well said.
-
Unfortunately the problem is not co2 , the problem is people , all 7 billion of us and the answer is not a new tax but an old virus.
A good dose of the flu would give the planet a breather. ;D
-
So far I'm not feelin the love for the carbon tax...
I'm off to watch Q&A, Penny Wong is on so for sure they'll talk about it!
-
Unfortunately the problem is not co2 , the problem is people , all 7 billion of us and the answer is not a new tax but an old virus.
A good dose of the flu would give the planet a breather. ;D
Yup. And the way Africa is going they're gonna do all of us a favour.
-
I'm sure that most of us would like to do something to make this earth a better place but it's all so very bloody confusing it's hard to know who to believe.
Usually you can believe the scientists but the question at the moment is, are they just in it for the money, the funding and the research projects? You will recall that they have been caught out a few times in recent years fudging figures and pushing things their way.
Usually you can believe the economists because they are just trying to "do the numbers", but over the last few years we have seen some shocking financial crashes and stupid management of national finances and all along the way the economists were there providing guidance and advice, so I wonder if they can be believed on this question when it really is something completely new and especially when their "base numbers" are provided by the scientists.
I just wonder whether or not our little bit would be wasted effort at huge financial cost when you read that the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption spewed out as much CO2 as a whole of mankind from Adam and Eve to the present and that no matter what Australia does it certainly is not going to make any noticeable difference without the rest of the world and particularly the Chinese and the US doing their bit.
And finally, I did lose a bit of interest when Prof Flannery (the de facto government spokesman on climate change) said that no matter what we do it could take 1000 years to make a difference.
-
EA and I don't call ourselves green , however , we do pick up other peoples rubbish from the beach, ramps and riverside when we are out fishing and from a camping area near us and dispose of it as properly as we can, we recycle metal , waste oil , and any packaging.
We have two things that must occur when we are hunting, one, the animal must not know we are there , we cam up and move slowly in the bush, and, two, it must die instantly, ie a brain shot, if those things are not possible we don't take the shot, 95% of our shots are at targets at known ranges, to make very sure the weapons are very accurate, I also reload and have worked up some accurate loads for all of our centerfires.
We make use of all meat animals we shoot, ie, goats and pigs, but feral cats and foxes are destroyed humanely as a matter of course.
We have watched, for an hour or so, a mob of goats feeding and just taken photos, we also have approached roos to almost within touching distance, sat and watched a mob of deer and seen their antics.
Had a bird land on me once when we were cammed up and sitting out for a pig, frightened three bells out of me
I find it puzzling that environmentalists call us, to our face and to our daughters face, " Gun happy rednecks ", " violent and bloodthirsty killers ", when those same people applaud loudly when feral animals are condemned to hideous deaths from poisoning and trapping and have horrific diseases visited upon them in the name of the environment.
Ea and I, mostly EA, have spent over a decade representing recreationalists , fishers, hunters , bike riders , four wheel drivers etc on a couple of Government committees and have seen first hand how the greens representatives work.
I have stood in front of a Parks dozer when they were trying to block a track to a fishing spot that a couple of our Gubba elders
had put in, on the recomendation of the local conservation and bushwalking group , won that one !!
We, too, are concerned about our wasteful society and agree that anything that can be done to help stop a lot of wasteful use of finite resources has got to be a good thing.
However , the mindless chanting of mantras that come from the Greens is counter productive and divisive , punitive taxing of of anything a government doesn't agree with , ie, smokes, yeah , we both smoke but still walk the hills and we are both over 65, doesn't do a great deal towards stopping people doing it but provides the government with another income stream.
The carbon tax, in my opinion, falls into the income stream category, make 'em feel guilty and they'll pay up !!!
OK , now, a quote from a college lecturer
" Indeed , it pre-supposes that the supreme statesman in democratic government is public opinion.
Many of the shortcomings of democratic government are due to the fact that public opinion is not neccessarily a great statesman at all "
H'mm
I dunno how to finish this ramble , but we try, Ea and I , within our vision and conscience to do what we consider is right.
Foss and EA
-
Throughout history every century has had it's "The sky is falling" syndrome. Governments control the people with fear of some sort.
Just like telling your kids to eat their vegies or the boogy man will get them.
Their are only two things on this earth that you can believe. One is that you will die. The second is you will pay more taxes before you die.
-
I'm 100% with you there Fossil.
The polarisation of "green" vs hunters/dirt bikers/4WDers/etc is actually really bloody stupid - without exception, the people I know who spend time shooting/riding/4WDing in the bush are there because they love being in the bush, and they're very sensible about how they use and look after the bush.
It actually frustrates me that so many of us let the greenies paint us as environmental rapists... Even the organised pro-access groups seem to forget that we want to use the bush because it is the bush, while the greenies lump us in with the activities that do the real damage like clear felling and property development.
Before the 09 Rally Oz, a lot of the north coast locals were very wound up - most of them had lumped the rally in with the other corporate interests that usually end up damaging the environment. Once it was pointed out that the rally needed the forests, and they the rally was actually a fairly strong corporate backed ally, the vast majority of the locals realised that the rally was actually a positive for the local environment (the NIMBYs still won in the end - the rally got moved).
Similarly, the NIMBY movement has hitched itself onto the green movement... "Saving the environment" has become a powerful tool for the wankers who can't stand the idea of someone else having fun, but actually has nothing to do with saving the environment.
The whole debate is completely retarded because there are so many basic assumptions that are false.
--------------------
I thought that the volcano CO2 vs human CO2 thing had been debunked.
-
Do 4wd'ers, trail riders, mountain bikers, Rally drivers, et al, really love the bush or do they love the challenges that the obstacles and isolation of the Bush given them. Just because you use the Bush doesn't mean you love the Bush.
The converse is also true. Just because you use the Bush (and do limited damage to the bush) doesn't mean you disrespect the Bush.
How many of the Greenies actually love the Bush and how many actually love the argument - they love having a 'moral' cause, doing moral good. They love having a purpose to life and being morally superior to others when they are materially poorer. (fork, I think I just described Bob Brown to a tee - an ugly faggot with a 'look down the nose' superior attitude. :-[).
Oopps, the converse is also true. How many materially 'well off' think they have a God given right to do as they see fit.
How much of the polarisation, extreme and adversary positioning is conscious leadership by the Greenie leadership? Do they really want a solution or do they want a cause?
"........while the greenies lump us in with the activities that do the real damage like clear felling and property development." It's worst than that - they see the 20 litres you burn to go trail riding as an evil but don't see the 30,000 litre of kero they burn in the stratosphere on the way to the Himalayas for an Environmentally Correct holiday in the same light.
And all of the above does relate to the topic because all of the above is 'in play' with the carbon issue. There's more emotion than objectivity and it serves some players to whip it up the emotions rather work towards a solution. (fork, I think I just described Bob Brown to a tee - again ::))
-
The whole debate is completely retarded because there are so many basic assumptions that are false.
So whatever happened to the old hole in the Ozone layer ..... what grates me about Green Politics is it is presented as something noble,,,,, where it is simply a cynical power grab by a minority that is facilitated by the current voting system.
The carbon tax would be more truthfully labeled as the, 'runaway inflation tax', 'double dip recession' tax or maybe the 'nastiest property bubble' tax. Globalization has had the nasty side effect of the failure of one economy being able to take the whole global economy out of the game, in this case it is Greece, not long ago it was Korea. So giving a new tax 'respectability' by saving the planet is just smoke and mirrors to sucker the gullible into not seeing the real very urgent need for additional taxation..
The global response the Lehman set the stage for a savage double dip recessionary cycle, end of the EU are all completely predictable outcomes, we do not really need the Greens to limit our consumption, it is highly likely that the commercial banks creating wealth from debt have achieved that for us.
-
Yes Nathan, the volcano thing has been debunked, well... as long as you believe the science. Terrestrial volcanic output of CO2 is a fraction of human output in raw tonnage terms. There is some uncertainty surrounding submarine volcanoes though, as there are many many more of them. Even so it is accepted that human CO2 emissions still far exceed volcanic output.
That is half the issue, the amount of misinformation out there, on both sides. The reason I posed the question of the tax is that I have a fair idea of how AGW is supposed to work, but I have no idea of whether a CO2 tax is a useful strategy. I wondered if anyone else here did. I think most of us are pretty cynical though and don't believe that it will help. I go further than that - I don't think AGW is as urgent an issue as it is made out, and I think Australia would do better to take a more cautious approach than jump on the bandwagon with what appears to be a carbon tax strategy that hasn't been well defined.
I also think that the more radical green agenda has been allowed to gain an upper hand in the debate worldwide, and THAT is a real worry...
-
but the question at the moment is, are they just in it for the money, the funding and the research projects?
I have a honest enviromental research scientist friend and you don,t know how close to the mark that statement is Gippslander.
Question :-
How much energy and polution are involved in the making of a solar panel?
Include the mines [Alumina/silica/copper and don,t forget the enviromental damage there] ,transport , production [ include the power station and refinery polution ] transport again , fuel ,labour and so on.
This is a recently new way of thinking and shows up some problems not mentioned by the Experts.
When we talk about the returns on a solar panel no one ever factors the above into the figures because if they did you,d have to admit that this battle is more difficult than first thought.
-
The issue is similar to cigrette smoking, if you continue to smoke you are seriously damaging not only your health but anyone who is forced to breathe your second hand smoke.If you think smoking is good for you or causes no harm or you don't believe the scientific studies/mumbo jumbo your in denial.
What factor has caused smoking take up rates to decline in recent years? Putting the price up has been extremely effective, it is also cheaper to kick the habit than it is to continue to smoke.
It would be silly to suggest that a goverment whacked the price of smokes up as a money grab, after all as with a carbon tax, if you don't smoke or pollute you don't pay the tax. If you do pay the tax you will find a way of reducing carbon emmissions to minimise the tax paid.
Putting a price on carbon also allows a trading scheme, where some clever dick will work out how to make a carbon sink and sell the credits they create.
Non carbon based economies will be a bit like businesses that buried their heads in the sand about the 'internet', a few years down the track they have been left behind.
-
I'm speaking from ignorance I know, but the big difference between a cigarette tax and the CO2 tax seems to me that the former affects one industry and only those people who choose to smoke, the latter affects most production and most energy consumption. From what I've read, there are precious few renewable energy sources out there that are likely to fill the gap in baseload for quite some time to come.
On a related topic, wind farms - if those things were related to fossil fuels the greens would be all over them. The costs, the land used, the roads etc needed for access, the sheer eyesore of them - versus the somewhat dubious returns. Someone has to be making a killing out of that!
-
I lived for 20 years using no electricity.
Well done!! :D But the true magic is how you post to OzVMX without it. Damn clever!! ;)
So whatever happened to the old hole in the Ozone layer…
The huge reduction in the use and output of chloroflourocarbons did exactly what it was supposed to do.
-
The issue is similar to cigarette smoking, if you continue to smoke you are seriously damaging not only your health but anyone who is forced to breathe your second hand smoke.
Just a little side track Lozza.
Research in Sweden suggests that smokers actually SAVE a country money.
The research shows that people over a certain age cost more and more in health care whereas a smoker is dead well before this age.
This is not a joke this is real research and makes sense when you think about it.
From an economic point of view you should reach retirement then die as soon as you can to save your country money.
I lived for 20 years using no electricity.
Well done!! :D But the true magic is how you post to OzVMX without it. Damn clever!! ;)
Ah , never said I didn,t use electricity NOW VMX.
I had a look around me and discovered that I was alone so said to myself " what,s the point ".
Now I fit in with everyone else. ;D
-
Imagine the govt said "In ten years time, it will be illegal to run a coal or gas power station" - and actually had the skill/resolve to stick with it.
We'd hear a ton of bleating about how it would be the end of the world, but as soon as the companies worked out that they couldn't get out of it, it would suddenly represent a stack of opportunity - the employment and investment boom in the scramble to construct solar/wind/whatever powered powerstations would make the mining industry look weak.
Obviously, it would have its bad points, just as the mining industry does, but it sure wouldn't be all bad (just as the mining industry isn't).
A carbon tax is obviously a far less dramatic move, but I think we're simply at the whinging stage. If/when we get past the whinging, we'll see a stack of opportunity opening up.
More generally, I find it perversely amusing that the Liberals are getting political mileage from the "skyrocketing electricity prices" that have resulted from the market being left to its own devices.
-
have jumped from the first page to here so if I have missed already seeing this sorry. Probably wouldn't mind a carbon tax if like what taxes are supposed to be it went to carbon reduction - however it is another means for the government to tax (lets say) industry, have the costs passed onto Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs and then pass some of it back as tax cuts - therefore trying to look good. Where is the plan for using the tax to reduce emissions and what happens to the remained that doesn't get used for tax cuts? And by increasing costs to producers it won't necessarily make them reduce their footprint? A higher cost to them gives them more to claim back anyway?
Jeff - where are you?? ;D I have been looking forward to a discussion like this.
-
Nathan, while there might indeed be a 'scramble' to fund and develop alternative energy options, how confident are you that those exist in as useful a form as fossil fuel sources? The benefit of coal fired power is that it has a high energy yield for the production volume/cost. What renewable sources can step into the breach any time soon? How long would it take to develop solar/wind sources that would provide the baseload requirement for Australian domestic and commercial demand, WITHOUT reducing consumption (read wind back economy/lifestyle)?
I am not arguing for fossil fuel energy sources, rather I am suggesting that there are some fundamental practical issues confronting us. Already some leading environmental players in Europe are arguing that the only form of 'clean' energy (in a CO2 sense) available that can actually offer comparable energy generation is nuclear.
This is an interesting article on the matter: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/the-base-load-misconception-part-1/
-
If renewables were cheaper than non-renewables, then the discussion would be irrelevant.
The point is that we need to start investing in renewable energy production before we hit crisis point - even if it means paying more.
Its inevitable that we will pay considerably more for energy in the fairly near future. Moving now will minimise the both the increase and the rate of increase - both of which will cost us a lot less (economically and socially) in the long run.
-
Jeff - where are you?? ;D I have been looking forward to a discussion like this.
Hey Rosco,
Good to know you are thinking of me. ;)
To be honest I really don't know what to say about this issue. I firmly believe that we shouldn't shit in our own nest [or planet in this case].
I also know that as a society we have nothing to fear from improving technology and trying to eliminate pollution. Pollution reduction and the control of chemical waste has been sought by governments and imposed on business for many, many decades. For example, when I was a kid the Parramatta river was a toxic waste dump - legislation was brought in to make the polluters clean up their waste - it cost money, but it didn't have a dramatic impact on the public purse strings. Now the river is clean and I don't know anybody who would allow companies to go back to the bad old days - what was OK then is not OK now.
I tend to think that CO2 in the same way. Sure it is much bigger issue, but it is not beyond our capabilities in a perfect world. And that's where I have problems in what to say from here on in - it is not a perfect world - too many self interested parties, telling half truths and down right lies.
I don't subscribe to the theory of the wholesale corruption of the scientific community as I know that they are not organised well enough to pull off something of this nature - but the politicians, well that is another kettle of fish entirely. I don't believe that there is any kind of worldwide political conspiracy, pollies are too dumb, self serving and short sighted for that - but I can see how individual governments across the globe can see it as a way of exerting power and influence over their constituents for short term political advantage.
If I had to jump one way or the other - I wouldn't be standing up and saying I have all the facts [I don't - and neither does anybody else], nor would I be listening to the Shock Jocks, the self serving politicians or extremists on either side of the arguement - instead I would be using my gut instinct that for the sake of my kids and their kids that it is better to be safe than sorry.
I suppose that means that I do support action on Climate Change.
I don't have irrefutable facts to back up my position, nor I am going to go around wasting my time, yelling and screaming, trying to convince others that I am right. But if in the future if I am proven to be wrong then my kids and theirs kids can have a good old laugh at my expense. But if I am right, then they will thank me and others like me.
But if in the future Climate Change is proven to a be real and significant problem for the planet and the human race then I couldn't look my kids in the eye if I had done nothing and allowed my own selfish motives to override what is probably the right thing to do.
So there you have it Rosco a couple of hundred words to explain why I don't know what to say on this matter. And that in itself makes no sense either.
We should discuss it over a beer, in a pub, where all good discussions should be had.
VMX42
-
I am a little slow to answer as I am just making a diary note - it isn't every day we agree Jeff!!! Mate - 100% behind your comments - I agree that acting on climate change is a win/win - so rather than repeat your comments my feelings are exactly the same. I just get disapponted when the seriousness of climate change (or any other serious point for that matter) gets used as an excuse by ANY government to be a revenue raiser - I hate policitians!!!
Maybe urban myth but I have been told one of the reasons why we need to put so much effort into nuclear power is that the research into fission energy is leading us closer and closer to fusion energy which is clean and has no waste. One can only hope. But as for any solution all the eggs shouldn't be in the one basket - wind power, solar power and the one I think is als0 looking more and more practical (as they all do as the need arises) is tidal power. We can't keep "destroying" mother earth (and some people could argue about degrees but I think we are) as eventually it will come and bite us.
Jeff - are you going to the Nats? Maybe we could catch up for that beer ;D
cheers
Rossco
-
Ok.
I,ll tell you what I,ve done and why I resent being told by the EXPERTS that I am doing wrong.
Lived in the bush for 20/25 years using NO electricity for my household.
Moved into town , bought a block and [I/me] built this house using materials bought from the auctions and designed it using the lessons learnt in the bush. [ Had some interesting arguments with the engineers doing the drawings because they couldn,t understand the ideas behind the structural stuff ]
(http://i753.photobucket.com/albums/xx172/mike52_photo/CD8/house002.jpg)
Talking about climate change is one thing doing something practical is a different matter.
Wanted to fit LED lights but was told that I had to use fluro,s. [ beginning of the understanding that the experts were a little sloooow]
Then applied to install a composting toilet [ what,s that?]
They want you to use less water but are reluctant to think outside the box.
I have since been told by a council plumber mate that they really want you to use more water because that,s where the money comes from.
This house cost me $32000 in materials. Labour was free . Nearly killed me. ;)
This house [ workshop included ] uses 64% LESS electricity than the local average.
It uses stuff all water compared with the local average and these EXPERTS want to slap a Co2 tax on me . Piss off. >:(
-
…gets used as an excuse by ANY government to be a revenue raiser - I hate policitians!!!
Hey Rosco,
It is not just that they try to use it as a revenue raiser [as revenue has to come from somewhere - or out of thin air if you are the Mad Monk].
What pisses me off when important issues are used as political footballs, or used to pit one section of society against another. It is not about the issue at hand, it is only about the politicians and their need for power and when you add in a complicant and self serving media [shock jocks, Murdoch and his evil empire, et al]. So when you add that into the mix with a bit of public fear mongering and is it any wonder that the truth suffers.
A sad state of affairs really, but then we humans have never really come to grips with pragmatic logic. We think we have, but our primitive instincts and fear of change always over-rides what we know is probably good for us.
The sad thing is no matter what we think we are all along for the same journey, so we might as well enjoy it… :)
VMX42
-
Ok.
I,ll tell you what I,ve done and why I resent being told by the EXPERTS that I am doing wrong.
Lived in the bush for 20/25 years using NO electricity for my household.
Moved into town , bought a block and [I/me] built this house using materials bought from the auctions and designed it using the lessons learnt in the bush. [ Had some interesting arguments with the engineers doing the drawings because they couldn,t understand the ideas behind the structural stuff ]
Talking about climate change is one thing doing something practical is a different matter.
Wanted to fit LED lights but was told that I had to use fluro,s. [ beginning of the understanding that the experts were a little sloooow]
Then applied to install a composting toilet [ what,s that?]
They want you to use less water but are reluctant to think outside the box.
I have since been told by a council plumber mate that they really want you to use more water because that,s where the money comes from.
This house cost me $32000 in materials. Labour was free . Nearly killed me. ;)
This house [ workshop included ] uses 64% LESS electricity than the local average.
It uses stuff all water compared with the local average and these EXPERTS want to slap a Co2 tax on me . Piss off. >:(
But Mike for all your good work, you are, sadly in the vast minority.
You have demonstrated that doing the right thing for the right reasons is worthwhile, but for those who don't share your higher goals there needs to be an incentive [or possibly a big stick] to follow your lead.
Is the Carbon Tax the right way forward, I don't really know. But I do know that it will impact you much less than others.
Perhaps instead of resenting being told what you are doing wrong by the Experts - you should be extolling the virtues of your lifestyle to others so they can also minimise the material cost of the Carbon Tax on themselves. You are setting a fine example, don't let it be clouded by your frustration.
VMX42
-
A forumn gone over to the dark side talking GREEN !!! Meanwhile volcanoes spew more than we save,Have to admit we need to do something just wish the big countries spewing badd ju ju in to the air would join in.
-
Ok here is my 2cents worth. Fellow members Im not highly educated 4th form only . My question is if we tax the polluters ,we have to pay more ,the gov then gives us the tax back . What is realy being done except a new layer of gov to administer the tax ! (2) The greens had a total of less than 12% of the vote , How come they can dictate to 78% of us ? . Being a truckie I spend long hours listening to the ABC radio , a few weeks ago on conversation at 11am they had a expert on planetry iceage cycles he stated we are due for another ice age with in the next 1000 to 1500 years and nothing man or woman (sorry Allison) will effect that outcome . To all you members who run companies would you handycap your company against your compeditor , this tax to me is just that a handycap to Australia , Iain
-
You are setting a fine example, don't let it be clouded by your frustration.
VMX42
I have never set out to be an example VMX just to do the obvious.
You know that fluros were invented in WW2 ? yet under QLD law more than 40% of house lighting must now be fluro,s. So the rule makers are what ,70 years behind the times.
The frustration comes from the roadblocks put in the way of anyone trying to do the right thing.
The latest here in Qld is a minimum electricity charge. No figure has been set yet but what,s the bet that I will have to pay more.
I would hate to have spent money on solar panels.
We used less water so the price went up ??? ??? ???
Leadership starts at the top.
If we have a climate problem then it cannot be fixed from the bottom up , it must come from the top down.
The idea is to reward those doing the right thing not penalize them.
Yep I,me pissed. Our leaders are quarterwits and a lot of them need reminding to breathe.
Angry Mike.
-
Mike, what sort of leadership do you want if you're unhappy with a revenue positive, largely avoidable carbon tax?
Look, I really respect what you've done and have been making (tentative) steps toward something similar myself.
But I don't understand why you're upset by a carbon tax that you'll largely avoid because of the choices you've made.
The sad reality is that a lot of the mainstream outrage is from people who still hold onto the 1950s notion that consumption directly relates to success - that reducing their consumption will somehow make them inherently worse off, which is utter nonsense.
-
who gets the money from the carbon tax?
What is it spent on?
-
I have never set out to be an example VMX just to do the obvious.
Geeez Mike,
It was a compliment, but somehow I seem to have offended you again!! :D
You really are angry aren't you? ;)
VMX42
-
I will never see the sort of government that I would like Nathan.
Someone who puts their country and people first , HA what a joke.
Na lets have a new Tax ,that,s easier than actually doing something and we,ll have more money to hide the fact that we,re incompetent and we can put more of our mates in fake jobs which will increase our voter base keeping us in our cushy brain dead jobs.
4 office staff for every worker in Qld Health ,you have got to be joking.
New taxes DO NOT WORK . IE --> The GST , remember what the original concept was ? State Governments were to get the extra money and they did. Are we better off ? Here in QLD we,re broke even with all that extra money and don,t blame acts of GOD because we were broke before that.
Where,s the thermal power stations in every town ? Where,s the foresight , the LEADERSHIP ?
We have the technology right now to make small thermal power stations and if I had some money I,d stick one in my backyard. [ If they,d let me of course]
Drill a hole , stick a pelter device down it and instant enviro friendly power all the time.
Oh shit how would you tax that ?
If you are trying new ideas a composting toilet will save you heaps of water Nathan. Takes a bit of getting used to and a bit of work , the women don,t like it but is very enviro friendly. :)
I have never been offended by your comments VMX and I apologize if I have given that impression .:)
Its despair talking.
Woe is us if this is the best we have.
-
I've been reading a few of the comments at various news sites regarding the Greens taking the balance of power and also the matter of the carbon tax. The overwhelming majority of commenters are against the carbon tax. Julie Gillard appears to have a very low rating in all the current polls. And yet anti-carbon tax rallies are poorly supported. I can only conclude that in fact most people are pro-carbon tax, but they are just unhappy with the way that Gillard's government is managing the matter.
Personally, I have no idea about the carbon tax - I don't really understand it in detail nor do I have a good sense of its likely impact. But as someone who's hobby/passion is pretty carbon intensive, I probably should have a view. My gut feel is that Australia is wrong to move early, given that the rest of the world seems not to be as adventurous, other than the UK. Given that Australia's contribution to reducing CO2 will have no effect on climate change, it would seem more prudent to me to actively promote appropriate strategies on the world stage whilst adopting the position that Australia will not move until the big players have moved.
What's everyone else think? Are you concerned? Are you passionately on-side with the governmment? Or is it just not that big a deal to you? Or should I just go spend more time polishing my NOS RM125 footpegs?
cause we dont protest as we are at work and the greenies appear to not work ;D
-
I live in stand alone Solar house so the power bill wont hurt me.
IMO the carbon Tax is just wholly and solely to keep the Beaucats in jobs and the trough deep
-
Slakewell - only if you dont live in Qld it appears - a minimum power bill regardless of usage - bit ordinary!!! Bit like in WA where excessive water usage houses will get hit with a penalty - hang on shouldn't you also look at the number of people in a house as well and then compare usage per head??????
-
We need better ideas. Election time, how many millions are spent on propaganda campaigns to win votes? Just to end up with incompetent politicians.
What I would like to see is a survivor type election campaign. Take all the politicians and put them on an island. All the incompetent ones get voted off. The winner is the most hands on practical one. The show broadcasts nationally on SBS, advertising and sponsorship is sold.
So we then end up with a reasonably capable Prime minister and a profit margin at the same time. Win, win.
We also need to implement a fine system for politicians, screw up and it will cost you.
Any stupid things that a politician wastes tax payers money on that doesn't work. They have to buy.
-
Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
pancho
-
We need better ideas. Election time, how many millions are spent on propaganda campaigns to win votes? Just to end up with incompetent politicians.
What I would like to see is a survivor type election campaign. Take all the politicians and put them on an island. All the incompetent ones get voted off. The winner is the most hands on practical one. The show broadcasts nationally on SBS, advertising and sponsorship is sold.
So we then end up with a reasonably capable Prime minister and a profit margin at the same time. Win, win.
We also need to implement a fine system for politicians, screw up and it will cost you.
Any stupid things that a politician wastes tax payers money on that doesn't work. They have to buy.
You could have invented the World's Most Popular Sport there CnB!!!!
Just imagine the TV ratings for that one!!! :D
-
Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
pancho
If you mean that the world didn't end, and the sky didn't fall as predicted by the then Opposition. Then no it has proven to not be a bad idea.
It's just a different way of collecting tax revenue that we were used to. The paperwork is still a bit of a pain, but then so was the Sales Tax paperwork.
History is full of doomsday prophecies that turn out to be complete fizzers. Could this be the case with the Carbon Tax?
-
Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
pancho
It is just another tax, but one brought in on a lie, "it will stop tax avoidance". Yeah right.
It wasn't a better tax, it wasn't a fairer tax and it didn't achieve it's stated aim - and they still haven't removed some of the indirect taxes that they said they would replace.
GST is a new income stream for govt. The significant letter is the 'S' = services. It was the first time services were taxed indirectly.
The GST was a fat lie. The fact that it is no longer contentious doesn't mean it was a good or necessary 'Tax Reform' ::). The populace have simple got on with things and adapted. And the one income 'Dad at work, Mum at home with the kids' family is probably worst off than before. Mind you, the D.I.N.K. Yumpie stockbroker loves GST.
The Carbon Tax is another fat lie. No the sky won't fall and the world won't end, but that doesn't make it good policy. The populace and economy will adapt and move on. Some jobs will move off shore and some new jobs and opportunities will be created. Net benefit or net loss is anyone's guess. My bet it will be a net loss and a decrease in living standards for the majority.
-
Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
pancho
Yeah, now I lose 10% straight of the top of my income. Then I have to take out overheads. Then whats left I get taxed on again. Oh and I had to employ someone to take care of all the paperwork for the 10%. So more overheads.
Did you know that in the Australian constitution it states that it is illegal for any citizen of Australia to collect taxes on behalf of the government. Therefore business's collecting GST are actually breaking the law.
It also states that all religions are beyond question. So for example GMC could open up the Church of expansion chambers. People could worship and for a suggested donation take home an expansion chamber to worship with at home. All tax free, and it can't be questioned because it is a religion.
-
I'm speaking from ignorance I know, but the big difference between a cigarette tax and the CO2 tax seems to me that the former affects one industry and only those people who choose to smoke, the latter affects most production and most energy consumption. From what I've read, there are precious few renewable energy sources out there that are likely to fill the gap in baseload for quite some time to come.
On a related topic, wind farms - if those things were related to fossil fuels the greens would be all over them. The costs, the land used, the roads etc needed for access, the sheer eyesore of them - versus the somewhat dubious returns. Someone has to be making a killing out of that!
Not really the true cost of cigarettes are borne by the health system ie you and I pay for the care of smokers suffering of lung cancer, and Mike I doubt any 'study' of that nature was ever undertaken.Let alone come to conclusions as silly as that.
Wind farms look better than smog. Takes a lot to be registered as a religion
-
Xenephon has been poking and prodding at the Scientologists.
-
Wind farms look better than smog? I could be wrong, but I don't think that power stations contribute to a smog problem in Australia. There are very strong controls on smoke stack emissions for coal fired powerplants in Australia, not so much in China of course. The point is that to replace coal fired power with wind or solar is just an enormous undertaking - the number of wind turbines required would be huge. Think about the costs in terms of setup, construction, cabling, land needed, on-going maintenance, danger to birds, the sheer eyesoredness of the things - for what?
-
Here's some thoughts on wind and solar versus coal - I won't say the author is right as I don't know, but my guess is he's pretty well informed:
"It’s all based around Capacity factor, the delivery of power to consumers in KWH compared to Nameplate Capacity and the formula is this:
NP X 24 X 365.25 X 1000 where NP is Nameplate Capacity, 24 hours in a day 365.25 days in a year (leap year the .25) and 1000 to convert from MW to KWH.
This gives the total maximum power. Capacity Factor is actual delivery compared to that figure.
You’ll read at Wiki (and never trust them) that coal fired power has a CF of around 62%. Where they get that number is for EVERY coal fired plant, and that is somewhat erroneous to say the least, because a lot of medium and smaller coal fired plants are used for Peaking Power and Load Following, so they are only delivering their power for part of the hours in a day.
Large scale coal fired power averages a CF of 87.5%, and Nuclear is the best averaging around 92.5% Worldwide, but in the US currently around 96%.
For Wind Power, even though you’ll see some places quoting 40% and some as low as 10%, The current best case average is the U.S. with the most recent technology, and the second most of it in total, that average is around 20%.
For Solar , and here I’m lumping it all in together because it is just such a tiny proportion of total power delivered, (around 0.2% at best) that CF is around 12.5% at best."
-
More...
"So to build a large scale coal fired plant, around 2000MW, we’re looking at around $2.5 Billion. It can be licensed for originally 50 years, and then out to 60 years and then out to 75 years if needs be.
It will deliver 15.5 Billion KWH a year.
For that same dollar amount you’ll get 900MW of wind power. (300 X 3MW nacelles) This will have a life span of 20 years.
This will deliver 1.55 billion KWH a year.
For Solar, and the same dollar amount, you’ll get 2 x 250MW Concentrating Solar Plants, delivering 50MW each on a close to 24 hour basis, but for the sake of the exercise, they are rated at 150MW for around a 12 hour delivery hence a CF of 50%, and here I’m being very kind. So, that’s 300MW. This also has a life span of 20 years. This will deliver 1.3 Billion KWH a year
The original cost has to be recovered in the life of the plant, hence the cost of the electricity is worked out from that.
Even adding in the cost of the coal over that 50 years, coal fired power is way, way, cheaper than Wind or Solar."
-
Definition of carbon tax:
Figment of the imagination of one stubborn red headed dumb bitch who's days in power are numbered....
-
The GST was a fat lie.
[/quote]
NO ARGUMENT THERE BUT WHO WAS LYING? The one who first purposed it in parliment ,the one who ran an election campaign on it and lost or the one who finally impl;emented it?
-
What bankrupted Spain? - govt grants for solar panels ::).
-
The GST was a fat lie.
NO ARGUMENT THERE BUT WHO WAS LYING? The one who first purposed it in parliment ,the one who ran an election campaign on it and lost or the one who finally impl;emented it?
[/quote]Both sides lied. It is another example of the public debate being tainted and manipulated by pollies, bureaucrats and academics for their own interests. Poor public debate leads to poor policy. The Carbon Tax will be the same.
-
Spain's experience with simply demonstrates that the "easy way out" of reducing pollution (govt subsidies for alternatives) isn't gonna work.
-
Next question .Why are we being taxed to force ourselves to change our ways and use less fossil fuels when the goverment, who is spending lots of our money to convince us that they must do this to us to save us from ourselves, signing over gas fracking to multinational corporations who are going to wreck our own peoples farms and land in the process of drilling for coal gas to extract the gas and sell it to an overseas country that already has most of the world manufacturing faclilties and big industry but no carbon tax or ETS scheme?
Just curious.
P.S What happened to Krudd's clean coal initiative ? No good? Of course not.A tax would be way better wouldn't it?
-
The GST was a fat lie.
NO ARGUMENT THERE BUT WHO WAS LYING? The one who first purposed it in parliment ,the one who ran an election campaign on it and lost or the one who finally impl;emented it?
Both sides lied. It is another example of the public debate being tainted and manipulated by pollies, bureaucrats and academics for their own interests. Poor public debate leads to poor policy. The Carbon Tax will be the same.
[/quote]
Yes , just link all the dots up . Can you see the puppets?
Ready for the neo feudalism?
-
Spain's experience with simply demonstrates that the "easy way out" of reducing pollution (govt subsidies for alternatives) isn't gonna work.
No. I think it shows that putting stupid amounts of money into proven inefficient second rate schemes for 'feel good' reasons is a dumb idea with predictable outcome. If you put that money in directly or with some 'slight of hand', 'smoke and mirrors' Carbon Trading scheme makes no difference.
Neither the Govt, the Greenies or the economist really know the outcomes with the Carbon Trading Scheme. It is a case of 'Do something, do anything, but spin it and win the next election ::).
-
Hope they don't start Fracing for gas here. Watched a doco about fracing for gas in the US called "Gaslands" the other night. Very upsetting. If you really want to see a disaster in progress NOW and getting worse all the time, and the impact on the average citizen, this is a compelling show. Fracing is supposed to be low impact and clean.......like hell!
-
Hope they don't start Fracing for gas here. Watched a doco about fracing for gas in the US called "Gaslands" the other night. Very upsetting. If you really want to see a disaster in progress NOW and getting worse all the time, and the impact on the average citizen, this is a compelling show. Fracing is supposed to be low impact and clean.......like hell!
Its happening here , Gov signed a multi Bill $ deal with US company to drill and sell to China and India - Australia gets a commision of course! Good one eh?
-
Yes , just link all the dots up . Can you see the puppets?
Ready for the neo feudalism?
As one wag once said; when talking about Aussie pollies, if you have to choose between corruption or incompetence you would back incompetence every time ;).
(No, I don't see neo feudalism or any other conspiracy. I see a poor and disappointing political process with a usurped public debate).
-
Please watch and wake up .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hRPRxXFg4&feature=share
-
Hope they don't start Fracing for gas here. Watched a doco about fracing for gas in the US called "Gaslands" the other night. Very upsetting. If you really want to see a disaster in progress NOW and getting worse all the time, and the impact on the average citizen, this is a compelling show. Fracing is supposed to be low impact and clean.......like hell!
Yep, it's a worry in every account. And the stampede to extract is a greater worry.
-
Effen pigs. That slipped quietly by. What were the Greenies doing besides hugging each other? See you later clean aquifers. Hello poisoned land, well farms, hydrocarbon venting, carcinogenic waste products. Great.
Criminal behaviour from our not always elected representatives. Geez thats pissed me off.
It really is criminally irresponsible to go this way when the shit is hitting the fan in the US and the problems are so obvious. You're right, its a stampede so $$$$ can be made before it all gets shut down. I'd rather have a nuclear reactor in the backyard - its safer and cleaner. Shit.
-
[quote author=motomaniac link=topic=19750.msg196431#msg196431 date=1309864986
(No, I don't see neo feudalism or any other conspiracy. I see a poor and disappointing political process with a usurped public debate).
After the failure of Copenhagen when the third world and emerging countries said no. BO has since gone a visiting to convince South American and other countries that they must impliment a CT.
Australia is to set up a special bank which will make the leap to the to global system a smooth one.The money will then go to a Goldman Sachs Bank in Switzerland.
-
Re: What is this thing called carbon tax?
« Reply #76 on: Today at 06:06:26 PM »
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
pancho)
Do we realize how much the government actually gets from the GST. If I buy a new car 10% of the cost is GST, when I trade it in and it's resold another 10% and on it goes for the history of that car whenever it passes through the hands of a dealer and that would be quite often. It's feasible to think that could be as many as 4 maybe 5 times and, it could be more. So it is possible that our government could recieve as much as half the original purchase price of that vehicle in tax. I might be wrong but was the old (sales tax) only for new and not used sales, and cars are only a tiny bit of the market place. Also this tax is placed on services as well as goods no wonder the bastards wanted it.
Zane
-
I don't think it really matters whether you believe in mankind induced climate change or not. Even if you do, the issue of climate change is a global one and anything that Australia does is totally and utterly irrelevant. Why?
Currently Australia emits 1.4% of the worlds CO2 emissions.
Even if all of Australia's CO2 emissions ceased completely today: The increase in China's emissions (at the current and future predicted rate) would make up for ALL of Australia's emissions in 6 months from now. And there's NOTHING we can do to prevent that happening. Nothing. ::)
So ask youself:
Why should we, a country that has a natural economic advantage of low population, low cost (fossil fuel produced) energy, suddenly burdon ourselves with a Carbon tax that will achieve absolutely nothing, other than possibly destroy what little economic advantages we have now and cause dramatic economic harm? Just to "feel green" ? You've got to be joking right?
So, regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, it just is not in all of our best interests to shackle ourselves with a Carbon Tax or ETS until China does something meaningful about it's emissions.
-
NP X 24 X 365.25 X 1000 where NP is Nameplate Capacity, 24 hours in a day 365.25 days in a year (leap year the .25) and 1000 to convert from MW to KWH.
This gives the total maximum power. Capacity Factor is actual delivery compared to that figure.
Err, that's not power, that's energy. Power = energy / time, so power x time = energy.
If Nameplate Capacity is the rated power then rated power is the MAXIMUM it can produce.
-
having been and failed in business I know that the gst meant more paperwork for most and a hell of a lot more paperwork for those businesses that had been paying NO tax till then,[Who remembers the businesses that suddenly dissapeared just before the GST was implemented] but now we pay 10% instead of sums varying from 15%or so up to sales tax up near 40% for everyday items e.g. toilet paper,soap, tooth past, and other things like TVs etc around 30%. That's one reason why all these things are so much cheaper now. The big problem with the states not getting a "fair go" out of it is 'cause the states and the feds wont agree how it should be spent.
cheers
-
I don't think it really matters whether you believe in mankind induced climate change or not. Even if you do, the issue of climate change is a global one and anything that Australia does is totally and utterly irrelevant. Why?
Currently Australia emits 1.4% of the worlds CO2 emissions.
Even if all of Australia's CO2 emissions ceased completely today: The increase in China's emissions (at the current and future predicted rate) would make up for ALL of Australia's emissions in 6 months from now. And there's NOTHING we can do to prevent that happening. Nothing. ::)
So ask youself:
Why should we, a country that has a natural economic advantage of low population, low cost (fossil fuel produced) energy, suddenly burdon ourselves with a Carbon tax that will achieve absolutely nothing, other than possibly destroy what little economic advantages we have now and cause dramatic economic harm? Just to "feel green" ? You've got to be joking right?
So, regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, it just is not in all of our best interests to shackle ourselves with a Carbon Tax or ETS until China does something meaningful about it's emissions.
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/icons/638.gif)
I have my doubts about the Carbon Trading regardless but my bigger concern is 'Why Now? What's the hurry?"
And I think there are smarter and more effective ways of achieving the aim with scientific research etc. and govt direct and indirect investment in such.
Now I might concede the urgency of the Global Warming argument, the high moral ground or world example/leadership reason is a pretty weak way of getting China and India to change. And if they don't and don't change quickly............ :-\
-
I don't think it really matters whether you believe in mankind induced climate change or not. Even if you do, the issue of climate change is a global one and anything that Australia does is totally and utterly irrelevant. Why?
Currently Australia emits 1.4% of the worlds CO2 emissions.
Even if all of Australia's CO2 emissions ceased completely today: The increase in China's emissions (at the current and future predicted rate) would make up for ALL of Australia's emissions in 6 months from now. And there's NOTHING we can do to prevent that happening. Nothing. ::)
So ask youself:
Why should we, a country that has a natural economic advantage of low population, low cost (fossil fuel produced) energy, suddenly burdon ourselves with a Carbon tax that will achieve absolutely nothing, other than possibly destroy what little economic advantages we have now and cause dramatic economic harm? Just to "feel green" ? You've got to be joking right?
So, regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, it just is not in all of our best interests to shackle ourselves with a Carbon Tax or ETS until China does something meaningful about it's emissions.
If everybody has the attitude that the problem is too big and we only contribute a miniscule amount to it, then nothing will ever get done.
In many ways it is an extremely brave move by Australia to be taking the first step, for all those who are saying we will be giving up all of our advantages, well doesn't that mean we are best placed to do it?
The worse the economic situation a country is in, the more they are going to suffer when any additional taxes are introduced. In Australia we are currently enjoying the best standard of living we have ever had and are sitting better than almost any other country in a financial sense.
If any country can take "a hit" then we would be it.
Perhaps the whole process could be structured better than is planned, it would be great to see more incentives in place for alternative energy sources, but taxing the polluters does have the same effect that people are more likely to then turn to more environmental measures.
As someone has pointed out already, most people are shitting themselves as we have become such a huge drain on energy and resources. Since the Chinese revolution when goods have become ridiculously cheap, it seems "consumerism" is at its absolute worst.
I live in a modest 3 bedroom house with my wife and daughter, we shut off half as we don't use it.
Due to this, we heat half, turn off lights when not necessary and are just generally conscious.
We live in the coldest part of Australia (so should use the most energy) yet our power bill never gets over $300 a quarter.
Our house isn't particularly well insulated and was built well before people started putting effort into making them more efficient.
I have friends interstate living in Mcmansions constantly buying so called green appliances, have had their house built to a 5 star energy rating, yet their power bills are close to 3 times that of ours.
They change their cars every few years (which is extremely polluting on the environment as all that steel creates huge amounts of waste) while I drive a well maintained dunger which I will probably keep for another 10.
Basically as it has been pointed out already, if you live modestly and don't madly consume then this tax won't affect you much at all.
The biggest pity seems to be all the concessions which are being made for the average punter. Taking away the stick will unfortunately negate any need for people to be a bit more frugal which is really what this is all about.
-
If everybody has the attitude that the problem is too big and we only contribute a miniscule amount to it, then nothing will ever get done.
In many ways it is an extremely brave move by Australia to be taking the first step, for all those who are saying we will be giving up all of our advantages, well doesn't that mean we are best placed to do it?
The worse the economic situation a country is in, the more they are going to suffer when any additional taxes are introduced. In Australia we are currently enjoying the best standard of living we have ever had and are sitting better than almost any other country in a financial sense.
If any country can take "a hit" then we would be it.
Perhaps the whole process could be structured better than is planned, it would be great to see more incentives in place for alternative energy sources, but taxing the polluters does have the same effect that people are more likely to then turn to more environmental measures.
As someone has pointed out already, most people are shitting themselves as we have become such a huge drain on energy and resources. Since the Chinese revolution when goods have become ridiculously cheap, it seems "consumerism" is at its absolute worst.
I live in a modest 3 bedroom house with my wife and daughter, we shut off half as we don't use it.
Due to this, we heat half, turn off lights when not necessary and are just generally conscious.
We live in the coldest part of Australia (so should use the most energy) yet our power bill never gets over $300 a quarter.
Our house isn't particularly well insulated and was built well before people started putting effort into making them more efficient.
I have friends interstate living in Mcmansions constantly buying so called green appliances, have had their house built to a 5 star energy rating, yet their power bills are close to 3 times that of ours.
They change their cars every few years (which is extremely polluting on the environment as all that steel creates huge amounts of waste) while I drive a well maintained dunger which I will probably keep for another 10.
Basically as it has been pointed out already, if you live modestly and don't madly consume then this tax won't affect you much at all.
The biggest pity seems to be all the concessions which are being made for the average punter. Taking away the stick will unfortunately negate any need for people to be a bit more frugal which is really what this is all about.
Amen.
And in response to Ajay's original point:
"I don't see why Mainline should stop molesting goats, because he molests fewer than you do"...
Apparently China (not so sure about India) are happy to work toward significant reductions on CO2 emissions, as they widely accept human caused climate change.
But they aren't going to do so until the western world moves.
Catch 22, or time to be an adult?
-
Apparently China (not so sure about India) are happy to work toward significant reductions on CO2 emissions, as they widely accept human caused climate change.
Oh yeah? What is your published evidence of this?
All China have said is that they will reduce thier CO2 intensity as a proportion of GDP. But China's GDP is forecast to grow dramatically in the next 10 years (as it has for the last 10). So even if they HALVE their emissions intensity but still actually double their GDP, you will end up with 50% MORE CO2 emissions than you would at the current intensity (high). And they won't be halving it either... ::)
So China is not intending to do anything at all about actual reductions in total emissions, just installing slightly more emissions efficient technologies. And by the way, their new energy growth is still currently forecast to include around 70% being produced by new coal fired power stations.
By the way, why don't you go over to China and tell them that they really should adopt democratic elections, because Australia does. I'm betting you will get a similar response to the idea that if Australia adopts a Carbon Tax, China will too. :o
-
I have read enough , I have no offspring (ringbarked the family tree) ,Im 51 this year so Ill be dead before every thing warms up . So stuff it Ill burn fuel use elec , care factor zero .
-
Not really the true cost of cigarettes are borne by the health system ie you and I pay for the care of smokers suffering of lung cancer, and Mike I doubt any 'study' of that nature was ever undertaken.Let alone come to conclusions as silly as that.
For Lozza
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506
http://ckmurray.blogspot.com/2011/06/smoking-decreases-health-costs-to.html
This is the best one ---> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm
So Graeme hows the debate coming along ?
Sure has created some excitement ;D
Has anyone noticed that the country,s condemning us for our pollution all have nuclear power ?
-
Has anyone noticed that the country,s condemning us for our pollution all have nuclear power ?
Nothing wrong with nuclear power .... we only had .210 becquerels of Celesium 137 in our drinking water yesterday. Could be worse.... in Tokyo 'glass half full' has quite different meaning ;D
BTW Tokyo Electric are still planning a few new reactors as part of their environmental strategy and to reduce CO2 emissions.
-
If everybody has the attitude that the problem is too big and we only contribute a miniscule amount to it, then nothing will ever get done.
In many ways it is an extremely brave move by Australia to be taking the first step, for all those who are saying we will be giving up all of our advantages, well doesn't that mean we are best placed to do it?
The worse the economic situation a country is in, the more they are going to suffer when any additional taxes are introduced. In Australia we are currently enjoying the best standard of living we have ever had and are sitting better than almost any other country in a financial sense.
So because Australia has been prudent in the past it is now time to be imprudent?
If any country can take "a hit" then we would be it.
The world has an enormous over population problem as well, something like 60 million refugees. Australia is one of the best placed countries in the world to facilitate these people. In the same logic lets throw open the doors and let them in even if it means we will become a third world country in the process and become part of the problem in the future.
Perhaps the whole process could be structured better than is planned, it would be great to see more incentives in place for alternative energy sources, but taxing the polluters does have the same effect that people are more likely to then turn to more environmental measures.
They are not polluters they are producers. But if we are going to have action lets make it specific action and action which doesn't disadvantage us.
As someone has pointed out already, most people are shitting themselves as we have become such a huge drain on energy and resources. Since the Chinese revolution when goods have become ridiculously cheap, it seems "consumerism" is at its absolute worst.
If you want to talk consumerism lets talk international and intra mation jet flights. 19% of the carbon omissions are produced by burning kero in the stratosphere.
I live in a modest 3 bedroom house with my wife and daughter, we shut off half as we don't use it.
Due to this, we heat half, turn off lights when not necessary and are just generally conscious.
We live in the coldest part of Australia (so should use the most energy) yet our power bill never gets over $300 a quarter.
Our house isn't particularly well insulated and was built well before people started putting effort into making them more efficient.
I agree. If we have spefic issues lets address the specific issues. We've had more than 40 years to build better house's and the market place has produced the clap trap that we now have. And this is the mechanism that the govt is now to entrust to bring change. The market place is notoriously fickle and not rational.
I have friends interstate living in Mcmansions constantly buying so called green appliances, have had their house built to a 5 star energy rating, yet their power bills are close to 3 times that of ours.
They change their cars every few years (which is extremely polluting on the environment as all that steel creates huge amounts of waste)
If you think steel is bad find out what the 'dust to dust' environmental cost of aluminum and nickle is. And that is the current Greenie answer to 'feel good'. And then do a 'dust to dust' on solar and windmills. There are better solutions out there. Make massive investments in all these inefficient solutiuons and degrade the economy in the process and there won't be the monies for the efficient solutions when they become available.
It would be smarter to put time and money in to research and get it right first time. The Carbon Trading is a mad emotionally driven rush spurred by self interest and commercial opportunity of a few, and sold on emotion.
Basically as it has been pointed out already, if you live modestly and don't madly consume then this tax won't affect you much at all.
Meanwhile the country and economy we all rely on, either directly or indirectly, goes down the tubes. ::)
The biggest pity seems to be all the concessions which are being made for the average punter. Taking away the stick will unfortunately negate any need for people to be a bit more frugal which is really what this is all about.
Which make it bad policy and a political foot ball. Which is another reason I opposed GST - they excepted religion and political parties.
-
Yes Mike it has stirred quite a debate. And some very interesting views have been expressed. I am no clearer on how the CO2 tax actually works, but the consensus here seems to be that it is not supported, or at least not now by Australia leading the field.
So it appears that the community sentiment is as I've seen expressed elsewhere. I remain curious at why this sentiment isn't really being expressed more broadly.
The government appears bent on doing it and they would appear to be copping a hiding in the polls/surveys. Mr Rabbit says the Libs will scrap it when they return to power. The likely outcome then is the tax introduced, the Libs voted in, the tax scrapped. So, a lot of setup/admin costs for nothing?
It's a curly one alright, and the position is neatly summarised very well by AjayVMX for the Against side and Nathan S/Bioflex on the Fors.
My own view is largely that of Ajay. The fact that we see global temps largely stable for the past 10 years and ocean heat content declining (matched by a decline in sea level rise acceleration) seems to indicate that something is trumping CO2 driven AGW. That could be soot from China of course as is argued, but the simpler answer is that both warming and cooling cycles are largely natural and most likely solar derived. I don't doubt CO2 driven warming but I think it's at the very low end of the scale - ie climate sensitivity is low. Thus there is no great urgency for Australia to act now.
However, I do agree that our consumer based society with never ending growth is most likely not sustainable. I'd rather see Australia's efforts lead the way in reducing that however I have no idea what you do. How do we wean Westerners from the teat of material hedonism?
Now you'll have to excuse me, I have some footpegs to polish....
-
Has anyone noticed that the country,s condemning us for our pollution all have nuclear power ?
Nothing wrong with nuclear power ....
Thats why BO put a no media order out on Omaha Nebraska - coz there nothing going on there right?
-
I hate the Mad Monk and I don't believe he has a better plan. Labour is wrong about this tax and it's reason why we must have it I hope it brings down there leadership.The Greens are a lieing pack of scare mongers who believe there own bullshit.
Sadly in this country we vote in the prick who scares us the most or promises less change the major voting populous in Aus are conservative sheep.
-
For my money global warming depends on how the Earth is revolving around the Sun
they reckon a 1 degree shift on its rotation is all it takes to cause a Drought or global
cooling .
For my money the biggest problem with the wold is Over population have a look at where
what part of the World the people that the Government are letting in are from other Countrys.
They are coming from places where they breed like blow flies they have all Ro#ted there
own countrys Up.
For those people that don't remember the Old Communist way of Government it was to have
the majority of people Reliant on hand outs from them to survive as in Buying Votes .
Poppy..
-
Please watch and wake up .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hRPRxXFg4&feature=share
No problem there, just implement a Coal seam gas tax. Problem solved.
-
I remain curious at why this sentiment isn't really being expressed more broadly.
Oh Graeme.
They don,t have a forum ;D
-
Mr Slakewell - I agree - for many years now I don't think we hve voted in whom we want/like but go for the party/person we dislike the least!
-
We'd better get used to the Greens calling the shots from here on in. Now that they've got the balance of power in the senate we can expect a lot more 'green' oriented legislation. As much as the Gillard Labor government has disappointed us on many different levels, I think that from the moment we got a hung government with the green and independents holding the deciding vote in any government decisions it's a bit rich to totally blame the Labor Party for implementing the Carbon Tax. My theory is that they sold their souls to the greens to keep a hold of power and the Carbon Tax is one of the trade offs from that alliance.
I'm certain that if Oakshott, Windsor and 'Mad Bob' Katter had decided to go with a Liberal government instead of Labor, today we'd be all criticising the Abbott government for their implementation of a Carbon Tax. Whoever got the poisoned chalice of hung government was destined to be the puppet of Bob Browns Greens. Abbott and his crew must have sighed in relief when Labor won the vote as if it'd gone their way it'd be Abbott copping the shit, not Gillard.
-
Why do people keep saying "why should OZ take the lead in this" when 32 countries including England and China[who it appears are spending the most] have been into a price on carbon some going back ten years?
pancho.
-
Why do people keep saying "why should OZ take the lead in this" when 32 countries including England and China[who it appears are spending the most] have been into a price on carbon some going back ten years?
pancho.
You can't be serious surely? ::)
England's commitment is conditional on everyone else doing it (which isn't happening)
China is planning to dramatically increase it's CO2 emissions in the next 10 years, not reduce.
What are the other 32 countries, by the way?
-
Pancho ,who feeds you this misinformation, China is the biggest polluter in the world and they have got no intentions of slowing down, wether or not they pay a carbon tax is totally irrelavant. How anyone in their right mind can believe that by paying a tax on carbon will produce a cleaner environment is beyond my comprehension...
-
We also need to implement a fine system for politicians, screw up and it will cost you.
Any stupid things that a politician wastes tax payers money on that doesn't work. They have to buy.
I have just realized that you are trying to push a thing called "personal responsibility" CRASH N BERN. :o
Does that mean that m/bikes are NOT dangerous and that all those crashes I had were MY fault.
Nooooooooo.
Except the one where I was trying to get past IT400c,s dad Barry. I blame him for that one ;D
-
Why do people keep saying "why should OZ take the lead in this" when 32 countries including England and China[who it appears are spending the most] have been into a price on carbon some going back ten years?
pancho.
Pancho appears to have a point although the tax doesn,t look to be delivering the results promised , and in British Colombia has become exactly what the sceptics here are forecasting.
http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/02/18/aldyen-donnelly-british-columbias-carbon-tax-quagmire/
This one is put in to confuse the hell out of everyone ;D
http://ep.probeinternational.org/category/climate-change/global-cooling/
-
[/quote]
You can't be serious surely? ::)
England's commitment is conditional on everyone else doing it (which isn't happening)
China is planning to dramatically increase it's CO2 emissions in the next 10 years, not reduce.
What are the other 32 countries, by the way?
[/quote]
The 32 countries ( without looking it up) can really only be EU member states .The initiative is not from 32 individual sovereign states but from onE controlling body in Brussels - the EU.
Its a test just like the single Euro currency.
-
A very recent paper suggests that the cooling trend of the past decade (that is, the temps have not risen as AGW theory would predict) is largely due to Chinese soot. I think the argument is that temps would have risen in line with AGW if it weren't for China's emergence as a major industrial power. So China is a problem in terms of both CO2 AND particulate emissions.
That said, there's also a fair discussion underway right now about an analysis that seems to be pointing to a climate sensitivity at the lower end of the scale.
Who the Hell knows what's going on... ::)
-
Who the Hell knows what's going on... ::)
[/quote]
The IPCC's seasonal weather predictions have in the most part been way off.Independant forecasters who earn their living from long range weather forecasting like Piers Corbyn have been extremely accurate.
-
come on you guys, wake up and realise how this is going to affect our VMX racing.
You all should know how much carbon is building up in the cylinder heads, ports and exhausts
of all our beloved race bikes ;D
If is costed by the kilo then who can afford to run a two-stroke ( or a worn four stroker )
I can see It now at the nats........ a teardown and decoke with the carbon police wieghing it up ???
-
Well someone in the silver city made the right
decsicion choice today
LIVE EXPORT BAN HAS BEEN LIFTED :P ;D 8)
yyyeesss sirr reee yyyiippppeeee for the farmers and cow pad makers ;D
cheers A
-
NOT so good for the cows.
-
So because Australia has been prudent in the past it is now time to be imprudent?
I actually see this as being the most sensible solution, it is an evolution in the way of thinking. Now, we are wiser to the effect on the environment we are more concerned about it. I'd like to hope had we understood this situation many years ago, the path of "progress" may have been somewhat different for the while world..
The world has an enormous over population problem as well, something like 60 million refugees. Australia is one of the best placed countries in the world to facilitate these people. In the same logic lets throw open the doors and let them in even if it means we will become a third world country in the process and become part of the problem in the future.
Why suggest such extremes?
I don't see our response to climate change as that dramatic, I completely disagree with all the dooms dayers who proclaim the economy will will be ruined if we take the suggested modest measures. RegardiWng refugees, while I do think we should take some - as we do, in terms of what we produce and based on current consumption I don't think Australia can actually sustain a massive increase in population. Unless of course we start consuming less, and I am sure refugees could teach us a think or two about that.
They are not polluters they are producers. But if we are going to have action lets make it specific action and action which doesn't disadvantage us.
The idea with the tax as far as I can see is to tax those who do pollute, which encourages us to use more efficient and cleaner methods of production. It is wrong to suggest all producers are polluters, we have many examples of companies in Australia who are cutting edge in terms of green technology. If this tax creates more of them then it is a definite positive.
If you want to talk consumerism lets talk international and intra mation jet flights. 19% of the carbon omissions are produced by burning kero in the stratosphere.
I agree with you here. Many of the green measures implemented are hopeless and there are far too many "feel good" measures around. More needs to be done to properly educate people on exactly what is causing the pollution and proper solutions. The peddlers of solar cells are a good example. At a recent expo a friend and I calculated the amount of carbon each 190 watt pv cell would save in its life time. When trying to seek information on how much carbon is produced when manufacturing these cells we received nothing but blank stares.
Seemed a bit ironic that people were selling these to save the environment, yet they had no idea (or desire for that matter) to know there actual net pollution reduction!
I agree. If we have spefic issues lets address the specific issues. We've had more than 40 years to build better house's and the market place has produced the clap trap that we now have. And this is the mechanism that the govt is now to entrust to bring change. The market place is notoriously fickle and not rational.
Yes, the result of course is bigger houses, people with higher debt and of course a massive increase in energy consumption. Relatively speaking there is a lot more money available and unless the govt does something to encourage less consumption (ie a tax) then the problems will continue.
The crux of this is that people are complaining as they may have to think twice before turning the heater on, buying a new car every second year and so on. Of course, this goes against the balance of keeping the economy strong which relies on "stimulus" (read buying a lot of useless crap).
If you think steel is bad find out what the 'dust to dust' environmental cost of aluminum and nickle is. And that is the current Greenie answer to 'feel good'. And then do a 'dust to dust' on solar and windmills. There are better solutions out there. Make massive investments in all these inefficient solutiuons and degrade the economy in the process and there won't be the monies for the efficient solutions when they become available.
Again, I think this needs to be a bit more understood and info here is severely lacking. I used steel as an example but it is interesting to know that aluminium is that much worse.
Meanwhile the country and economy we all rely on, either directly or indirectly, goes down the tubes. ::)
I employ more than 10 staff, pay over a quarter of a million in GST each year, so understand what business (and tax) is all about. This carbon tax will hurt my business financially if I am not smart, but I see it as a challenge. I've been busy looking into alternatives energies, have a friend designing a sun powdered sterling for us and so on.
There are too many business people who wait until the problem is too big then throw their hands up in the air and whinge.
IMO, being a good business person is about considering all options, making plans for the future and constantly preparing yourself for change. Next year we hope to increase our turnover by close to 50%, with or without the carbon tax.
Which make it bad policy and a political foot ball. Which is another reason I opposed GST - they excepted religion and political parties..
[/quote]
Unfortunately as long as society and the media remain so reactionary and we have such short political terms, satisfying the minorities will always be an issue. I agree that implementing measures only to come up with options that make a large proportion exempt is absolutely hopeless.
-
I employ more than 10 staff, pay over a quarter of a million in GST each year, so understand what business (and tax) is all about. This carbon tax will hurt my business financially if I am not smart, but I see it as a challenge. There are too many business people who wait until the problem is too big then throw their hands up in the air and whinge.
IMO, being a good business person is about considering all options, making plans for the future and constantly preparing yourself for change.
Now that is the Aussie Spirit we should all listen too ...Long live the hard workin people 8)
cheers A
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm
Oh well if VMX is banned, at least I'll be sucking in my last pre75 fumes at VMX on the Sunday morning,after the news has broken about carbon tax.
At least I get two more hours than you - hahaha
cheers A
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm
More nonsense :P
Just wait until the truckies get stuck into Julia... ;D
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm
More nonsense :P
Just wait until the truckies get stuck into Julia... ;D
total dribble :-
"Australia already has a number of carbon taxes, by the way. You probably just don’t know them by that name. Top of the list are petrol and diesel excises, which together raked in $13.2 billion in 2010-11, according to the Budget Papers.
We also have the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which levies a royalty on oil and gas extraction in Australian federal waters, responsible this year for $940 million.
In other words, carbon-based taxes already bring in more than the approximately $11.5 billion that Ross Garnaut has estimated a $26/tonne carbon tax will levy in its first year. Which rather puts some of the over-heated rhetoric about the destructive impact of a carbon tax into perspective, doesn’t it? "
this dick author is equating fuel excises and resource tax with CO2 tax. That will be $11.5 bill less tax revenue if fossil fuels are replaced. If we are already paying carbon tax like this dick says its not having much effect on us moving away from fossil fuels so how is "the new" carbon tax going to be any different?Its not ,they just want to build capital with the average Joes money.What a joke.
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/06/bunch-of-fairies
I dunno about old Bob. Agree with him on some stuff, disagree with him on plenty of others. Didn't vote for him, and am highly unlikely to do so while the "green" movement is about nonsense rather than pragmatic conservation.
But I don't understand how the "shonky character" stuff can be seriously aimed at him. From what I've seen, he's been very consistant, coherent and open with his thoughts and policies, across a bloody long time period - far more than either of the two major party leaders.
Sure, we might disagree with Green policies, and that's fair game - but his character is pretty much squeaky clean (particularly for a long-serving politician), so it seems really weird/stupid to try to target him on that. There's plenty of policy issues where he could be made to squirm, but instead the attacks are aimed at his strongest part. WTF?
To me, it shows how dysfunctional the whole political/social/media scene is in this country - that there's no real analysis of policy, and its about irrelevant personal attacks and rampant emotion.
------------------------
Um, MM, why shouldn't a govt build capital? How should they do it without taxation?
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm
More nonsense :P
Just wait until the truckies get stuck into Julia... ;D
Just wait until the Mining Industry gets stuck into Julia ;) :D. The fur will start flying this Sunday.
And I want a vote on the issue. It is not democracy having a minority govt do the bidding of fringe element ratbags. I'll be on the streets demanding a vote on the issue. I loath the Mad Monk with a passion, but I'll support him absolutely on this issue. I wonder how many other Australians feel this way?
-
Someone once told me that governments have a research group that analyze down to the last cent, how much they can tax the people before they will revolt.
I think it was a joke, but hard to tell.
-
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/06/bunch-of-fairies
I dunno about old Bob. Agree with him on some stuff, disagree with him on plenty of others. Didn't vote for him, and am highly unlikely to do so while the "green" movement is about nonsense rather than pragmatic conservation.
But I don't understand how the "shonky character" stuff can be seriously aimed at him. From what I've seen, he's been very consistant, coherent and open with his thoughts and policies, across a bloody long time period - far more than either of the two major party leaders.
Sure, we might disagree with Green policies, and that's fair game - but his character is pretty much squeaky clean (particularly for a long-serving politician), so it seems really weird/stupid to try to target him on that. There's plenty of policy issues where he could be made to squirm, but instead the attacks are aimed at his strongest part. WTF?
To me, it shows how dysfunctional the whole political/social/media scene is in this country - that there's no real analysis of policy, and its about irrelevant personal attacks and rampant emotion.
Um, MM, why shouldn't a govt build capital? How should they do it without taxation?
Nathan, I think Bob Brown manages the Green rabble with great skill and sometimes flair. There is no doubt he is a good politician, but part of that is because the Greens have flown under the radar of scrutiny until just recently. This is especially true of the mainly left leaning Canberra press gallery. Bob now has serious problems to solve for the future of the Greens to be as rosy as he likes to paint.
Firstly, the watermelons (i.e. the Greens who are more interested in socialist ideals and not environmental ones) have now infiltrated the Greens to the extent where if Bob should retire, the next in line will be a Watermelon. His "control" of their radical tendancies, e.g. the BST of Israel issue, will be fundamental in whether the Greens ever get more people elected at all in this country.
Secondly, as the party which has the balance of power in the Senate, the Greens will have to be seen to use that power responsibly, implying compromises on Greens policies. They are starting to show that with the negotiations on the Carbon Tax (for which they will blame Labor of course) but a lot of Greens supporters are not used to the realities of mainstream politics (compromise) and may well get angry at them, sapping their support base.
Thirdly, the press are now starting to analyse the Greens' policies in more detail and there are many skeletons in the closet. When asked to explain how the policies will work, Bob gets extremely shifty and evasive, trying to imply that they are "more guidelines than policies". The latest example of this being on Lateline on Tuesday night. He also likes to demonise the "hate media", which apparently is anyone who has the temerity to ask him a difficult question. This tactic won't work for long as he will use up all his political capital and merely motivate the media to ask more questions he can't or doesn't want to answer.
Lastly, the tactic of riding into power on the back of Liberal and Labor preferences may now be extinguished. Certainly, the Liberal party has now learned, from the Victorian election, that there is a political benefit in preferencing Labor before the Greens and of course Labor fought it's hardest (almost to the point of losing Balmain to a Liberal) against the Greens in the NSW election.
So, I think Bob and the Greens have done a pretty good job to get themselves in the position they now are in Canberra. But, like the Democrats before them, the cracks in the party and it's support have already started to appear and I believe that they are currently at the zenith of their power. The next election, when it finally comes, will reverse their rising trend and it will be interesting indeed to see if they can arrest the decline or disappear into oblivion.
Certainly, if Bob Brown were to retire, the Greens would be shot ducks. ;)
-
If Bob Brown is such a smart politicians why did he declare war on the Coal Industry yesterday? (he said the aim was to get rid of the coal industry).
BTW, a very interesting summary Ajay 8).
-
If Bob Brown is such a smart politicians why did he declare war on the Coal Industry yesterday? (he said the aim was to get rid of the coal industry).
BTW, a very interesting summary Ajay 8).
Did he? I didn't hear that! He certainly is inconsistent then, because he stated that the Coal Industry would not only survive but GROW on Lateline on Tuesday night. Maybe he's caught Julia's disease, say what he thinks the specific audience wants to hear... ::)
One thing for sure, the Greens are going to certainly wear some indignation from their true believers as a result of the compromises that appear to have been made in the Carbon Tax negotiation.
If the consequences of the Carbon Tax weren't so serious, it would truly be laughable though. The Greens have forced Julia to break a core election promise, making her unpopular (well more than she already was), the Greens have been forced to compromise far more than the KRudd EPRS which they opposed as being "not enough", which will make them unpopular with their core constituency and the Independants have driven the last nails into their policital careers by supporting it as well. And we can't have an election to stop this stupidty. What a fine mess.
And all to achieve NOTHING AT ALL for the global environment. :o
Yeah, I guess that isn't really very smart is it. Thanks Bob. >:(
-
I pretty much agree with your second most recent post, ajay.
The unanswered question is why we does the so called analysis of Greens' policy actually end up being schoolyard insults?
If anything, it hands credibility to the Greens - when someone promises a killer blow and actually comes out with "You're a poopyhead", then the easiest conclusion is that the attacker was full of crap from the start and/or that the attackee is in a lot stronger position than we thought...
In the case of the Greens policies, I find both options difficult to believe.
I can see the Angry Conservatives believing a lot of their own hype, and consequently thinking that they are making a much stronger case than they think they are... Basically: "Its so self evident to me that I am completely incapable of forming a coherent argument to explain it to anyone else"... I mean, the use of "lefty" as an insult against lefties is a great example - it shows how many Angry Conservatives have become so incredibly myopic that they are now incapable of understanding or even respecting other points of view.
How many blokes are offended by being described as a bloke? ::)
Personally, I am bitterly underwhelmed by Gillard's performance, but the largely factless hysteria from the other side of politics leaves me very unconvinced.
So old mate Bob's considered and reasoned approach seems like a breath of fresh air, even when he's actually speaking crap.
Both Abbott and Gillard have the same greatest asset: Each other.
FWIW, the Democrats were historically central and actually the true conservatives. They were the keel that stopped the boat from listing too far left or right. When they moved to the left, they removed their reason for existing - and they basically ceased to exist shortly thereafter.
Now that the Greens are living on the far left (of the mainstream political spectrum), and Labor is uncomfortably occuping the middle ground, I don’t think that Green vs Democrat comparions are particularly valid.
Sorry for the off topic rant. Can you tell how disappointed I am with the performances from ALL of the players in this game?
-
This is sorta on the same topic.
The Greens have a stated policy where they will withdraw all funding from private schools.
The argument is that they are rich and they don,t deserve the money.
Taking a closer look and using the data from the Gov,s own "My School" web page .
Keeping in mind that every child has to be educated by law.
Public Schools are given $10000 a year on average to educate a child.
Private schools are given on an average $7000 for the SAME reason.
Sooo it appears that a child being educated in a private school is costing you and me $3000 LESS per head per year than sending them to public school.
Yep lets stop giving the private schools any money , sounds like a REAL GOOD idea. Duhh
-
I can see the Angry Conservatives believing a lot of their own hype, and consequently thinking that they are making a much stronger case than they think they are... Basically: "Its so self evident to me that I am completely incapable of forming a coherent argument to explain it to anyone else"... I mean, the use of "lefty" as an insult against lefties is a great example - it shows how many Angry Conservatives have become so incredibly myopic that they are now incapable of understanding or even respecting other points of view.
Thereby your arguement fails. It is very rare for conservatives to exhibit the sort of "anger" that hard line leftists show.
While it IS common for any side of politics to do what you allege the Conservative do - in my eyes, the Greens and Left politics do it even more than the conservative forces. Name calling by the left is a very early result when thier beliefs are challenged, let me assure you. And the names aren't as benign as "lefty" either. ::)
-
total dribble :-
"Australia already has a number of carbon taxes, by the way. You probably just don’t know them by that name. Top of the list are petrol and diesel excises, which together raked in $13.2 billion in 2010-11, according to the Budget Papers.
We also have the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which levies a royalty on oil and gas extraction in Australian federal waters, responsible this year for $940 million.
In other words, carbon-based taxes already bring in more than the approximately $11.5 billion that Ross Garnaut has estimated a $26/tonne carbon tax will levy in its first year. Which rather puts some of the over-heated rhetoric about the destructive impact of a carbon tax into perspective, doesn’t it? "
this dick author is equating fuel excises and resource tax with CO2 tax. That will be $11.5 bill less tax revenue if fossil fuels are replaced. If we are already paying carbon tax like this dick says its not having much effect on us moving away from fossil fuels so how is "the new" carbon tax going to be any different?Its not ,they just want to build capital with the average Joes money.What a joke.
Hey Moto,
Very true, but don't forget that the government takes with one hand and gives with the other. So, yes the government collects fuel excises, but it also gives tax credits and direct subsidies to the same industries to the value of almost $10 billion a year.
It makes any true, considered analysis of this issue very difficult indeed.
A few days ago I claimed not to know what to say about of the Climate Change debate, but now I will put my balls on the line by asking the following questions…
Much as I enjoy the endlessly entertaining, old game of "my singular fact" trumps "your singular fact" or "my web search says this" but "my web search says this" it hasn't really advanced the debate on this thread.
Sure Gillard lied!! Hold the presses, "a politician lied" get over it!!! [good thing Honest Tony or Honest John (non core promise) Howard et al, wouldn't stoop to that kind of henious crime ;)]. Yeah, it's old news and is more often than not just used as a smoke screen to divert any serious debate of the real issues.
So are you brave enough to examine the real FACT on this issue.
"I don't have them and neither do you."
You might think you do, but you are an adult so don't kid yourself. If anybody on this site, or in the broader community has in their singular posession more than a 1% grasp of the facts on this issue, let alone a real and genuine non-biased opinion then I will eat my hat. All I can see here are people posting using whatever fact they can dredge up [from whatever dubious source] to support their current belief, and while that is a normal human trait it again hasn't advanced the debate one iota.
So instead of playing endless 'dueling facts' while Rome burns how about you [we and me] confront the issue from a moral perspective. So I will start with a few questions of my own…
Are we as a population willing to run the gauntlet and play God with the future of others? Are we really that shallow and selfish that a nominal, possible, short-term* increase in taxation will divert us from doing what is right?
Do we really believe that even if the proposed tax did impinge our 'hallowed standard of living' in some small way that it is a real and signficant justification to ignore the real issue? Would it really hurt us to go back to a 2006 standard of living [for example]? Or heaven forbid a 1999, last century standard of living.
Are you willing to accept responsibility for your part in our future or will you let the fear mongers, shock jocks, spin doctors, media barrons [Murdoch] and short sighted seat warming politicians control the debate on our collective futures? Or will you tell them that their self centred, egotistical and biased performances are an affront to our intelligence and that a considered, rational and professional response to this question is what is needed and expected by the electorate?
Or are we just going to continue to go around in circles playing the 'man' and not the 'ball' as they want us to do? And don't forget, that is really what they fear which is why they spend so much time and energy diverting our focus by encouraging mindless 'you said' - 'he said' arguments.
If you really want to make headway with this issue then you [we] must aim to simplify the debate and not be drawn into and bogged down with the truly mamoth amount of detail that just clouds the true issue.
Well how about it, can you stop playing the role of a reactionary citizen and help us take control of our combined futures? Or will you let the puppeteers win?
VMX42
*I say short term as most tax changes settle down over time and are usually not felt by the broader community over time.
-
Thereby your arguement fails. It is very rare for conservatives to exhibit the sort of "anger" that hard line leftists show.
While it IS common for any side of politics to do what you allege the Conservative do - in my eyes, the Greens and Left politics do it even more than the conservative forces. Name calling by the left is a very early result when thier beliefs are challenged, let me assure you. And the names aren't as benign as "lefty" either. ::)
Ajay,
That is like arguing that your shit tastes slightly better than my shit…
Keeno
-
Well I don't intend to find out... :o
-
Jeff... Let the puppeteers win?
What is the goal of the puppeteers?
-
What is the goal of the puppeteers?
Nooooooo
You had to say that Graeme ;D
-
Thereby your arguement fails. It is very rare for conservatives to exhibit the sort of "anger" that hard line leftists show.
While it IS common for any side of politics to do what you allege the Conservative do - in my eyes, the Greens and Left politics do it even more than the conservative forces. Name calling by the left is a very early result when thier beliefs are challenged, let me assure you. And the names aren't as benign as "lefty" either. ::)
Indeed, and the ranting comes from the people who's "side" is not currently in power, which happens to mean its the right that's doing the ranting now.
However, even when its in full flight, that sort of myopic ranting from the far left is usually only seen in the mainstream media as a "Hey, look at these nutters" segement on Today Tonight or A Current Affair - its (correctly) marginalised, and only the more coherent, reasoned (and usually more moderate) lefties will be given serious consideration.
The current bout of ranting from the Angry Conservatives, has whipped itself into a frenzy of self-flagelation, where its forgotten to actually make coherent arguments. It works great for the Mad Monk in opposition, but it also fails to offer a worthwhile alternative.
Its why Abbott win never win an election (although Gillard is clearly trying very hard to lose the next one) - because when the chips are down, the only thing he's got going for him is "Not Julia" - and remember that it took the NSW voters three elections for "anyone but who we've got" to be enough of a reason to vote in someone who had basically nothing else to recommend them... And regardless of how toxic Gillard may be, she's far less toxic than Kennealy, Rees, Iemma, and the later Carr years were.
Not to mention the fact that O'Farrell hasn't given anyone reason to dance in the streets since his election.
-
The current bout of ranting from the Angry Conservatives, has whipped itself into a frenzy of self-flagelation, where its forgotten to actually make coherent arguments. It works great for the Mad Monk in opposition, but it also fails to offer a worthwhile alternative.
Its why Abbott win never win an election (although Gillard is clearly trying very hard to lose the next one) - because when the chips are down, the only thing he's got going for him is "Not Julia" - and remember that it took the NSW voters three elections for "anyone but who we've got" to be enough of a reason to vote in someone who had basically nothing else to recommend them... And regardless of how toxic Gillard may be, she's far less toxic than Kennealy, Rees, Iemma, and the later Carr years were.
Not to mention the fact that O'Farrell hasn't given anyone reason to dance in the streets since his election.
Keep singing off the Labor party songsheet Nathan ;)
And by the way, you are demonstrating exactly what you are trying to say your opponents are doing, youself. Had you noticed that? ::)
Lastly, Ol' Barry IS doing a pretty good job, now that you mention it. He actually did achieve many of his first 100 day objectives, in spite of the crap he was handed when he took government. :P
-
Jeff... Let the puppeteers win?
What is the goal of the puppeteers?
To keep the electorate divided and arguing amongst ourselves about endless minute details of an enormous issue whilst failing to clarify the situation in a way that an individual could understand and vote on in an informed manner.
If we the public are arguing amongst ourselves we are not calling on our elected representatives to provide a clear and understandable picture of the issue and their positions on it.
Instead of engaging the electorate they have chosen to attempt to divide and conquer… and it seems to be working a treat.
-
My head hurts.
-
So if our elected representatives are NOT providing a clear picture of the issue, and of their positions, and we don't know enough of the detail to be confident of what is happening, how certain can we be that a carbon tax is a useful strategy? Would it not behove us to be cautious of that plan? Perhaps to argue strongly in favour of a more cautious approach? To ask for a better appreciation of the science? To perhaps wait until it is clearer just what effect CO2 might be having?
-
So if our elected representatives are NOT providing a clear picture of the issue, and of their positions, and we don't know enough of the detail to be confident of what is happening, how certain can we be that a carbon tax is a useful strategy? Would it not behove us to be cautious of that plan? Perhaps to argue strongly in favour of a more cautious approach? To ask for a better appreciation of the science? To perhaps wait until it is clearer just what effect CO2 might be having?
I wasn't trying to advocate any particular position on the question of an appropriate response to the proposed Climate Tax I was only trying to encourage a discussion from a different perspective in an attempt to move forward. Instead of going around in circles with 'he said', 'you said'.
As you say a cautious approach is probably prudent. But your definition of cautious is somebody else's definition of reckless…
-
So if our elected representatives are NOT providing a clear picture of the issue, and of their positions, and we don't know enough of the detail to be confident of what is happening, how certain can we be that a carbon tax is a useful strategy? Would it not behove us to be cautious of that plan? Perhaps to argue strongly in favour of a more cautious approach? To ask for a better appreciation of the science? To perhaps wait until it is clearer just what effect CO2 might be having?
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/icons/dito.gif) That's pretty much my position. ;D
The $400billion question is; Does their publicly stated reasons represent their understanding or is it a purposeful smoke screen serving an agenda other than public policy or public good?
Ditto other public policy of debate such as Boat People etc.
-
And another link
http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Victoria-ramps-campaign-abc-358643006.html?x=0
-
Bump . It's a cash grab plain and simple.
-
The current bout of ranting from the Angry Conservatives, has whipped itself into a frenzy of self-flagelation, where its forgotten to actually make coherent arguments. It works great for the Mad Monk in opposition, but it also fails to offer a worthwhile alternative.
Its why Abbott win never win an election (although Gillard is clearly trying very hard to lose the next one) - because when the chips are down, the only thing he's got going for him is "Not Julia" - and remember that it took the NSW voters three elections for "anyone but who we've got" to be enough of a reason to vote in someone who had basically nothing else to recommend them... And regardless of how toxic Gillard may be, she's far less toxic than Kennealy, Rees, Iemma, and the later Carr years were.
Not to mention the fact that O'Farrell hasn't given anyone reason to dance in the streets since his election.
Keep singing off the Labor party songsheet Nathan ;)
And by the way, you are demonstrating exactly what you are trying to say your opponents are doing, youself. Had you noticed that? ::)
Lastly, Ol' Barry IS doing a pretty good job, now that you mention it. He actually did achieve many of his first 100 day objectives, in spite of the crap he was handed when he took government. :P
And coming straight back at you, Alistair.
If you think I'm anny sort of fan of Gillard and co, you'll be sorely mistaken - even before the election, when my enthusiasm was relatively high, I still considered her to be the lesser of two evils - the well meaning retard vs the spiteful, selfish retard.
As I've said before, both here and elsewhere, the whole political scene in this country is wildly dysfunctional - the conservative party calling itself "liberal" is probably the least ridiculous aspect... If Turnbuckle was in charge of the Libs, then Gillard would have been destroyed at the last election.
Look, I'm a lefty and I loathe the direction Abbott would take us if he was given the chance. This does not make Gillard's policies tolerable, from either an idelogical or a pragmatic point of view.
The point I was trying to make, is that people who hold differing points of view, do so for some reason. They don't do it because they're chosing to be stupid, or because they want to irritate you - just like religious views, the person who holds them believes them to be correct.
Somewhere in the last few years, lots of the vocal right-wingers have forgotten this. Instead, they've whipped themselves into a lather, where the slightest possible imposition on them is an insufferable burden that will mean the end of the world as we know it, and every imperfection on their lives is directly and soley the fault of the government.
Which is, of course, utter bullsh.
At the end of the day, government policy is only one, surprisingly small factor that determines whether our lives are good or bad. Its like the South Park episode about the previous US election - after the election result is declared, one of the characters gets pissed, mouths off at his boss and quits his job because "Everything is gonna change now!" - and then wakes up the next morning to discover that everything hasn't changed...
Yeah, stuff like banning live cattle exports, or busting up the wharfies do make big differences to the people directly affected, but the simple reality is that no government has the power (and very rarely the will) to cause big changes to the country with one policy decision.
The population still has to be fed and housed and clothed and medicated and transported and powered. Those basic needs always remain, regardless of who is in power and regardless of what policies the implement - and if they overstep the mark, then those policies are reversed or watered down in the face of voter backlash.
So the sky cannot be falling.
-
Okay we'll simplify things.
People get the Government they deserve.
The carbon tax is because politicians can't budget and spend more than comes in. So they do what they do best and invent new taxes. Carbon tax is good because people will think it's aimed at the wealthy corporations who pollute the earth and not them. So they'll buy it, and just in case they question it, they get told there will be tax breaks.
You can analyze and debate it till the cows come home but that's pretty much it. It's just a tax with a new name. Nothing more and nothing less.
As for the Greens, they get votes because a lot of young people don't care about politics, dislike politicians in general and vote green because they think that worst case scenario, at least the whales will be saved. They seem to think that the Greens and Greenpeace are the same thing.
-
You They seem to think that the Greens and Greenpeace are the same thing.
thats funny but true.........
-
Crash n Bern, we think a like. ;)
-
Crash n Bern, we think a like. ;)
What?.... slow, vague and forgetful. ;D
-
------------------------
Um, MM, why shouldn't a govt build capital? How should they do it without taxation?
Are you joking?
Not long ago when some of us predicted that the incurred debts of the Rudd government would lead to more tax's you called it "fear mongering".Now are you admitting that this carbon tax is about collecting revenue?
Yes the Government should be fiscally responsible and not irresponsible , yes the Govt should budget and function within its means like the rest of us.
You have just admitted that this tax is about raising revenue and that the people you labelled "fear mongers" were justified in predicting more tax's to service the previous Rudd Goverments incurred debts.
-
Does any one want to bet with me that in 5, 10, 20 years time we'll still have the same or greater level of CO2, we'll still have the Carbon Tax and we'll still have the argument with the Greenies saying "we were right, it's just that you didn't set the Price higher enough".
It's a forking bad dumb policy. It's like throwing a pack of cards into the air. We know they'll all come down but which ones are facing up and which ups are facing down they have no idea.
It never was going to work and now it is sooooo compromised it definitely won't achieve the stated environmental aim - reduction of CO2 emissions. The unstated aims of self interest will be handsomely rewarded with Julia and Bob et al retiring on fat govt pensions.
The next Big Argument will be measuring the results. There will be legions of public servants, there will be fudged numbers in every quarter and the system will be ripped off by every one that can. And again, it will those that cann't move or rearrange they circumstances, it will be those on fixed incomes and it will be those whose wages feed multiple users of energy (i.e. The Family Man) who will be screwed.
-
Here's an interesting article on what might happen in the medium term...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/black-hole-in-governments-carbon-tax-compensation-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226090123278 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/black-hole-in-governments-carbon-tax-compensation-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226090123278)
-
I am beginning to see that there are those who want to save the planet [ Greenies ] and those who have spent all our money and need an excuse to raise more.
The two mobs are running together and the whole thing is a complete cockup.
-
whole thing is a complete cockup.
they are going to charge 23$ a tonne on emmisions (according to paper) and Coal is how much a tonne to get out of the ground ??
yep its a cock up and someone extra employed in the government Carbon Tax office to work it all out.. :-\
quote : God help Australia ..................................
cheers A
-
Here's an interesting article on what might happen in the medium term...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/black-hole-in-governments-carbon-tax-compensation-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226090123278 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/black-hole-in-governments-carbon-tax-compensation-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226090123278)
"Treasury's CPRS modelling assumed the rest of the world, including our major competitors, implemented a similar scheme." Yeah, right. India and China and the rest of the developing world have already said that 'the west caused the problem the west can fix the problem. We're too busy playing economic 'catch up' and need every penny we can lay our hands on'.
That's one of the 52 cards I was talking of. Some many assumptions. Even the basic economic premise of control price and supply and demand will alter to fit in is wrong. Pricing Theory and market economies are much more complex than that. Absolute naive stupidity.
A lot of the so called Greens have been renamed 'watermelons' because they are green on the outside and red (socialists) on the inside. This would fit into their agenda. There has been for a long time a school of Socialist/Marxist academic economists who believe the long term capitalist (in the Marxist concept of purposely exploiting workers and colonies) should give up their ill gotten power and wealth and redistribute it back to the former exploited colonies. This Carbon Tax would meet that agenda.
-
What I said ;D.....but said better :-[
"prickley pear Posted at 11:11 AM June 01, 2011
So single-income families on $81,000 will be penalized, and dual income families on $158,000 (2 x $79,000) will be compensated. Sounds fair. Business as usual by this government."
GST revisited >:( - a great big new tax where the D.I.N.K. and Yumpies walk away happy and the Family Man gets another kick in the guts. What would you expect from two gays without any interest in having a family >:(.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/money/an-80000-carbon-tax-pain-barrier-from-professor-ross-garnaut/comments-e6fredkc-1226066915435
-
A lot of the so called Greens have been renamed 'watermelons' because they are green on the outside and red (socialists) on the inside. This would fit into their agenda. There has been for a long time a school of Socialist/Marxist academic economists who believe the long term capitalist (in the Marxist concept of purposely exploiting workers and colonies) should give up their ill gotten power and wealth and redistribute it back to the former exploited colonies. This Carbon Tax would meet that agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM ;)
-
Are you joking?
Not long ago when some of us predicted that the incurred debts of the Rudd government would lead to more tax's you called it "fear mongering".Now are you admitting that this carbon tax is about collecting revenue?
Yes the Government should be fiscally responsible and not irresponsible , yes the Govt should budget and function within its means like the rest of us.
You have just admitted that this tax is about raising revenue and that the people you labelled "fear mongers" were justified in predicting more tax's to service the previous Rudd Goverments incurred debts.
No, are you?
I questioned your comment that suggested that governments shouldn't raise capital, and also suggested that they could realistically do it without taxation, both of which seemed like pretty interesting concepts.
-
Are you joking?
Not long ago when some of us predicted that the incurred debts of the Rudd government would lead to more tax's you called it "fear mongering".Now are you admitting that this carbon tax is about collecting revenue?
Yes the Government should be fiscally responsible and not irresponsible , yes the Govt should budget and function within its means like the rest of us.
You have just admitted that this tax is about raising revenue and that the people you labelled "fear mongers" were justified in predicting more tax's to service the previous Rudd Goverments incurred debts.
No, are you?
I questioned your comment that suggested that governments shouldn't raise capital, which comment wasthat?
and also suggested that they could realistically do it without taxationwhich comment was that?, both of which seemed like pretty interesting concepts.Yer they would be if thats what I said.The point is that we have existing tax's ,we had capital, rudds government spent all the capital that we had and much more putting us into substantial debt and now the new tax's are coming to pay for it as the "fear mongers "predicted but actually whats going on is much deeper than that.
-
Jeff... Let the puppeteers win?
What is the goal of the puppeteers?
The goal of the puppeteers is to maintain their control of cause.
-
I am beginning to see that there are those who want to save the planet [ Greenies ] and those who have spent all our money and need an excuse to raise more.
The two mobs are running together and the whole thing is a complete cockup.
Yes the "Greens" and enviromentally concsious are being duped into thinking that this is going to save the enviroment and the "left are being duped into thinking that it is a strike against the big corporations and the "rich" when actually it is about capital and control and about as far right as you can get.
-
....
. If we are already paying carbon tax like this dick says its not having much effect on us moving away from fossil fuels so how is "the new" carbon tax going to be any different?Its not ,they just want to build capital with the average Joes money.What a joke.
I'll also add that Howard left us with a pile of cash (good) which was largely accumulated by neglecting captial expenditure (bad).
Labor robs Peter to pay Paul, while Liberal robs Paul to pay Peter.
Either way, some punters are gonna be unhappy - until we collectively grow the f#$k up and accept that our own personal demands are not the only demands placed on the govt, OR we grow the F$%k up and accept that it comes at the cost of more tax, there will always be people who are unhappy with the government, regardless of who is in power...
-
I dont think there are that many silly Greens out there ...is there ?
Back to the Carbon Tax its self...
1:It will take business off shore, even more than it is now. >:(
2:We need to come inline with other countries greener power and move forward(including nuke power).
3:its going to cost --whos going to pay !!
4:the earth as we know it, is doomed anyway ;D
cheers A
-
2:We need to come inline with other countries greener power and move forward(including nuke power).
cheers A
Yep big up the nukes Alison, i'll drink to that .... hey wait a minute I am already drinking to that
BRG Radioative Man :-*
-
[/quote]
I'll also add that Howard left us with a pile of cash (good) which was largely accumulated by neglecting captial expenditure (bad).
A pile of cash that started out as a huge debt from the Keating Government.It was there for a rainy day and allowed initiatives like the first home owners scheme that was largely responsible for us avoiding the 2001 recession that most evrywhere else experienced.
Rudd gave are money to the Banks ,with no preconditions or scrutiny , the banks used it to specilate and made huge profits
He also gave to the Auto industy in a similar fashion and the money went off shore.
Then there was the home insulation scheme and the two stimulus handouts that was supposed to help the during the GFC (which isn't over) creating more debts to help a GFC thats roots were debt itself.That makes sense. ???
His successor elects to tax the people in time of national disaster and then whipes her hands of further events and puts the responsibilty on natural disasters in the future on the states themselves which is in effect another tax.
Labor robs Peter to pay Paul, all these tax's are being paid by the average Australian, carbon tax will be the same.Its all a transfer of wealth from the average joe to the bankers and global corporations and it happening the world over in case you hadn't noticedwhile Liberal robs Paul to pay Peter.
Either way, some punters are gonna be unhappy if you hadn't noticed the present PM is about the most unpopular in our history and the carbon tax is 85 against -15 for- until we collectively grow the f#$k up and accept that our own personal demands are not the only demands placed on the govt, OR we grow the F$%k up go back to english clas and write that again so it makes senseand accept that it comes at the cost of more taxonce again admitting that this is about taxation.Your "fear mongers" said this before the last election, there will always be people who are unhappy with the governmentwealth transfer and ever increasing living cost will do that.Meantime your treasury secretary says that Australian don't work hard enough!Does he infer that we work harder to pay more tax's ? Is there an ALP version of work choices in the wind?, regardless of who is in power...very profound
[/quote]
-
....all these tax's are being paid by the average Australian, carbon tax will be the same.Its all a transfer of wealth from the average joe to the bankers and global corporations and it happening the world over in case you hadn't noticed
Wait, what? I've been reaing about how the "Transfer of wealth" is all about taking money from the hard working wealthy to give to the lazy bludgers, and now its about giving it to the bankers?
"until we collectively grow the f#$k up and accept that our own personal demands are not the only demands placed on the govt,
OR
we grow the F$%k up and accept that it comes at the cost of more tax"
Its pretty clear when you're sober.
once again admitting that this is about taxation.Your "fear mongers" said this before the last election[/b], there will always be people who are unhappy with the governmentwealth transfer and ever increasing living cost will do that.Meantime your treasury secretary says that Australian don't work hard enough!Does he infer that we work harder to pay more tax's ? Is there an ALP version of work choices in the wind?, regardless of who is in power...very profound
Now who's not making sense?
Ever increasing cost of living is an inevitable outcome of inflation which is an inevitable outcome of economic growth. But the real point is that we're actually doing pretty bloody well right now, all things considered - certainly nowhere near as badly as Abbott would have us believe.
And tell me about this treasury I now apparently have! Must be more than the couple of hundred bucks I keep in the sock drawer, if it needs its own secretary.
PS: The speaker implies, the listener infers.
-
This says it all to me. An extract from "The Australian" today:
"Ross Garnaut's report projected China's annual emissions to increase by six billion tonnes by 2020. This would swamp the 50 million tonnes to be cut under Australia's bipartisan 2020 target"
Let's see... China's forecast increase in CO2 emissions will be 6 Billion / 9 years = 667 million / year or 55.5 million tonnes of CO2 per month.
Therefore Australia's 2020 CO2 emissions target will be overcome by China's increase in emissions in less than one month.
So why are we going to try and reduce Australlia emissions by taxing our most competitive industries in world terms, with the very real prospect of destroying them completely? (shifting them to China who will emit even more)
Economic suicide. :o
-
Wait, what? I've been reaing about how the "Transfer of wealth" is all about taking money from the hard working wealthy to give to the lazy bludgers, and now its about giving it to the bankers?
Wait you can't be that niave,or can you? If you can't see that the promise of compensation is any more than a statergy to lull to lower class's into supporting the tax then there litle to no hope for you.
-
This says it all to me. An extract from "The Australian" today:
"Ross Garnaut's report projected China's annual emissions to increase by six billion tonnes by 2020. This would swamp the 50 million tonnes to be cut under Australia's bipartisan 2020 target"
Let's see... China's forecast increase in CO2 emissions will be 6 Billion / 9 years = 667 million / year or 55.5 million tonnes of CO2 per month.
Therefore Australia's 2020 CO2 emissions target will be overcome by China's increase in emissions in less than one month.
So why are we going to try and reduce Australlia emissions by taxing our most competitive industries in world terms, with the very real prospect of destroying them completely? (shifting them to China who will emit even more)
Economic suicide. :o
Yer first we had Keatings "level playing field" which ensured most of our indusrty either shutdown or moved in the new world of globalization .Now its looking like we will have "Gillards Handicap"
Such is progress!
-
Again in the Australian today:
The basic flaw in Labor's carbon price, Abbott claimed, was that it created a cash cow to inflate the size of government. "As long as the price is paid to government, regulating carbon dioxide by putting a price on it should give every market enthusiast pause for thought," he said. "Even if what's traded is a property right given to business, there's the issue of regulating such an unusual market. This, after all, is a market based on the non-delivery of an invisible product to no one and is almost certain to be scammed."
-
Wait you can't be that niave,or can you? If you can't see that the promise of compensation is any more than a statergy to lull to lower class's into supporting the tax then there litle to no hope for you.
I give up. You're either trolling or seriously lack the ability to recognise sarcasm - either way, its tedious.
PS: Naive.
-
Again in the Australian today:
The basic flaw in Labor's carbon price, Abbott claimed, was that it created a cash cow to inflate the size of government. "As long as the price is paid to government, regulating carbon dioxide by putting a price on it should give every market enthusiast pause for thought," he said. "Even if what's traded is a property right given to business, there's the issue of regulating such an unusual market. This, after all, is a market based on the non-delivery of an invisible product to no one and is almost certain to be scammed."
fork, he's being reading my posts ;D.
-
Yer first we had Keatings "level playing field" which ensured most of our indusrty either shutdown or moved in the new world of globalization .Now its looking like we will have "Gillards Handicap"
See my earlier post ;) :D. And it's the same argument; "We'll lead the way and morally shamed them into being Free Traders for the benefit of the world". Yeah, right :P.
-
Don,t know what we were all upset about. ::)
The latest is that nobody will pay and the pensioners will get even more back than they,ll not pay in the first place ??? ???
Money for nothing and your chicks for free.
-
On the ABC they refer to the announcement tomorrow as "Economic Reform" - fork, talk about forking spin. Call it economic reform and only talk about how much every one is going to be given by govt. The dishonesty is breathtaking. A pox on Labor for this if no other reason.
-
Wait you can't be that niave,or can you? If you can't see that the promise of compensation is any more than a statergy to lull to lower class's into supporting the tax then there litle to no hope for you.
I give up.
goodo ,might aswell since you were on the backfoot all along
You're either trolling or seriously lack the ability to recognise sarcasm - either way, its tedious.
So I am not sober ,trolling and can't recognise sarcasm.Anything else?
Actually that was about the only thing that you wrote that was even repliable.Too bad that itwas just a bit of jolly sarcasm.HAHA
PS: Naive.Yes ,sorry.
-
Wait, wait - let me guess what your next response will be: "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?".
If you can explain how your post was possibly sarcastic, then I'll be thoroughly impressed.
-
Wait, wait - let me guess what your next response will be: "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?".
If you can explain how your post was possibly sarcastic, then I'll be thoroughly impressed.
none of my posts were sarcastic. You are the one who back peddled and said that your post was sarcastic and that I didnt understand your sarcasim and I didnt.I dont see the point of your sarcasm.
-
Hmmm......not bad. Its taken 13 pages before the bickering has started. Thats an improvement 8) C'mon guys, don't lose it now.
-
What will we discuss next? religion?
Pancho
-
What will we discuss next? religion?
Pancho
How about sombrero's? Or how slow Canams are? :D
-
I like Tequila, if that helps. ;D
-
OK, MM, so you were asking me to clarify myself on something that wasn't clear to you? No worries.
I've read an awful lot of online comments from right-wingers complaining that the 'nasty socialist' Gillard is attempting to redistribute wealth from "hard-working/salt of the earth/productive/successful" Australians (delete any that do not apply), and hand it straight to "dole bludgers/refugees/immigrants/the under class [whatever that means]".
I then found it quite amusing that you claimed that she was redistributing wealth from the same middle class and handing it to the wealthiest end of town, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the earlier argument...
It sure is tough being part of the comfortably well off middle class in this country.... ::)
Hence I made the sarcastic comment that upset you so. If I wasn't being sarcastic, I'd have have simply, dryly pointed out the contradiction.
Increasingly (see TM Bill's sig) I try to avoid getting into the tit-for-tat arguments - hence my desire to opt out of the squabble you appeared keen to engage in. :)
Clear enough?
-
OK, MM, so you were asking me to clarify myself on something that wasn't clear to you? No worries.
I've read an awful lot of online comments from right-wingers complaining that the 'nasty socialist' Gillard is attempting to redistribute wealth from "hard-working/salt of the earth/productive/successful" Australians (delete any that do not apply), and hand it straight to "dole bludgers/refugees/immigrants/the under class [whatever that means]".
I then found it quite amusing that you claimed that she was redistributing wealth from the same middle class and handing it to the wealthiest end of town, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the earlier argument...
It sure is tough being part of the comfortably well off middle class in this country.... ::)
Hence I made the sarcastic comment that upset you so. If I wasn't being sarcastic, I'd have have simply, dryly pointed out the contradiction.
and I suggested that you can't be that naive to believe the promise of compensation is any more than an effort to win support for the tax.( and I might add to divert attention away from the actual issue, which its obviously doing very well)There's no contradiction from me.I didnt engage in any earlier argument.
-
I like Tequila, if that helps. ;D
Tequila always helps. Do you eat the pickled insect too?
-
And where did I suggest that I thought the compensation wasn't about politics?
What did it have to do with my comment about wealth redistribution?
There's no doubt that a carbon tax would be far simpler and far more effective at its stated goal, if it wasn't lumbered with rebates and exemptions and all the rest - presumably at a much lower rate/ton.
But apparently that's politically unpalatable, particularly as it would end up being strongly revenue positive...
-
I like Tequila, if that helps. ;D
Tequila always helps. Do you eat the pickled insect too?
Hell no. Eeek! :o
-
And by the way, the "Carbon Tax" is of course the ONLY way that the Labor government can have any chance of EVER running a surplus, which is why they embraced it when Bob Brown forced it on them. And no, it's not going to be tax neutral in the first year, as promised... ???
Another interesting statistic:
The much-lauded European ETS which the Climate action pursuers use as a reason for Australia to act now, only generates 500 million Euro per year for the whole of Europe. The proposed Carbon Tax will generate $11 billion per year from Australia, a country with a fraction of the population of Europe.
Why?
Wealth re-distribution, that's why. ::)
-
Every tax must surely be about wealth redistribution? Why does that make the Carbon Tax so unacceptable?
The carbon tax is at least able to be minimized by individuals.
Why not rally against payroll tax, which really is a "great big tax on everything"?
-
And where did I suggest that I thought the compensation wasn't about politics?
What did it have to do with my comment about wealth redistribution?
here :- Wait, what? I've been reaing about how the "Transfer of wealth" is all about taking money from the hard working wealthy to give to the lazy bludgers, and now its about giving it to the bankers?
Its all politics.I said that the promise of compensation was a ploy to win over support -and thats all-
The real transfer of wealth will happen when they get enough countries to implement a carbon tax and then sign an agreement ,like they tried in Copenhagen.
-
Every tax must surely be about wealth redistribution? In a feudal system yes tax is about wealth redistribution .We are not supposed to be living in a feudal system .
-
We are not supposed to be living in a feudal system .
We are now so close to the truth . :o
I have wondered about the similaritys between a feudal system and ours.
-
And where did I suggest that I thought the compensation wasn't about politics?
What did it have to do with my comment about wealth redistribution?
here :- Wait, what? I've been reaing about how the "Transfer of wealth" is all about taking money from the hard working wealthy to give to the lazy bludgers, and now its about giving it to the bankers?
Its all politics.I said that the promise of compensation was a ploy to win over support -and thats all-
The real transfer of wealth will happen when they get enough countries to implement a carbon tax and then sign an agreement ,like they tried in Copenhagen.
You need to reread, with a lot more care and attention to what has actually been written.
Until then, feel free to keep shooting down what you think I think.
-
Every tax must surely be about wealth redistribution? Why does that make the Carbon Tax so unacceptable?
The carbon tax is at least able to be minimized by individuals.
Why not rally against payroll tax, which really is a "great big tax on everything"?
no tax is not about wealth redistribution. plain and simple.
payroll tax is not on everything ,its on payrolls ,its paid by people who employ. Carbon tax is on everything and paid by everyone (unless you live like aboriginies before white settlement) .We were told that there would be no carbon tax by Gillard .She lied .
-
And where did I suggest that I thought the compensation wasn't about politics?
What did it have to do with my comment about wealth redistribution?
here :- Wait, what? I've been reaing about how the "Transfer of wealth" is all about taking money from the hard working wealthy to give to the lazy bludgers, and now its about giving it to the bankers?
Its all politics.I said that the promise of compensation was a ploy to win over support -and thats all-
The real transfer of wealth will happen when they get enough countries to implement a carbon tax and then sign an agreement ,like they tried in Copenhagen.
You need to reread, with a lot more care and attention to what has actually been written.
Until then, feel free to keep shooting down what you think I think.
you have absolutely no idea of whats going on .You stoop to suggest that someone is not sober,a troll or doesn't understand etctc.is that all you have? a sad figure.
-
We are not supposed to be living in a feudal system .
We are now so close to the truth . :o
I have wondered about the similaritys between a feudal system and ours.
We just took another step towards it didn't we?
-
Another factor that is hidden in the debate about the Carbon Tax is the fact that an entirely new Government department has to be set up to administer the whole thing. This is not, of course, going to come cheap. ???
but of course, it does buy votes. ::)
-
Another factor that is hidden in the debate about the Carbon Tax is the fact that an entirely new Government department has to be set up to administer the whole thing. This is not, of course, going to come cheap. ???
but of course, it does buy votes. ::)
yep.
-
And where did I suggest that I thought the compensation wasn't about politics?
What did it have to do with my comment about wealth redistribution?
here :- Wait, what? I've been reaing about how the "Transfer of wealth" is all about taking money from the hard working wealthy to give to the lazy bludgers, and now its about giving it to the bankers?
Its all politics.I said that the promise of compensation was a ploy to win over support -and thats all-
The real transfer of wealth will happen when they get enough countries to implement a carbon tax and then sign an agreement ,like they tried in Copenhagen.
You need to reread, with a lot more care and attention to what has actually been written.
Until then, feel free to keep shooting down what you think I think.
you have absolutely no idea of whats going on .You stoop to suggest that someone is not sober,a troll or doesn't understand etctc.is that all you have? a sad figure.
Look, you've obviously got a problem with me because everytime we interact you're taking swipes.
Whatever.
But FFS, at least have a go at me for the stuff I have said, not just the crap that goes on in your own mind.
Stuff like "you can't be that naive to believe the promise of compensation is any more than an effort to win support for the tax" has no basis in what I've said or even implied. I've made an honest effort to explain stuff that I've said that you haven't understood, but you just keep pulling more shit out of the random box.
And yes, I have just re-read all 15 pages, including the first page, where I said "Problem is that the govt is too chicken shit to say that, so they ponce around telling us that hardly anyone will be worse off." :-*
-
[/quote]
Look, you've obviously got a problem with me because everytime we interact you're taking swipes.
Whatever.
But FFS, at least have a go at me for the stuff I have said, not just the crap that goes on in your own mind.
Stuff like "you can't be that naive to believe the promise of compensation is any more than an effort to win support for the tax" has no basis in what I've said or even implied. I've made an honest effort to explain stuff that I've said that you haven't understood, but you just keep pulling more shit out of the random box.
[/quote]
oh sorry I inferred that you might be so naive. That must have been in one of my drunken,fear mongering,trolling ,misunderstanding moments. Lol you are a scream!
-
Now that was a relief… I woke up this morning and the sun was still shining. The end of the world didn't arrive as predicted… :)
I might just go outside and smell the CO2.
And just for good measure, to add to my monday morning smile is the continuing news that poor old Rupert Murdoch is still in the ever deepening shit over the News of the World Scandal. Can I see chickens coming home to roost, or is it just a bit of long overdue karma? Either way it couldn't happen to a more worthy recipient. Happy days!!!!
-
Yet again we have another Tax were they take our money and give some of it back.
Here is a new idea why not just take less to start with? >:(
So a whole new department will be setup to administer this new tax at huge cost. The way this country is going we will soon have all our wages taken from us and just live on Guberment hand out's, that way they really have by the balls and control your vote.
Real Freedom is long gone in this country.
-
Nathan/MM - STOP - just agree to disagree - don't become personal and just end it eh!
-
Actually Slakewell, raising the tax free threshold partly does that.
Based on what's been announced, its actually a (modest) reoraganisation of the tax structure - stuff like raising the tax free threshold is actually very sensible and long overdue.
Rossco, sounds good to me.
-
Guy I knew had 2 credit cards but no money to pay them off so he,d withdraw from one to repay the other and visa-versa .
Worked well , apparently . ;D
-
. The way this country is going we will soon have all our wages taken from us and just live on Guberment hand out's, that way they really have by the balls and control your vote.
Real Freedom is long gone in this country.
That is a politicians wet dream right there. I've often said why don't they just cut to the chase, take all our money and give us food, fuel and rent vouchers.
Problem is when they spend all the money they wont be able to introduce new taxes. Although they could print more and give us pay rises. ;D
-
I thought the response to the P.M.s C T plan by the mad monk was pathetic.
Instead of any proper critique of the thing all he did was go on with the same old rubbishing talk without any definitive critisism.
The A.B.C journos did a far better job at pointing out problem areas in the plan.
Reminds me of the useless rubbish that R Askin lost his last state election with.
-
Problem is Pancho.... Labour have no idea either ??? ABC did a report on shutting down a coal fired power station ( Hazelwood ) that generates 25 % of Victorias power and have no back up as of yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station
-
Well the old CT kicked off well down at the stock exchange with Alcoa shares dropping 3.2% and Virgin 2.5% .... like striking the economy with s stunning mallet and then cutting its throat Halal style.
But other than that the world is still turning and I think the cost of pork in China will finally have far more effect on the lucky country.
-
Now that was a relief… I woke up this morning and the sun was still shining. The end of the world didn't arrive as predicted… :)
I might just go outside and smell the CO2.
and the good serf's will be paying their penance to high priests and lords for as long as the sun shines.
-
I thought the response to the P.M.s C T plan by the mad monk was pathetic.
Instead of any proper critique of the thing all he did was go on with the same old rubbishing talk without any definitive critisism.
;) I couldn't agree more 8).
The Mad Monk's solution is to grow more trees ::). God helps us. Is this guy serious, is this the depth of thinking within the Liberal Party?. Lord help us.
-
and the good serf's will be paying their penance to high priests and lords for as long as the sun shines.
[/quote]
Pretty sad when paying the fine looks like a better alternative than voting for the current candidates, still may be stirred into exercising my democratic right and voting for the other team.
-
BLAHHHHDY BLOODY BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Are we still going on about this, 15 pages in one week and nothing directly related to old bikes.
If it was the other way round Labor would be bagging it if they thought they'd score a points decision.
At the end of the day it aint gunna change the world one iota, just give whoever's in power more of an excuse to pick our pockets.
We're over-governed and that's by imbiciles.
-
Well last time I looked we still have the right to vote and just perusing the list you are really spoilt for choice in NSW, not so much in WA so lets assume they are completely happy.
We have the Hunters and Fishers, the Fishers and Lifestyle, Fred Niles, choice is endless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_political_parties
-
Would that be $23 a ton + GST or is GST included ?
-
Would that be $23 a ton + GST or is GST included ?
No, it's a tax on a tax ::).
But if you are a producer or wholesaler you can claim the GST credits. But for the consumer it's a tax on a tax.
-
BLAHHHHDY BLOODY BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Are we still going on about this, 15 pages in one week and nothing directly related to old bikes.
Build a bridge, get over it :D.
232 posts, 2579 viewings I would guess there is interest ;).
Maybe you'll just change the name of the forum to VMX and Grumpy Old Men; sex, religion, politics and the occasional "I remember when I was a boy......" ;D
-
I'm, almost sorry I started this one...
-
Hey, leave SEX out of it, we're old.
Friction causes heat, you know what I mean.
Come to think of it, it's the only true form of re-newable energy.
You only need a half hour's rest and it's on again.
Actually that was 20 years ago, at least a day now.
-
When it's all said and done the only people we should be blaming are the green voters. Without them giving the greens the balance of power which in turn allowed them to twist Labors arm we would not have the bloody thing. I also think if things were reversed and the libs had won power with support of the greens then the same thing would be happening with a carbon tax and labor would be screaming like stuck pigs telling us it is a bad tax and unnecessary.
-
I suppose no-one noticed that the first "Aussie Family" that Julia visited yesterday in Emu Plains just happened to be carbon tax supporters... ::)
And she said she was going to do the "hard sell" :o
Fortunately the journalists did happen to notice the other 11 familes in the street weren't as keen to support this nonsense. ;D
And of course, Julia didn't really want to meet them to try and change their minds. That WOULD be a hard sell. ;)
-
If I decide to be cremated at my funeral who gets charged for the carbon release? Me (or my estate) or the funeral parlour? I've been paying GST on my carbon and then they'll tax it again! ::)
I can imagine the furore at the service when the pack of greenies are debating whether the carbon release from the CO2 extinguisher they want to use to extinguish my corpse will be less damaging than the release from the cremation. :D
-
If I decide to be cremated at my funeral who gets charged for the carbon release? Me (or my estate) or the funeral parlour? I've been paying GST on my carbon and then they'll tax it again! ::)
I can imagine the furore at the service when the pack of greenies are debating whether the carbon release from the CO2 extinguisher they want to use to extinguish my corpse will be less damaging than the release from the cremation. :D
See how complicated these new taxes can get. ;D
Betcha the powers to be hadn,t factored this one in. :o
-
Hmmm, this may sound harsh but seeing that I will in some way be paying for the carbon released into our part of the atmosphere, my agenda is to put as as much fuel through whatever I can and rape & pillage as much country side as humanly possible in what ever time I have left on this planet. I'll let the greenies worry about it out when I'm gone, but until then it's on!
K
-
Hmmm, this may sound harsh but seeing that I will in some way be paying for the carbon released into our part of the atmosphere, my agenda is to put as as much fuel through whatever I can and rape & pillage as much country side as humanly possible in what ever time I have left on this planet. I'll let the greenies worry about it out when I'm gone, but until then it's on!
K
Because you ride a dirt bike they have already condemmed you K.
So you may as well ;D, can,t get into any more trouble. ;D
-
Sky is still up.
-
Sky is still up.
Slow process Nathan , sorta like a dripping tap.
Like piranas , nibble , nibble .
-
It's not law yet Nathan.
I watched the PM on Q&A last night and was disappointed that most of her answers condensed down to "The world is warming, we have to do something, the best thing to do is put a clear price signal on carbon, that's what we are doing". That's fair enough but it's not a good answer to those people asking how it will really affect them, or what difference will it make, or why Australia needs to lead. She was also rather mischievous in suggesting that many other nations are ahead of Australia, even using the example of the 10 US states that have created a sort of climate action collective (that's hardly the US as a whole taking action, now is it?). I was tickled to see Tony take her to task on China's commitment to clean up its act when he pointed out that part of that commitment is to bring onstream a whole host of new coal-fired powerstations. She responded that yes, that's true, but they are using new technology and are therefore cleaner. No-one asked the obvious question of why if she can use that as an example of a better way to do things, why does it not equally apply to Australia?
But the one thing that I find really curious is her ongoing rhetoric about making the 'big polluters' pay. They can't go on freely polluting our skies... What? Let me get this clear. The very industries which have contributed to Australia's prosperity - mining, manufacturing, large-scale elctricity generation - the industries that used to be held up as the backbone of Australia's youthful economic success, are now the 'Big Polluters'? As though all of those businesses have been colluding to dupe the country into letting them destroy the environment, and offering little in return? Hmmmm....
I also fail to understand how it is that those various industries that once DID contribute to pollution worldwide - large-scale mining, steelmaking etc - are now, in the first world at least, far less so due to strict controls, strong environmental policies and so on. get caught polluting and companies can be fined or litigated agaist. The problem of pollution in places like London and LA is as far as I know being successfully tackled in those ways.
Why is CO2 different? Particularly when you note that Australia's contribution to that 'pollution' is quite insubstantial in global terms. And it is global tonnages that count, not per capita emissions. AGW couldn't care less who contributed the CO2, only the amount of it in the sky. I think Julia gave these figures last night - Australia contributes 27 tons CO2 per person, China 6. You'll immediately see the difference when you take into account China's 1.5 billion people and Australia's 20 million.
-
Hmmm, this may sound harsh but seeing that I will in some way be paying for the carbon released into our part of the atmosphere, my agenda is to put as as much fuel through whatever I can and rape & pillage as much country side as humanly possible in what ever time I have left on this planet. I'll let the greenies worry about it out when I'm gone, but until then it's on!
K
I'm with you all the way. When fuel prices soared I went out and bought a Cadillac. They wont beat me down to a Prius.
-
so Labour introduced a Mining tax, now a carbon tax.................................
-
You've made some valid points there Graeme.
Some responses to the ones I don't agree with:
1. The big polluters have - and continue to- contribute to our society. But we've also realised that its not all roses, and this is a moderate way to reign in their pollution output. Its not like they've been told to shut the doors and walk away (despite what Abbott might tell you).
If any of the big polluters really, seriously look like leaving Australia, watch the govt bend over backwards to get them to stay...
We all know that its about bluff at this stage.
The rhetoric about "big polluters" is primarily about making it palatable to the average punter. The policy would be fairer and more effective if they put a (significantly lower rate of) tax on ALL emissions - but that would be political suicide...
2. A tax is actually a good solution from a libertarian point of view. It doesn't force anyone to do anything, so people can choose to continue to be gross consumers if they wish. At the same time, it provides incentive for the average punter to reduce their consumption.
Look at how many Canberran homes are still being built without eves or insulation (both representing tiny portions of the cost of a new house, and less than the difference in a few years' power bills) - the additional cost of the tax is intended to make people think about these things, rather than simply continuing their consumption.
3. Why shouldn't Australia lead? Other countries can rightly point out our huge per-capita emissions, and use it as an excuse to do nothing themselves.
Regardless of what you think of Climate Change, there's no doubt that coal, oil and gas are finite resources. When they begin to run out/get very expensive, the countries that are least dependent on them will have the easiest ride.
4. I don’t want to have to change either. I'd love to be able to continue living a life where I can get upset when petrol gets to $1.50/litre, and a 10% increase in power bills is a household catastrophe... but its not gonna happen - sometime in my kids' lifetimes (and probably within my own lifetime), such complaints are going to seem incredibly trivial.
I'd prefer a small amount of pain now, to minimise the real pain later.
-
Food for thought = We might need our governing body of the sport more than ever now ;) ;D
cheers A
-
I'd prefer a small amount of pain now, to minimise the real pain later.
Trouble is that it never stops Nathan.
I have built an almost carbon neutral house and have a small income because I don,t need more.
Last year I had a winge about my rates going up 9.8%.
Up from $1500 a year to $2200 a year . Maths seems a bit sus I know but we were told 9.8% so it must be correct.
We have just been told that this years rates will increase 9.8%.
I am looking forward to getting this rates notice to see the final cost.
I cannot trim down any more Nathan so I guess I,ll have to work more to cover this extra.
Unfortunately CO2 is a by product of most types of work.
-
there's no doubt that coal, oil and gas are finite resources. When they begin to run out/get very expensive, the countries that are least dependent on them will have the easiest ride.
Are they finite resources, oil has been all set to run out since I was a child and it hasn't happened yet. Natural gas seems to be anywhere in WA they dig a hole. im not buying it.
Besides the countries least dependent on carbon fuel.... hmm like Bangladesh and Pakistan seem to have given up a little too much lifestyle for my tastes.
-
I read a while ago mArcfx that they will continue to find oil for another 20 odd years and then they will start to use the reserves which is another 100 odd years...........my great grandkids havent even been born yet (let alone my grandkids).......they'ill all be dead by then.......VMX will be an old digital photo on the wall.......and the world government will be TAXING the fark out of everyone still.......Just enjoy the moment.....ride your bikes....live life and be a 1%er. ;)
-
I said "cheap" oil. The reserves they're finding are going down in size- the oil is there, but there's not way it will continue to be sold at~ $100/barrel. The old rule of supply and demand, and the rapidly increasing cost of getting each barrel out of the ground will ensure this.
The old modelling of oil reserves didn't account for the westernisation of the world's two most populated counties, either.
I don’t want it to be true either.
Here's another thought: When petrol goes up rapidly like it did a few years ago, does the economy grind to a halt? OK, so oil is only one of the carbon tax' targets, but a 20c/litre increase in petrol price is small compared to the increase from the carbon tax.
Marc, did Bangladesh or Pakistan didn't give up their industrial-era prosperity - they never had it, so your argument is pretty silly.
Mike, have you looked at how much the carbon tax is going to cost you? Sounds like you'll end up in front.
-
Nathan - not saying it will go this way as I don't have a crystal ball - but many companies will not/can not/won't reduce their footprint (maybe because of the industry they are in) but instead will simply pass the cost on. I understand that you are not so naive as to think this TAX is going to fix all the problems.
-
I believe most of the mining companies are doing the best in being green already..its the middle bloke and the little bloke it may effect more..
I think the mining companies will say "up you government" we wil just produce more and pay ya silly carbon tax..hi ho hi ho, it's off shore we go....
The Federal Government's sales pitch on its carbon pollution policy is getting a boost from an unlikely source - the world's biggest privately-owned coal miner.
Peabody Energy is joining the steel giant, ArcelorMittal in a $4.7 billion takeover bid for Macarthur Coal.
That prompted a jump of almost 40 per cent in the share price of the local miner.
Analysts say it indicates that international investors are not being deterred by the carbon tax, and it shoots a massive hole in the argument from the industry's lobby group about the impact of the Government's policy.
Queensland miner Macarthur Coal exports PCI (Pulverised Coal Injection) coal for use in steel-making around the world.
Peabody Energy is the world's biggest privately-owned coal producer and it already has operations in Australia.
Resources analyst Gavin Wendt from MineLife says demand for PCI coal is driving the takeover offer for Macarthur.
"This is the second crack that Peabody of the US has had for Macarthur Coal," he said.
"The company has been interested in acquiring Macarthur for some time and unsuccessful with its previous efforts, but this time it's enlisted one of Macarthur's major shareholders, ArcelorMittal.
"One would imagine that this has given Peabody a greater chance of success."
Peabody Energy and the world's biggest steelmaker ArcelorMittal have offered $4.7 billion for Macarthur Coal, or $15.50 a share (minus the company's next dividend, expected to be around 24 cents).
That is a big premium on yesterday's closing share price of $11.08.
Last year Peabody offered $16 a share for Macarthur Coal, but dropped the offer to $15 amid the mining tax.
That was rejected by China's Citic, Macarthur's biggest shareholder.
Macarthur Coal refused to do an interview with the World Today about the takeover offer, but the company told the share market it will talk to both suitors.
Gavin Wendt says Citic will be the deal maker or breaker.
"Because you have so many big groups of Macarthur registers, so many significant shareholders that wield a lot of clout, you really need the agreement of all of those shareholders like Citic if you're going to be successful," he explained.
"This has been the problem for Peabody or any other potential bidder over the years.
"The thing that Peabody has got going for it is it also seemingly has agreement, at this stage at least, from POSCO (Pohang Iron and Steel Company), which is one of the major shareholders in Macarthur."
The takeover offer has also indicated that investors are not being put off by the carbon tax.
Some mining analysts say smaller miners will be most affected by a price on carbon.
The Australian Coal Association's Ralph Hillman told ABC News 24 that the carbon price will still close mines and cost jobs despite the takeover bid.
"What we're seeing here is a high quality asset selling metallurgical coal, which is a very high value commodity. So it's not astonishing that this should take place, it certainly doesn't prove the carbon tax won't impact industry," he argued.
"What the ACIL Tasman modelling shows, that's the modelling we commissioned, was that high cost mines would probably be at risk of going under because of the tax."
Coal industry consultant, Dr Don Barnett says those claims are exaggerated.
"If you include the impact on [new] projects it could well be true. I don't see that job loss coming from the existing producers today," he said.
Justin Urquhart Stewart, from Seven Investment Management in London, says Australian companies are attractive strategically.
"I think you have to realise that the focus on mining and mining stocks and commodities is still extremely strong," he said.
"Although the global economy appears to be slowing, the access to strategic assets is seen as being absolutely vital."
He says that explains why the mining tax and the carbon tax are not putting off international interest in Australian companies.
"That's just merely an extra tax you have to pay in terms of, to gain entry to the nightclub," he explained with an analogy.
"People want to get into the nightclub because they want to have some of the assets that are in there, but they have to pay extra fees to be able to get in, and that's just the cost of being able to do business."
He says the bid comes amid a rise in takeovers and mergers globally.
"There are a lot of people with a lot of cash around, and they all wish to pick up assets whilst they can," he said.
"So yes, be prepared for more M&A (mergers and acquisitions), and that'll be good for markets overall."
-
For sure. But we've already sat on our hands for years, trying to work out the perfect solution - which doesn't exist.
Let's face it, if there was a way of reducing pollution/consumption of non-renewables that also made us rich, better looking and sexually satisfied us, then we'd have taken it up years ago.
By hitting us in the hip pocket, at least it pushes people in the direction of consuming less, and is more likely to push people into investing in outrageous, unproven technology like insulation or roofing eaves.
More generally, as long as we can convince ourselves that it will all be alright, then we won't consider any change - and in stuff like this, that will mean that we've left it tools late.
-
Mike, have you looked at how much the carbon tax is going to cost you? Sounds like you'll end up in front.
Yes Nathan through my foresight I will be in front BUT you have to factor other peoples lack thereof and general incompetence.
When I do that I start to worry. I look into the future Nathan and it,s not looking so good.
In business you make practices more efficient ,increasing profit and cutting costs , in Government the money,s not yours so who gives a stuff and you can pass your inability to think creatively onto the tax/rate payer in the form of ever higher costs.
Before you say , "that,s growth" remember that the index has only risen a couple of percent not in my case 30%.
-
Nathan , single handed you will save this world. Let it go and get on with life and enjoy it .
-
The world's stuffed, big brother can get fu%$ed and we should all copy the politician's mantra of get all I can while the gettins' good. Maybe lifes recent events have left me a tad cynical, but it's just a money grabbing, dog eat dog, society, so best everyone fight back however they can, and don't take it on the chin for one second longer. I was always taught to behave no matter what, but it seems to be a lost cause these days.
K
-
Nathan , single handed you will save this world.
Glad someone has finally noticed. ;D
-
The world's stuffed, big brother can get fu%$ed and we should all copy the politician's mantra of get all I can while the gettins' good. Maybe lifes recent events have left me a tad cynical, but it's just a money grabbing, dog eat dog, society, so best everyone fight back however they can, and don't take it on the chin for one second longer. I was always taught to behave no matter what, but it seems to be a lost cause these days.
K
K ,you are right to be cynical about this - everyone except the elite will get reemed and is getting reemed .No use behaving when the hypocrites telling us to are signing Gas fracking contract to overseas companies behind our backs and emitting more carbon than all of us at a VMX meet in one international flight . Rebel .See you at Shep?
-
Nathan , single handed you will save this world.
from freedom and self determination.
-
Nathan , single handed you will save this world.
from freedom and self determination.
What happened to not being a petty little twit?
-
Getting close to being snipped you guys. If you want to contribute, keep to the issues. Play the ball, not the man please.
-
1. The big polluters have - and continue to- contribute to our society. But we've also realised that its not all roses, and this is a moderate way to reign in their pollution output. Its not like they've been told to shut the doors and walk away (despite what Abbott might tell you).
If any of the big polluters really, seriously look like leaving Australia, watch the govt bend over backwards to get them to stay...
We all know that its about bluff at this stage.
The rhetoric about "big polluters" is primarily about making it palatable to the average punter. The policy would be fairer and more effective if they put a (significantly lower rate of) tax on ALL emissions - but that would be political suicide...
2. A tax is actually a good solution from a libertarian point of view. It doesn't force anyone to do anything, so people can choose to continue to be gross consumers if they wish. At the same time, it provides incentive for the average punter to reduce their consumption.
Look at how many Canberran homes are still being built without eves or insulation (both representing tiny portions of the cost of a new house, and less than the difference in a few years' power bills) - the additional cost of the tax is intended to make people think about these things, rather than simply continuing their consumption.
3. Why shouldn't Australia lead? Other countries can rightly point out our huge per-capita emissions, and use it as an excuse to do nothing themselves.
Regardless of what you think of Climate Change, there's no doubt that coal, oil and gas are finite resources. When they begin to run out/get very expensive, the countries that are least dependent on them will have the easiest ride.
4. I don’t want to have to change either. I'd love to be able to continue living a life where I can get upset when petrol gets to $1.50/litre, and a 10% increase in power bills is a household catastrophe... but its not gonna happen - sometime in my kids' lifetimes (and probably within my own lifetime), such complaints are going to seem incredibly trivial.
I'd prefer a small amount of pain now, to minimise the real pain later.
High ideals, an attempt at the moral high ground, but really just a forlorn hope. The issue is not the lack of will it is the lack of technology.
The Carbon Tax hasn't and won't make one iota of a difference to global warming. It is the senseless policy of The Labor Party to suck up to the emotionally panicked Greens - it is a cynical political move to hold on to power.
-
....The issue is not the lack of will it is the lack of technology.
Its a lack of will not pushing technology.
We won't pay an extra 2% to make our new houses 50% more energy efficient.
But maybe the desire to minimise the tax we pay, will be enough to start getting people to actually think about the impact they're having on the environment.
But hey, if you really don't care, then you can pay more and not have your 'freedoms' impinged upon.
-
Planning to be at Shep Brett, and will be using "special" fuel with heaps of lead! Sorry (not) in advance to anyone who believes in excess in carbon impact.
K
-
Its a lack of will not pushing technology.
And Carbon Tax will achieve this how? Carbon Tax has not and will not achieve the technological advances needed, on the scale needed and in the time frame needed. Wishful thinking; forlorn hope.
We need direct action, planning and capitalizing - think WW2 and the advances in aircraft technology, medicine and nuclear physics brought on by a War Cabinet and private industry. We need clear thinking and leadership.
\
We won't pay an extra 2% to make our new houses 50% more energy efficient.
50% more energy efficient housing is 'fiddling while Rome burns' (especially when based on expensive inefficient and probably unsustainable technologies) Think Zero Emission Base Load energy on an economy wide scale and you're getting warm (no pun intended ;D).
But maybe the desire to minimise the tax we pay, will be enough to start getting people to actually think about the impact they're having on the environment.
But hey, if you really don't care, then you can pay more and not have your 'freedoms' impinged upon.
You're not listening are you? Show where I have whinged about extra taxes. I have whinged that its a dumb tax and a dumb policy proven not to make an iota of a difference to Global Warming.
The whole premise to use Market forces to achieve Environmental policy if dumb, faulty and naive.
There are plenty of examples of policies having been brought in on dumb, faulty and naive thinking and 'sold' on a lie. I can think of several but the most topical would be Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. The Yanks thought they were too cleaver by half and would use market forces, control the price (interest) of lending, to achieve a change in Housing policy. It was always faulty (and still is) but it took 20 years to implode.
The morass and distortion that the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac policy caused to the American economy is still present today and the Yanks are so 'locked in' to this large scale dumb, faulty and naive policy they still haven't gotten from under it or it's effects. And it's worst than that. For various self interest reasons they haven't and won't admit the policy's failure and short comings. They are still prop up Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac with various govt guarantees.
And that's the 20-40 year history I predict for Carbon Tax. It will not achieve the aim and once we start down the trail we won't be able to easily turn back. It will take a unmitigated disaster to change. Carbon Tax will get its own self interest group (like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac has) with power and position to continually 'muddy the waters'.
-
I saw some interesting questions floating around yesterday... ;D
Someone asked: "how can the government model the cost in living / compensation equation to an accuracy of 20c per household, when they can't remotely keep control of government programmes which spend (and ultimately waste) billions of dollars?"
Someone also asked: "Where does the replacement baseload 2000MW power supply come from when they shut down the brown coal power station in VIC?" Also, where's the money in the plan for that? Not there, no plan.
Hmm, maybe we could build a nuclear power plant or three and REALLY reduce emissions...
nah, that would be too logical. ::)
-
I saw some interesting questions floating around yesterday... ;D
Someone asked: "how can the government model the cost in living / compensation equation to an accuracy of 20c per household, when they can't remotely keep control of government programmes which spend (and ultimately waste) billions of dollars?"
Someone also asked: "Where does the replacement baseload 2000MW power supply come from when they shut down the brown coal power station in VIC?" Also, where's the money in the plan for that? Not there, no plan.
Hmm, maybe we could build a nuclear power plant or three and REALLY reduce emissions...
nah, that would be too logical. ::)
I keep saying 'they are selling it on a lie' ::).
Both sides of politics treat the voters with disdain and disrespect, treating them as though they are stupid, self interested and greedy ::).
Howard 'tested the waters' bringing up the notion of Nuclear power generation and we saw the hysteria that caused ::).
-
I think it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power has to be seriously considered. At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland, miles from civilisation, like the back of Bourke or Ipswich.
Edit: Not ignoring your post, MX. Just beyond my attention span when looking after the kids and internetting on my phone.
-
I think it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power has to be seriously considered. At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland, miles from civilisation, like the back of Bourke or Ipswich.
It has? Not to my knowledge.
But that would be typical - it has as many if not more problems and potential problems as Coal. I don't see the current nuclear technology as the long term solution. I think Australia would be better off sticking with coal as we actively seek a better long term solution.
-
Hmmm... Let's hope Julia's announcement of the carbon tax and its subsequent effect on the Aussie sharemarket won't be a case of *really* bad timing...
http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/us-europe-continue-the-global-sharemarket-carnage-20110713-1hcpw.html
-
Nuclear power is not the demon that the coal industry would make you believe.
Nuclear power is old Tech and hasn’t any real investment for 50 years. If you took the money that was spend on finding ways to clean up coal and spent it nuclear I know we would look at it much differently. You must always remember that for 30 years coal industry has written guberment policy on power and just gotten the guberment of the day to sign it.
-
And a topical discussion regarding wind...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/
-
http://www.heathenscripture.com/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/
No doubt this will cause a few brain explosions, and I do note that he takes the writer's liberty of assuming that the carbon tax will make a direct difference, but I agree with the gist.
-
I think it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power has to be seriously considered. At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland, miles from civilisation, like the back of Bourke or Ipswich.
It has? Not to my knowledge.
But that would be typical - it has as many if not more problems and potential problems as Coal. I don't see the current nuclear technology as the long term solution. I think Australia would be better off sticking with coal as we actively seek a better long term solution.
Nuclear power should at least be a medium term solution however. It is a proven and mature technology (and remember Fukishima was a very early generation, 60s design, Nuclear plant, the designs of modern plants are not susceptible the the issues that happened there) and it's a zero emissions technology.
Obviously, the holy grail is Nuclear Fission, IF that ever becomes practical, the world's energy needs will be met without question.
Also, there are developments in Nuclear technlogy which involve different nuclear fuels, those with very short half lives, which would completely address long term radiation concerns. These of course are not commercial as yet, but they probably should be pursued...
The Greens have also now admittted that they refused to allow Carbon Capture Technology to be included in the $10 billion clean energy fund... in spite of the fact that it is closest to full commercial application and would greatly reduce and possibly elminate CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations. They are so focussed on destroying the coal industry at all costs, that they are not prepared to accept a technology that WOULD provide significant reductions in emissions and in the shorter term. This just shows them up for the hypocrites they are.
Lastly, he's a good article...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/please-explain-prime-minister/story-e6frgd0x-1226093406422 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/please-explain-prime-minister/story-e6frgd0x-1226093406422)
;D
-
Nuclear power is not the demon that the coal industry would make you believe.
So the stories of the danger of ongoing radiation from spent fuel rods is a myth perpetrated by the coal industry? ::)
Nuclear power is old Tech and hasn’t any real investment for 50 years. If you took the money that was spend on finding ways to clean up coal and spent it nuclear I know we would look at it much differently.
If you are talking of change the process to fusion or Thorium you might be on to something. To talk about making the current technology safer is forlorn.
You must always remember that for 30 years coal industry has written guberment policy on power and just gotten the guberment of the day to sign it.
OMG, another conspiracy theory :P
-
http://www.heathenscripture.com/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/
No doubt this will cause a few brain explosions, and I do note that he takes the writer's liberty of assuming that the carbon tax will make a direct difference, but I agree with the gist.
That is a smartarse arrogant waste of broad band. The writer is absolute fully of himself and adding nothing to the debate short of his own arrogance and a lot of glib smart arse turn of phrase.
"...assuming that the carbon tax will make a direct difference" Why assume that when all evidence and commonsense tells you otherwise. Carton Tax is a scatter gun 'shoot and hope' policy.
-
Nuclear power should at least be a medium term solution however.
…with an extremely long term waste problem. But then again we can just continue to live for today and bugger the consequences for tomorrow…
Nathan , single handed you will save this world.
Hey Nathan,
Just don't slip into the lycra to do it please. ;)
VMX42
-
Graeme R, what do you realistically see as options to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on non-renewable resources?
-
Someone also asked: "Where does the replacement baseload 2000MW power supply come from when they shut down the brown coal power station in VIC?" Also, where's the money in the plan for that? Not there, no plan.
You realize that they have hooked VIC power up to TAS power and are selling power from VIC --->to TAS.
[Yep I don,t understand that one and neither do the Tasmanian people.]
The connection is ALREADY THERE . :o
Tasmania has a heap of that dirty Hydro stuff and it won,t work in Vic telebisions ,maybe ?
Tasmania also has the potential to provide an amazing amount of power but Bob Brown stopped that ??? ???
These are the people who are going to run this CO2 thing.
Hang onto your hats.
-
Conspiracy theory? MX250
If you need to believe that the Coal Industry doesn’t control and write guberment policy on anything that affects it I hope that keeps you warm and fuzzy inside.
Now I’m sure you may believe that the Carbon Tax would be something big coal doesn’t like but look at it correctly, It’s far better than the Coal super Tax the guberment backed out off and the real cost of carbon tax have little or no affect on big coal.
-
Just had a thought . ::)
Now that things are so serious what with the global temp rising and all that maybe it,s time to review the Franklin River decision.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland,
Yeah but is the ACT big enough.
Anyway as a consumer of nuclear power I am not a great advocate, currently we are consuming it mainly in our drinking water ::)
Just an interesting footnote, post Fukushima the Japanese have gone on a retarded ,meaningless power saving binge, so far 28 people have died and 12000 have been hospitalised from heat exhaustion, after what passes as Government round here asked for 53% reduction in energy consumption.
-
I believe.
Human activity does not contribute a huge amount to global warming compared to natural phenomena.e.g. volcanic activity.
However I believe that, remembering that forestry is the planets natural set of lungs, the continued madness of world wide land clearance needs to stop.
Putting 'globing warming' aside, any one who believes the world does not have pollution problems that need to be addressed is not paying attention.
History reminds of this sort of folly. London, prior to motor vehicles. Massive pollution in the River Thames from horse transport, of horse waste running down the gutters into the waterways. Motor vehicles caused major unemployment but solved one problem.
Human waste handled the same way.
Air pollution in London was so bad during winter months people were dying in the streets.This went on with the burning of COAL for housold fireplaces into the 1960's more job losses for the coal and coke trade.
Some of us can remember seeing it all in the newsreels.
Anyone tried driving through the Sydney M5 tunnel without air conditioning during peak hour?
The only way pollution from industy and power generation is going to stop is if the polluters have to pay to dump there rubbish in the air or anywhere else. [Notice how thinking industries now sort out there scrap steel,non ferrous, stainless, paper etc now that they have to pay heaps to go to the tip?] plus they get money back!
I believe power generating industries will now look at investing in alternatives.
I believe that nuclear power will one day be a major power generation source. HOWEVER I would like to see that day held off 'till a method for getting every last piece of energy out of radioactive material FIRST leaving radioactive waste a thing of the past.
I believe the current government strategy for taxing the polluting activities is an effective way of dealing with our worlds pollution problems by forcing the human race to develop better ways.
cheers pancho
-
You've made some valid points there Graeme.
Some responses to the ones I don't agree with:
2.
Look at how many Canberran homes are still being built without eves or insulation (both representing tiny portions of the cost of a new house, and less than the difference in a few years' power bills) - the additional cost of the tax is intended to make people think about these things, rather than simply continuing their consumption.
When was the last time that you saw a house new house without insulation?
http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/siting/energy_ratings
for a minute I thought that Canberra had seceded but it seems they use the same BCA as the rest of us.
Maybe you should get out a bit more ,or was it just a shot in the dark?
-
I don't understand though how any one can assume that the power companies will just hit the lab and bang find a new way to produce power I am all for them putting up wind generaters or whatever alternative energy they want to do but I look at it this way.
If in our line of work our material goes up so does our price if our petrol goes up so does our price if our price of grocceries goes up so does our price and if we think that our standard of living has dropped we aren't going to take it on the chin we will put up our prices and big bussiness will do the exact same they aren't just going to take a hit on there profits and not do anything about it and they are aren't inventors they are bussiness they could invest in alternate energy but they probably might not as well they will just increase prices and that will flow on.
-
Someone also asked: "Where does the replacement baseload 2000MW power supply come from when they shut down the brown coal power station in VIC?" Also, where's the money in the plan for that? Not there, no plan.
You realize that they have hooked VIC power up to TAS power and are selling power from VIC --->to TAS.
[Yep I don,t understand that one and neither do the Tasmanian people.]
The connection is ALREADY THERE . :o
Sweet so when Hazelwood close's we just pull the plug on " Brownmania" and we've done our bit. :D
-
They're not just gonna pull the plug on 25% of Victoria's power supply, OK?
Can we stop perpetuating that myth at the same time as we stop with the volcano myth?
It will be the first to go once alternatives are in place, not next week.
-
They're not just gonna pull the plug on 25% of Victoria's power supply, OK?
Can we stop perpetuating that myth at the same time as we stop with the volcano myth?
It will be the first to go once alternatives are in place, not next week.
no thats not the talk around here.Its one of the oldest and worst for emissions .closer has been in the wind for alongtime ( since Rudd's clean coal idea and before, its too antiquated ),Carbon tax might just seal it. Its size would suggest that it cant be 25%.Alternatives wont be inplace for years/decades.
-
Nuclear power is not the demon that the coal industry would make you believe. You must always remember that for 30 years coal industry has written guberment policy on power and just gotten the guberment of the day to sign it.
Its the other way around Mate , The Nuc industry (GE)
has been in control for 30 years - hence the understating about Fukushima and Barry O putting a press ban on the recent Nuclear situation in Nebraska.(that wasn't the first time either)
Germany , where the Greens were founded, who had the first Green member of Parliment and the first Green coalition government in the world stopped building Nuc plants years ago (some half finished) and is completely phasing them out with a mixture of alternatives including new Coal Plants and yes the Greens are still part of the goverment there. Cohin- Bendit (Danny the Red)sits on the EU council as a Green Party member from Germany.Oh and they have carbon tax in the EU don't they?
-
no thats not the talk around here.
OK. So you really believe they'll pull the pin without an alternative power supply? That the already questionable Vic power supply will be further jeopordised?
$100 says that when its shut down, the Vicco consumers won't see the difference.
-
no thats not the talk around here.
OK. So you really believe they'll pull the pin without an alternative power supply? That the already questionable Vic power supply will be further jeopordised?
$100 says that when its shut down, the Vicco consumers won't see the difference.
no they won't see much difference , especially if they have the op out of supply to Tas
-
Actually, I was being slightly tongue in cheek about Hazelwood.
The actual plan is to progressively convert each module of the plant to gas firing, which would greatly reduce the emissions but maintain the power supply. The only downside on this is that the gas costs WAY more to run and the conversion will cost billions. ::) A great step forward for mankind...
-
You've made some valid points there Graeme.
Some responses to the ones I don't agree with:
2.
Look at how many Canberran homes are still being built without eves or insulation (both representing tiny portions of the cost of a new house, and less than the difference in a few years' power bills) - the additional cost of the tax is intended to make people think about these things, rather than simply continuing their consumption.
When was the last time that you saw a house new house without insulation?
http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/siting/energy_ratings
for a minute I thought that Canberra had seceded but it seems they use the same BCA as the rest of us.
Maybe you should get out a bit more ,or was it just a shot in the dark?
So its changed in the last 12 months (http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9878&m=49) - good news, but hardly a sign of the public or the industry leaping into action. The fact that it took a Labor/Greens govt so long to legislate it says something. As does the fact that they had to legislate it...
There's still a lot of houses being built locally without eaves, despite their absolutely minimal cost and their proven benefits and despite the area's above average income.
Also: On volcanoes, I'll let people do their own research:
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=volcano+co2&oq=volcano+co2&aq=f&aqi=g1g-s1g8&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1702l9253l0l11l11l0l0l0l0l287l1873l3.0.7l10&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5119d89b945c33ba&biw=1680&bih=871
-
2.
Look at how many Canberran homes are still being built without eves or insulation (both representing tiny portions of the cost of a new house, and less than the difference in a few years' power bills) - the additional cost of the tax is intended to make people think about these things, rather than simply continuing their consumption.
When was the last time that you saw a house new house without insulation?
http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/siting/energy_ratings
for a minute I thought that Canberra had seceded but it seems they use the same BCA as the rest of us.
Maybe you should get out a bit more ,or was it just a shot in the dark?
[/quote]
So its changed in the last 12 months (http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9878&m=49) - good news, but hardly a sign of the public or the industry leaping into action. The fact that it took a Labor/Greens govt so long to legislate it says something. As does the fact that they had to legislate it...
There's still a lot of houses being built locally without eaves, despite their absolutely minimal cost and their proven benefits and despite the area's above average income.
[/quote]
No it came in the Howard years,2000 - 2003 read up -not the labor/green years.Only the updated rating 6 came in in 2010.In 35 years of building I've never been part of a project ,residential or commercial that didn't have insulation.The legislation I imagine was to cover volume/esate type builders who cut corners , and their price to suck unsuspecting first home owners in.
http://www.abcb.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=7384D70A-28B9-11DE-835E001B2FB900AA
-
When I first moved to Canberra, they were still building homes with woefully inadequate insulation - a female friend bought a newly constructed townhouse in Ngunnawal, and it remains the most woefully insulated non-tent I've ever slept in. The relationship didn't last long enough for me to be able to tell you how it went in Summer, but I can havea guess...
Her place wasn't the only one like it - another friend still speaks with amazement at having to argue with the house salesman to put more than foil insulation into their house. They moved in five(?) years ago.
Canberra has a Labor/Green govt too, BTW.
-
no thats not the talk around here.
OK. So you really believe they'll pull the pin without an alternative power supply? That the already questionable Vic power supply will be further jeopordised?
$100 says that when its shut down, the Vicco consumers won't see the difference.
Vicco consumers are going to see a massive difference in price!! As far as power supply goes we will not see any difference. But don't believe what is in the press at the moment, Hazelwood isn't going anywhere for a long time to come without the government pouring Billions in to replace it. Even then we are looking at a 8-10 years minimum to decommision. There is no easy fix for now, you just can't lose that much base load generation with out a viable replacement, forget solar & wind they have their place but its not for base load generation.
Hazelwood is a heavy polluter but is very cheap to run, which ties in with the insulation debate. I went to a industry seminar a few years back where they showed that Victoria had just about the worst insulated and poorly built (energy wise) housing in the developed world because we have never had any incentive to make housing more efficent, due to having such cheap power. Now power prices are going thru the roof but most of the housing is still leaky with little or no insulation. The government craps on about 6 star ratings, if we have 6 star buildings then countries such as canada, france etc are about 35 star...Houses in Canada that are in snow for 9 months of the year use less heating energy than the average Victorian house.
And forget about Nuclear power being the answer, it was a dying technology before Fukishima now no one will invest in it. Nuclear had its glory days in the early 70's but has become way to dear to be viable...the USA hasn't started on a new Nuclear Plant since 1974, China is the only country interested in it now, I guess free labor and no safety standards help make it viable. They have about 20 Nuc plants under construction and they are bringing 2 new coal powered plants online PER WEEK!! the equivelent in emissions of about 50 Hazlewoods over the last 2 years.......
-
More detail on the how interested the Greens are in destroying the coal industry, as opposed to protecting the world from Climate Change.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/so-bob-do-you-really-want-to-save-the-planet/story-e6frg71x-1226094123357 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/so-bob-do-you-really-want-to-save-the-planet/story-e6frg71x-1226094123357)
And the other revelation in the Carbon Tax plan is that the "target" (read blind wish and breakable promise) 80% reduction of Australia's emissions by the year 2050 is also a myth. It relies on buying $57billion a year in carbon credits from overseas (presumably from countries that CAN actually reduce their emissions, something which may never happen).
So they increased the headline target emissions reduction by 2050, merely by allowing for more carbon credits to be purchased, so that they can say they are doing MORE for the environment?
Are they serious? :o
Of course not. This was (and remains) only about wealth redistribution to help Labor in the polls (a forlorn hope) and keep the Greens quiet.
-
....... only about wealth redistribution ....
I think you give them too much credit. I think it is just muddled 'do anything but seen to be doing something' thinking, driven by panic and a desire for power.
I reckon there should be compulsory psychological profiling and a pre-selection vetting by a panel of experts before these people even stand for election.
-
Are they serious? :o
Of course not. This was (and remains) only about wealth redistribution to help Labor in the polls (a forlorn hope) and keep the Greens quiet.
Ajay,
Your ever more aggressive rants seem to only be based on your loathing of Labor and the Greens, but please don't forget that your beloved Libs also have a Climate Policy that is based on the spending of countless billions [which Tony will magically generate with no pain to any member of the community] to attempt to achieve the same result.
And the Libs policy is based on picking the winners', something that no government of any persuasion has ever successfully achieved.
So in this instance the REAL difference between Labor/Greens and Lib/Nats is merely shades of grey, not black and white as you desparately wish to portray.
And I doubt that you will attach any links to any of the recent news articles that show that the economic premise of the Libs policy to be pure Hockeynomics.
Government is as much about each side having time in office to stuff things in their own magical way [and move policy back towards the centre]. Currently we have to endure the wonderful Labor style of mismanagement and we will no doubt have the joy of the Libs unique offerings in the future. Let's just hope for all our sakes that the Mad Monk and his bumbling Finance Minister have moved on before they gain office.
Keeno
-
Oh and they have carbon tax in the EU don't they?
But not in Germany Moto.
-
Hmmm... disagreement in the palatial downtown VMX office? Hope that isn't keeping you all from the errr far more serious business of producing VMX magazine. After all, I have finished the last issue and need my fix.
Here ya go Jeff:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/bizarre-impost-will-damage-economy/story-e6frgd0x-1226094147407
-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/bizarre-impost-will-damage-economy/story-e6frgd0x-1226094147407
Quote from the above article.
"Yesterday the government also announced that it will be illegal for businesses to claim the carbon tax is causing them to put up prices." ??? ??? ???
This don,t look good. :o
-
Did anyone see Julia Gillard meeting the people of Brisbane on the ABC news last night? Specifically I'm referring to the part where a woman was berating her for "lying" to the Australian public? ("You said there'd be no carbon tax" etc)
There's a guy next to the PM, one of those professional nodder types, whom I can only assume is an ALP staffer. What I found interesting was a comment that he makes to the angry woman to mollify her:
"Who'd have thought we'd have a hung parliament?"
Is this an inadvertant admission that the ALP is doing this not because they believe in it, but because their hand has been forced?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-13/woman-confronts-julia-gillard-over-carbon-tax/2793462
Tex
-
Are they serious? :o
Of course not. This was (and remains) only about wealth redistribution to help Labor in the polls (a forlorn hope) and keep the Greens quiet.
Ajay,
Your ever more aggressive rants seem to only be based on your loathing of Labor and the Greens, but please don't forget that your beloved Libs also have a Climate Policy that is based on the spending of countless billions [which Tony will magically generate with no pain to any member of the community] to attempt to achieve the same result.
And the Libs policy is based on picking the winners', something that no government of any persuasion has ever successfully achieved.
So in this instance the REAL difference between Labor/Greens and Lib/Nats is merely shades of grey, not black and white as you desparately wish to portray.
And I doubt that you will attach any links to any of the recent news articles that show that the economic premise of the Libs policy to be pure Hockeynomics.
Government is as much about each side having time in office to stuff things in their own magical way [and move policy back towards the centre]. Currently we have to endure the wonderful Labor style of mismanagement and we will no doubt have the joy of the Libs unique offerings in the future. Let's just hope for all our sakes that the Mad Monk and his bumbling Finance Minister have moved on before they gain office.
Keeno
You've effectively argued for 'do nothing until we have a definite achievable plan" - which is what I've argued (see immediately above yours and other posts). A pox on both houses >:(.
-
Hmmm... disagreement in the palatial downtown VMX office? Hope that isn't keeping you all from the errr far more serious business of producing VMX magazine. After all, I have finished the last issue and need my fix.
No, healthy exchanges are only good for productivity…
…and I was only trying to point out that both parties are as bad as each other on this topic, not chalk and cheese as is constantly being claimed.
-
You've effectively argued for 'do nothing until we have a definite achievable plan" - which is what I've argued (see immediately above yours and other posts). A pox on both houses >:(.
Well Graeme,
I suppose you are right.
I have really tried not to get too caught up in this whole saga, and as my initial response to Rosco indicated that I am really not sure what to do in regard to action on Climate Change. Hence my decision to follow a more simplified, moral based path - while trying to ignore the histrionics of the day-to-day news items.
But I think the whole thing is wearing me down and maybe you are right that I am just getting pissed off with both houses and should follow your lead and advocate for a more delayed action approach. Both Labor and Libs are doing the nation a great disservice at this time and I think history is going to judge both camps very harshly.
Interesting times ahead…
Yours in confusion, ???
VMX42
-
But I think the whole thing is wearing me down ........
I think they count on that. Some of us have to go to work and live a life.
Both Labor and Libs are doing the nation a great disservice at this time and I think history is going to judge both camps very harshly.
And it not just with Global Warming and the Carbon Tax - the Boat People is another example of political points scoring and not addressing the issue ::). And health, and education, and the Broadband Network and and and and etc etc etc.
-
I've resisted the urge to throw by two bob into this debate, mainly as I don't have anything very constructive to add ;) I'm probably more of a sceptic than a believer, but I do agree that man must have an impact with all the crap we're pumping into the atmosphere and we should do something to reduce this, but it is the what to do that is causing all the finger pointing, name calling and general lies and half truths (from both sides). Typical knee jerk politics from all sides (as per that socialist wonker Ludwig's response to the export cattle debacle), with none of them proposing anything that has the best interests of future of nation in mind, just petty vote grabbing cash handouts to majority of people who don't care and only want to know how much money they're going to get from it. Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned by the whole mess, but I'm one of the poor bastards in that has to pay more under the new tax (according to the govts ready reckoner) and I'm hardly wealthy.
A bit off topic, but they seriously need to look at some senate reform. Why does each state still get 12 senators, which in reality means that Tasmania gets a senator for every 42,500 people while Qld gets one for every 375,000 people :o. Why should it continue that such a small minority of people in Tasmania get to say who runs the senate in this country.
Someone sent me this, don't know how true it is, but makes interesting reading and the quote is spot on or as my father would say "be a conservationist, plough in a greenie"
From the Washington Post November 2 1922
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway .
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Quote of the debate.
"The only true wilderness is between the ears of a Green."
-
To be totally honest, I think the Coalition's direct action policy is unnecessary as well, for the same reasons that the Carbon Tax is. :o
With China and India forecast to dramatically increase their CO2 emissions in this decade, with no sign whatsoever of the world agreeing on actual reductions, there is just NO reason at all to financially disadvantage ourselves in an increasingly difficult world economic outlook.
I think, politically, the coalition only have direct action as a part of their policy because it can be used to diffuse the more difficult arguement of belief or otherwise of human activity causing climate change. Sure that's a fairly poor reason to spend billions for no sensible reason, as have all the rediculously expensive "renewable energy" incentives that have been implemented by both sides of politics over the last 10 years.
Lets' face it - wind generation is stupidly expensive, provide very little energy, has significant environmental concerns and it is even deabtable how much CO2 it removes from being emitted to the atmosphere, when you take into account the emissions generated in a "cradle to grave" analysis.
The same with domestic solar panels - how much CO2 is being pumped into the air in China just so we, in Australia, can have a green inner glow at a rediculously high cost per kWhr? A lot.
Finally, the real paradox of the Carbon Tax plan released by the Labor/Greens/Independants coalition is that it also includes direct action spending as well as the carbon tax. Now that really IS silly.
-
I know one thing I think we can all agree on
I over the Mad Monk and his negative politics. Gillard can not be trusted.
-
From the Washington Post November 2 1922
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway .
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Quote of the debate.
"The only true wilderness is between the ears of a Green."
If its a fraud someone went to a lot of trouble (not beyond the realms of possibilities such is the passion either side of this Global Warming debate :P)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png
-
How many readers remember their science classes at school?
Did you know that if SEA ICE melts then the sea level goes DOWN.
Get a glass of water , chuck some ice cubes in it, mark the level on the glass and check it when the ice has melted. :o
The more ice the better the effect. :)
The experts forgot to mention this effect or didn,t learn it.
-
*face palm*
Water expands marginally (4%?) when it freezes, that much is true.
Now, how much ice is above the sea level? More than 4% of it?
-
How many readers remember their science classes at school?
Did you know that if SEA ICE melts then the sea level goes DOWN.
Get a glass of water , chuck some ice cubes in it, mark the level on the glass and check it when the ice has melted. :o
The more ice the better the effect. :)
The experts forgot to mention this effect or didn,t learn it.
It's not the sea ice that is an issue. It is the vast amounts of sheet ice on the Antarctic land mass, some a 100metres thick over an area nearly the size of Australia.
I can't remember the actual stats but the amount of fresh water locked up and how long its been locked up is staggering.
There are already some measurable changes happening. Exactly what is happening no one is quiet sure, there are contradictory things happening. Sea ice is disappearing in one area of the Antarctica and growing in another, by 'viable from space' dimensions.
-
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/14q09YKvfApJh4x8ucLZ-w?feat=directlink (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/14q09YKvfApJh4x8ucLZ-w?feat=directlink) ??? ??? ???
-
Oh and they have carbon tax in the EU don't they?
But not in Germany Moto.
What? Germany is a original member state of the EU experiment .They are under EU legislation on this and everything else.How could they be exempt?
http://www.taxationinfonews.com/2011/03/germany-lost-eur-850-million-to-carbon-tax-fraud/
-
Her place wasn't the only one like it - another friend still speaks with amazement at having to argue with the house salesman to put more than foil insulation into their house. They moved in five(?) years ago.
There's no argument if its not in the contract. People get what they pay for and alot of people just look for the cheapest offer they can get without looking at whats included. A contract is a work place agreement between the employer (owner) and the employed (builder) it s like work choice's and it happens everyday . A builder will gladly supply additional material and labour - its all work , he gets paid for whatever labour and has a small margin on supplied materials .If an employer/owner wants something that wasn't originally agrred on then its just taken food from the employee/builders table.
seems like your ALP/Green coalition up there is a bit slow on the uptake of little Johhny's energy rating initiative
-
http://www.taxationinfonews.com/2011/03/germany-lost-eur-850-million-to-carbon-tax-fraud/
This just gets worst by the second. I didn't know these details but I predicted being ripped off by one means or other, by one group or the other. And it will be the 'little man', the little Aussie Battler, the working Family Man, who will get stuck with the bill, and a lower standard of living.
-
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/14q09YKvfApJh4x8ucLZ-w?feat=directlink (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/14q09YKvfApJh4x8ucLZ-w?feat=directlink) ??? ??? ???
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/Julia.jpg)
I want one ;D.
-
Oh and they have carbon tax in the EU don't they?
But not in Germany Moto.
What? Germany is a original member state of the EU experiment .They are under EU legislation on this and everything else.How could they be exempt?
http://www.taxationinfonews.com/2011/03/germany-lost-eur-850-million-to-carbon-tax-fraud/
http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/02/18/aldyen-donnelly-british-columbias-carbon-tax-quagmire/
About half way down the story points out Germany,s lack of a carbon tax Moto.
To powerful to accept it ?
-
Oh and they have carbon tax in the EU don't they?
But not in Germany Moto.
What? Germany is a original member state of the EU experiment .They are under EU legislation on this and everything else.How could they be exempt?
http://www.taxationinfonews.com/2011/03/germany-lost-eur-850-million-to-carbon-tax-fraud/
http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/02/18/aldyen-donnelly-british-columbias-carbon-tax-quagmire/
About half way down the story points out Germany,s lack of a carbon tax Moto.
To powerful to accept it ?
might be a matter of who you believe, Germany was the first country with some form of tax against emissions , its wasn't called carbon tax exactly.Anyway I believe my first link and this one
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/ecotaxes.htm
-
might be a matter of who you believe, Germany was the first country with some form of tax against emissions , its wasn't called carbon tax exactly.Anyway I believe my first link and this one
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/ecotaxes.htm
I am impressed how they did it, very cunning .
That might almost be accepted here.
-
might be a matter of who you believe, Germany was the first country with some form of tax against emissions , its wasn't called carbon tax exactly.Anyway I believe my first link and this one
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/ecotaxes.htm
I am impressed how they did it, very cunning .
That might almost be accepted here.
I agree . I don't understand how the author in your link can say that they have no co2 tax - matter of interpretation?
-
Looks like Juliar has been to the Bob Hawke school of public simpathy.
Boring and transparent.
Bring on the next election I say, hang on, what is the alternative?
Hopefully a government that isn't totally dependant on the support of the Watermelons.
-
Her place wasn't the only one like it - another friend still speaks with amazement at having to argue with the house salesman to put more than foil insulation into their house. They moved in five(?) years ago.
There's no argument if its not in the contract. People get what they pay for and alot of people just look for the cheapest offer they can get without looking at whats included. A contract is a work place agreement between the employer (owner) and the employed (builder) it s like work choice's and it happens everyday . A builder will gladly supply additional material and labour - its all work , he gets paid for whatever labour and has a small margin on supplied materials .If an employer/owner wants something that wasn't originally agrred on then its just taken food from the employee/builders table.
seems like your ALP/Green coalition up there is a bit slow on the uptake of little Johhny's energy rating initiative
No, this was at the 'negotiating the spec' stage. The salesman was happy to add the extra garage space and a few other details. Then they asked about what insulation the house would have, and were told that the foil crap was plenty.
They're both long time Canberra residents, and laughed at the notion of minimal insulation, but the salesman had to be pushed to tick the box... "nah, waste of money. Reverse cycle air con, you don’t need it".
FWIW, their block was too small to orient the house to face north. The sun belts in on Summer afternoons.
-
No, this was at the 'negotiating the spec' stage. The salesman was happy to add the extra garage space and a few other details. Then they asked about what insulation the house would have, and were told that the foil crap was plenty.
They're both long time Canberra residents, and laughed at the notion of minimal insulation, but the salesman had to be pushed to tick the box... "nah, waste of money. Reverse cycle air con, you don’t need it".
FWIW, their block was too small to orient the house to face north. The sun belts in on Summer afternoons.
Okay , then that gets back to my original point that the leg was brought in mainly because of volume builders cutting corners on first home buyers.I sympathise ,I know what those sales men can be like.Hear similar stories all the time.
-
I know what those sales men can be like.Hear similar stories all the time.
Thank goodness we are all down to earth saviee vmxer's ;D and belong to the good era :P ;)
cheers A
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKyDaWmiNiU&feature=player_embedded ;)
But of course it is an Aussie idea ideally suited to Australia but taken up by the Yanks :-[
-
Cool… or should that be HOT!!!
Clever, simple and scalable.
-
It could be part of the solution. It won't work at night unless there is a cheap and effective way of storing the energy for night time consumption.
Most certainly would be good through summer when the big draw on electricity is air conditioning. The demand and supply would then coincide.
-
It could be part of the solution. It won't work at night unless there is a cheap and effective way of storing the energy for night time consumption.
You are not thinking it through. It is the HEAT that is radiating upward. At night the earth is still hot and re-radiating heat out of the ground. Even at night, or in the rain, this would still work. Interesting.
-
They were knocking up a small pilot plant in NSW/VIC somewhere. Wonder what happened to it ? Was a while back and I,de forgotten about it.
-
It could be part of the solution. It won't work at night unless there is a cheap and effective way of storing the energy for night time consumption.
You are not thinking it through. It is the HEAT that is radiating upward. At night the earth is still hot and re-radiating heat out of the ground. Even at night, or in the rain, this would still work. Interesting.
Yeah I'm aware of all that but I'm also aware of the amount of energy we are talking in terms of. I know there would be a Heat Sink effect, and I know as the earth cools the air will also cool (it's heat differential that makes it work). The effect would continue after sunset but I wonder how long the effect would last - there would be a corresponding warm up needed in the morning.
If it works it would be the Bees Knees for Australia - hot climate, lots of space.
Apparently it's been experimented with for 30 years. Hasn't been ruled out and the Yanks are getting behind it now. If our governments showed an ounce of leadership this type of technology should have been thoroughly investigated and supported rather than take the 'do nothing' or wash the hands of the problem leaving it to Market Forces.
-
They were knocking up a small pilot plant in NSW/VIC somewhere. Wonder what happened to it ? Was a while back and I,de forgotten about it.
yer it was in the Mildura area.In the 90's.
-
It could be part of the solution. It won't work at night unless there is a cheap and effective way of storing the energy for night time consumption.
Most certainly would be good through summer when the big draw on electricity is air conditioning. The demand and supply would then coincide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-EvV90MeDY&feature=related
-
Bloke I used to work with was investing in this in the early-mid '00s. AFAIK, they were going to build the real thing somewhere near Albury.
The he got crook and retired, so I haven't heard any more.
-
It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change:
Andrew Bolt the herald sun.
"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 to panic?
Incidentally he [Tim Flannery] is on $3,600 a week of our taxpayers money for working just three days a week making up more bullshit.
Please send this on and tell all Australians about these global warming imbeciles and in particular this number one idiot Tim Flannery. "
-
It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change:
Andrew Bolt the herald sun.
"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 to panic?
Incidentally he [Tim Flannery] is on $3,600 a week of our taxpayers money for working just three days a week making up more bullshit.
Please send this on and tell all Australians about these global warming imbeciles and in particular this number one idiot Tim Flannery. "
Freaky,
Feel free to slag off whom ever you choose, but using Andrew Bolt as your reference to do it is like building a house of cards on sand. Next you will be quoting Alan Jones on how to love your woman… ;) And I am pretty sure the US is nearly finished with Sarah Palin so she should be available for a bit of balance any time soon… ;D
-
ooh sorry thought we were looking for balanced view from all corners.. ...I guess we just have to look at your corner and grin and bear it.
I dont care who brings out the information so long as its out there. IF this clown has shares in dynamics then your a goose for not taking all the information in, for whats its worth - a crock of shit cover up with a gravy train. and where paying $3K a week for horse shit, give me a break.
Sarah palin was a Joke and so is Gillard and the deeper i look into politics i realise there all mugs. but feel free to give us some direction as your obviously high up in the green party and have your fingin on the pulse ....
We now have a mothballed desal plant now to thanks to labour, still doenst work, still paying the company that built it bonuses, even thou that havent met any off the contract key dates and the friggin thing wont even work..... you have got to be kidding me and were paying milliuon a year to the compnay in operation al costs to run it ( ummmm and its not even turned on) friggin labour need to learn how to run a business not a charity. there all forkin mental cases ::)
-
ooh sorry thought we were looking for balanced view from all corners.. ...I guess we just have to look at your corner and grin and bear it.
Lighten up Freaky… :o
-
Jebus Freaky, Andrew Bolt is the print media's Alan Jones - even if you agree with what he says, you should never use him as a source of information.
Oh yeah, Day Whatever and the sky is still up.
-
care factor on who wrote it.... just crystalised my thoughts on the whole shamosle !
-
Feel free to slag off whom ever you choose, but using Andrew Bolt as your reference to do it is like building a house of cards on sand. Next you will be quoting Alan Jones on how to love your woman… And I am pretty sure the US is nearly finished with Sarah Palin so she should be available for a bit of balance any time soon…
;D Look out next is Bill O'Reilly and Fox News
Wonder how much Andrew Bolt is on per year? For a man with too much to say he's been strangley quite on the 'News of the World' phone hacking and the deep deep shit News Ltd is in.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3282940.htm
-
I didn’t compose this and I respect your political persuasions, but not knowing what that is, I thought I’d on forward this anyway. Please make your own decisions but I believe there are NATIONAL current issues which won’t be debated, the majority of voters won’t get a say in, AND has the potential to divide Australia & cost each and every one of us.
The National Broadband, Illegal Boat arrivals and the huge cost to Australian tax payers, the Carbon Dioxide Tax, the foreign ownership of our LAND, not our companies or corporations, BUT OUR LAND! The drilling for coal seam gas which has the potential to kill & pollute river systems, I could go on and on.
If you feel as strongly & as patriotic as I do, then please let your feelings be known, edit this email and broadcast it!!!! WHATEVER YOUR POLITICAL PERSUASION.
July 30, 2011
IN A NUTSHELL:
Important update regarding the "Return to Sender" recommendation.
____________________________________________
Dear Fellow Concerned Australians,
The "Return To Sender" idea spreading like wildfire.
For those who don't know, millions of Aussies will be literally returning (by mail) to the government its brochure 'selling' us the Carbon Tax.
I have received two recommendations for a slight change to that excellent idea - which originated from John Izzard in http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2011/07/return-to-sender.
One suggestion is 'water-tight ' and the other risks the "return" campaign being ineffective.
The risky idea is that we can just write O.H.M.S. and have no stamp on the envelope. It may be valid, but we don't know for sure how the Post Office would handle that - especially if there are millions of such returns.
We want to be CERTAIN that the return letters ARE delivered.
Therefore I strongly recommend the best approach as follows.
DEFINITELY put the brochure in an envelope, address it to...
Greg Combet, M.P.
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
and DEFINITELY put a postage stamp on it.
If the brochure is too big to go in a standard envelope, just tear off any excess, leaving a piece that does fit.
They'll get the message!
If we all put postage stamps on the envelopes, then the Post Office is LEGALLY obliged to deliver ALL that mail.
If we just 'return to sender' without a stamp, the government, seeing the huge volume of (unstamped) returns, could instruct the Post Office to just dump the returns.
So, please DO...
1) put the brochure (or a piece of it) in an envelope.
2) Address, seal, stamp and then mail it.
This WILL work.
We CAN do this - easily, quickly and a lot cheaper than Canberra!
Peter Forde
ps What I really like about this idea is that it perfectly matches the Non-violent, intelligent and effective 'style' and 'attitude' that we/OzUnited will (assuming huge support!) be using to oblige our governments to think and act as we want them to.
pps I personally will be printing and copying THIS note and then letter-box dropping it to everyone in my neighbourhood.
Wanna do the same....?
It also helps create more awareness of YOUR organisation - OzUnited.
PF
-
hehheheh
-
Andrew Bolt is a fuc*ing tosser. Quoting him doesn't do well for the street cred Freaky.
-
Hmmm... perhaps you might like to join the Convoy of No Confidence then Jeff?
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/convoy-of-no-confidence-in-the
-
Plenty of tosser out there already whats one more. so long as he is pulling th edirt out im Ok with that.
and yes im oK with the phone taps too.
while were at it Why is it that every section of the information privacy laws effects and controls via legislation everyone, and every data base yet the policy slipped a bill through to allow them to be except ?? they just collect you details for th eheck of it ,. thats against the first rules of the privacy legilation.
fork em all .
-
Hmmm... perhaps you might like to join the Convoy of No Confidence then Jeff?
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/convoy-of-no-confidence-in-the
if i see it passing it toot and join in for sure. Im more interested in getting onto the organisors and see if he can pick up some bikes and frames and move them round the country for me ....... ill even throw in petrol money :)
-
Hmmm... perhaps you might like to join the Convoy of No Confidence then Jeff?
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/convoy-of-no-confidence-in-the
Why? Because I think that quoting self serving, one eyed, scum sucking Shock Jocks diminishes the validity of any argument…?
Sorry Graeme, but that is a very, very long bow to draw. I think you are making as many assumptions as Freaky did in assuming you know what I am thinking. I made my thoughts on Bolt and his cronies crystal clear, but beyond that the rest is in both your imaginations.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
That is very, very interesting.
If its true its a game-changer.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
That is very, very interesting.
If its true its a game-changer.
Game was already over but yer.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
That is very, very interesting.
If its true its a game-changer.
I don,t believe it , you know what lie,s scientists come up with ;)
-
Instead of this continuous debating of our own navel fluff, it's far more interesting to check out the Classic Dirt Track footage posted on youtube today.
Go to the Foto Forum for the direct link.
-
seen it. :)
-
And?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
That is very, very interesting.
If its true its a game-changer.
A very selective view on a balanced report.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Wonder who 'The Heartland Institute' is? Not exactly a pillar of scientific knowledge, but a collection of right wing nutters with way WAY too much money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
http://millermps.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/beware-of-the-heartland-institute-brought-to-you-in-part-by-the-koch-brothers/
The list is very very long...................................
-
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
That is very, very interesting.
If its true its a game-changer.
A very selective view on a balanced report.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Wonder who 'The Heartland Institute' is? Not exactly a pillar of scientific knowledge, but a collection of right wing nutters with way WAY too much money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
http://millermps.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/beware-of-the-heartland-institute-brought-to-you-in-part-by-the-koch-brothers/
The list is very very long...................................
Well I tell you what, the evil Heartland Institute with or without "way WAY too much money" write a lot more clearly then the double double talk of Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell - full of ifs, mights, partly's and maybes.
And I think their fundamental objection........
"We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO
cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate system. "
.....is unsound. Its a ten year study which should be enough to allow for cloud variations and other weather cycles.
You might question the objectivity of the Heartland Institute but I would question the objectivity and integrity of the whole academic and scientific world. None are above the bass needs of self importance and feathering the own nests - including particularly Tim Flannery.
-
The propaganda war is in full swing - at this point in time, no single article or youtube clip is going to convince anyone of anything (in either direction) - all these articles do, is rally the troops.
Personally, I'm still happy to accept the science for a number of reasons. The most significant of them (because I got bored with typing):
1. The "humans cause climate change" argument has been consistant for at least 21 years now, with only one moderate change of tack ("global warming" became "climate change") and they were fairly upfront about that - "Yep, working out differently to what we expected".
In contrast, the sceptics have grasped and shuffled for any reason/excuse: Solar flares, natural cycles, volcanoes, etc. The deniers still can't settle on a reason why the climate is changing, or even if it is changing at all. If there was a solid reason, it would be pretty much universal among the sceptics, rather tha this hugely piecemeal approach we currently have.
2. "Nature is causing it, nothing we can do, let's got to the pub".
If you were standing at the bottom of a hill, and a large rock suddenly (naturally) dislodged and began rolling toward you, you'd make sure it didn't flatten you.
But when it comes to climate change, the term "natural event" is somehow a magic spell that means it can't possibly hurt us?! (Just like tsunamis and earthquakes and fires never hurt us).
To me, this betrays the desire to discredit human-caused global warming
3. Contrary to the claims about feathering nests, the real money is in being a sceptic. Its really quite self-evident when you think about who has the money and who has the motivation to tell us that everything is OK and coal and gas and oil are awesome...
Further, the scientists I know are all straight-laced nerds. Idiots like Prue McSween claiming (with a straight face) that "95% of scientists have been bought off" is particularly laughable if you've spent any time in a place like CSIRO.
Hell, even if they weren't nerds, who has the motivation to buy off that many people? Who could do it without having anyone blabbing about it? Who has the cash to do it? Nobody could do any one of those three things, much less all three at once.
4. Regardless of whether Climate Change is a load of shit or not, we are currently entirely dependant on non-renewable resources. At some stage in the relatively near future, these resources will begin to shoot up in price - the laws of supply and demand will make the currently untapped wells economically viable, but it will come at a significant and rapidly increasing cost to consumers. At some stage beyond that, they will essentially run out, and we will need to have large scale alternatives in place.
To more toward those alternatives now, will both prolong the supply of cheap non-renewables and will make the impact of their depletion so much less painful.
Until a sceptic can address those thoughts in a coherent manner, I will remain highly sceptical of the sceptics.
-
As always, missing the point entirely. At the risk of repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if you believe in human activity affecting climate change or not. Scepticism is irrelevant.
All that matters is that China (and probably India as well) is intending to dramatically INCREASE it's emissions of C02 in the foreseeable future and nothing that Australia does (including stopping all economic activity) will have any effect whatsoever in offsetting the increase in emissions that China is forecast to add to the atmosphere.
It is fundamentally pointless for Australia to do anything about climate change until ALL the world's emitters are singing from the same songsheet.
It's a global problem, not a local one.
-
Nathan, your reply shows that you, like most of us, haven't researched the case at all. I have and I've barely scratched the surface. To offer a cogent reply would take me pages, which I shan't do.
The shame of it is that of course most people will be like you - they don't have the time or the inclination to do the research so they are unable to make a sound judgement.
But it probably doesn't matter because if you aren't a climate scientist you aren't going to understand it well enough anyway. Rather, you will simply go with your gut feel. You clearly think global warming is a problem. I don't. Which of us is right? Only time will tell.
However you are right in one respect - the science on the whole tells us it is happening, and if I were the government, that's the view I would have to act upon. That said, I think we are now seeing more scientists willing to analyse the matter in a more objective manner. If it isn't happening as has been described, then the next few years will see that brought out and the paradigm will shift. If that hasn't happened by say 2015 then I think we can accept the science is strong.
But on the carbon tax issue, in my view Ajay yet again is spot on. It is, quite simply, the wrong response for Australia.
-
As always, missing the point entirely. At the risk of repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if you believe in human activity affecting climate change or not. Scepticism is irrelevant.
All that matters is that China (and probably India as well) is intending to dramatically INCREASE it's emissions of C02 in the foreseeable future and nothing that Australia does (including stopping all economic activity) will have any effect whatsoever in offsetting the increase in emissions that China is forecast to add to the atmosphere.
It is fundamentally pointless for Australia to do anything about climate change until ALL the world's emitters are singing from the same songsheet.
It's a global problem, not a local one.
X 2 This is just another scare campaign from the Fabian university and
left wing labour and Greens..
The Stig...
-
Bit of a quandary guys. We've just had our warmest winters day in 36 years in some places and in 138 years in others.
What does this mean ?
What is the correct temperature/climate. ::)
It really does make a mockery of mans attempts to understand the climate.
The EXPERTS are so condescending when it comes to climate change but the fact is nobody really has a clue.
We can argue our nuts off but without any intelligent data the whole thing is just a bad bad joke.
-
Bit of a quandary guys. We've just had our warmest winters day in 36 years in some places and in 138 years in others.
What does this mean ?
What is the correct temperature/climate. ::)
It really does make a mockery of mans attempts to understand the climate.
The EXPERTS are so condescending when it comes to climate change but the fact is nobody really has a clue.
We can argue our nuts off but without any intelligent data the whole thing is just a bad bad joke.
Probably the easiest way to understand the Earth's climate is that it is constantly changing... it may be because of man's industrial activity, but it also could be because of the extremely complex interrelationships of ocean currents, solar activity and the variations in the orbit of the planet.
And yes, we had the coldest day on record in SE QLD on the Thursday before CD8. So is it warming or cooling??? ::)
-
more important!
has anyone got a copy of a wiring diagram for a 1977 DT 400 yamaha,
take the word carbon out and what do you have, A TAX, thats it!!!!!! nothing more, nothing less. the current government cant balance their books and will never have surplus on Australias international debt, est 81 billion, but they throw around a surplus on budget forcasts. IT's a new tax with the emotion of the enviroment attached to satisfy the Greens.
Now, have any of you VMXers got a diagram for me, or has this forum gone to the dogs.
Cheers Worms
-
The weather is largely a chaotic system Mike, and hence over the short period for which we have an instrumental record we will continue to see records in one way or another, simply because we haven't actually experienced the full gamut of possible conditions. The first week or so of August traditionally produces an Indian summer followed by colder, and here at least in Canberra, invariably wetter conditions. I first noticed that in 1992, my second winter in canberra after leaving Qld. The cold just went on and on, and then we had this beautiful warm week. I remember getting out my brand new Lucky Strike replica RGV250 and going for a quick blast around the suburbs after work, it was that nice. Of course the following week was crap...
Is it warming or cooling? Globally the figures show a somewhat static state since the super El Nino of 1998. The last year or so has been cooler due to La Nina but the temp anomalies are on the rise again. How is it on the ground in Australia? On the whole, cooler and wetter than the past few years. The skeptics reckon we'll see cooling for the next 20 years, with another La Nina early next year. The pro-AGW crowd reckon the opposite naturally though they have trotted out the airborne sulphates from China as an explanation for the recent cooling (or more exactly, non-warming). Personally, I am keen to see how this year's northern winter pans out.
Worms, I probably do have a wiring diagram cos I think I have a Clymer manual for the DT enduros.
-
Probably the easiest way to understand the Earth's climate is that it is constantly changing... it may be because of man's industrial activity, but it also could be because of the extremely complex interrelationships of ocean currents, solar activity and the variations in the orbit of the planet.
Job done!!!!
Tell all the scientists and researchers to go home, no need to worry, problem solved – "Stuff Happens".
Why didn't anybody think of that before. Doh!
Now to get to work on solving the GFC… Hold on, same answer – "Stuff Happens". Man this really has been a very productive mornings work.
-
more important!
has anyone got a copy of a wiring diagram for a 1977 DT 400 yamaha,
Now, have any of you VMXers got a diagram for me, or has this forum gone to the dogs.
Cheers Worms
I think I have one Worms and I,ve put it in a safe place along with my gun licence and I'me going nuts trying to find them. ;D
-
Nathan, your reply shows that you, like most of us, haven't researched the case at all.
On the contrary. My post was specifically avoiding the impossiby muddied waters of the science and pseudo-science - as I said, any battle of internet links, research papers and youtube clips will never reach a conclusion.
Instead, I was focusing on the more transparent points that surrond the issue. To me, they paint a clear picture of people who are resisting change, and who are looking for ways/excuses to avoid that change.
Ajay's response demonstrated it beautifully - a few pages ago, Climate Change was a hoax, but now its a global problem. The multitude of wildly varied arguments always end at the same point: Do nothing.
To me, this clearly betrays the true motivation of the skeptics.
-
That's not an accurate interpretation of Ajay's position. My take of what he's said is that the CAGW scare is a 'hoax', that is, the degree of impact will be nothing like that which is portrayed and that climate is hugely variable. However, if we DO accept the CAGW position and decide as a country to act, we shouldn't be doing it alone or out front. We are too small a player to have any great impact, and acting early and courageously may in fact be detrimental to our wellbeing economically. In other words, the risk outweighs the benefits while we go it alone.
More importantly, are you going to the Rockley vinduro?
-
I hope so. Maybe only one day.
Really depends on whether I can make the time to turn the KDX back into a bike (its currently looking very secondhand after Harrow).
-
After 25 pages of lurking this thread in the hope of getting my head around the global warming thing I'm still none the wiser and despite all of the pro and anti argument put forward here I don't think any of you have the answer either.
I just wish you enviromental scientists would put the same amount of thought and effort into contributing subject mater pertaining to the focus of this forum...OLD DIRT BIKES. Maybe you haven't noticed but while you guys were saving the world from carbon dioxide poisoning, the forum is quickly turning to shit. Yeah I know, "If you're not interested, don't read it" is the usual comeback..I've often said it myself in the past, but in the end OZVMX is not a global warming scientific theory think tank, it's a forum for us scientific Philistines to discuss old dirt bikes, an escape from the mind numbing stuff that pervades every other section of our social media these days. If you guys put as much intelligent writing and argument into discussing classic dirt bikes as you have on the carbon tax it just might quell the growing number of punters who are leaving the forum for good.
It's not that you're all contributing to a global warming thread that's the problem.....the real problem is that you're not posting interesting and relevent posts to do with old dirt bikes.
-
thought I did, as I was getting nowhere in the Tech section ;D
it was my first and only post here as I'm desperate!!!!!!!!!!!!!
worms
forgot to say" well said firko!!!!!!,""""""""
Thanks mike and graham,now, if you dont both pass out from all this carbon, have either of you guys got a fax and could you fax it to me,
cheers again worms,
just off to de-carbonise my exhaust ;D
carbon? what carbon? just like having a claytons, sorry Nathan!! you wouldnt be old enough to know what a claytons is ;D
-
Well said Mark....this shit is doing my head in.....I can fix a car or a bike because I can see it......I cant see carbon....BUT MY WALLET APARENTLY WILL.
-
I can't see the HIV virus, but I know to avoid it.
I can't see electricity, but I know not to stick a fork into the powerpoint.
Sky is still up, despite our international banker mates' best efforts.
-
I can't see electricity, but I know not to stick a fork into the powerpoint.
Electricity is easy to see, it looks the same as smoke, stick a fork in a power point...you will see it!!
-
"Australia must increase its carbon footprint!
If Australia is to enhance the biosphere and green the dead areas of the planet for future generations, it is imperative that we pump much larger quantities of carbon dioxide—the gas of life and a vital plant food—into the atmosphere over the immediate years ahead. While Australia’s emissions will initially make little overall difference to global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—being only 1.3 per cent of global anthropogenic emissions—over several decades and in concert with other nations, we can increase the total mass of life on earth. Working in our favour is the fact that this colourless, odourless gas will be an inevitable byproduct of the massive program of infrastructure development that we must undertake in the immediate future to rebuild from the current economic catastrophe.
After a generation of globalisation, our cities are stuck in traffic jams due to lack of transport infrastructure; we’ve experienced increasing water restrictions due to lack of water supply infrastructure; blackouts and brownouts occur at peak periods due to lack of electricity supply infrastructure, and the list goes on.
We need a massive rebuilding program and this will require lots of concrete, steel, aluminium and much more.
Cement, which is used in concrete as a binder, is made by heating limestone (calcium carbonate) in a kiln, in a process known as calcination. Carbon dioxide gas is liberated during calcination and kilns require lots of energy.
Iron, steel and aluminium production all require vast quantities of energy and until we establish a nuclear power industry, most of the power for metals production can only be efficiently generated from coal-fired power stations and other carbon-based fuels.
Many thousands of dump trucks, excavators, bulldozers, graders and other earthmoving equipment will be required to build dams, roads, railways, tunnels, bridges and whole new cities. Forget solar and wind power for an earthmover! They will be powered by diesel engines.
We won’t live in poverty and squalor as the greenies demand. We are going to rebuild our economy and provide a prosperous future for the coming generation.
Happily, this physical economic activity will add extra carbon dioxide to our atmosphere and assist the process of photosynthesis in plants. And with this economic expansion, we’ll also reduce air pollution by freeing up city traffic jams by building electric-powered magnetic levitation transport. Coal-fired power stations will continue to use electrostatic precipitators as they do now already, which removes particulate pollution from the chimney stacks.
Numerous scientific studies identify the benefits of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and since current concentration is only at around 390 ppm (parts per million)—in other words a mere 0.039 per cent of the atmosphere by volume, our natural environment is craving for more. For most of the last 600 million years of life on Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration exceeded 1,000 ppm and much of the time, including during the era of the dinosaurs, concentration exceeded 2,000 ppm. To date, 31,487 scientists (9,029 with PhDs) have signed the Global Warming Petition Project debunking the theory of manmade global warming and adding that “there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Australian scientist Professor Bob Carter spelt this out in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27th June: “Extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit.”
Numerous scientific studies also indicate that the oceans and sea life will prosper from any additional carbon dioxide. Enhanced nitrogen fixation has been experimentally observed in waters exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide. Studies have also identified that elevated carbon dioxide levels boost iron’s positive impact on phytoplankton productivity.
The oceans contain 39,000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon), mostly in the form of bicarbonate ions, whereas the atmosphere currently only contains 830 Gt C. Global energy-related emissions are now a mere 8.3 Gt C per year—a tiny fraction of the 39,000 Gt C stored in the oceans. However, with a global commitment to uplift the bulk of humanity out of poverty—a real moral challenge—industrialising Africa and other poor regions of the world, will fortunately, significantly increase global carbon dioxide emissions.
Over several decades, this biospheric engineering will liberate “locked up carbon” allowing our vegetation and oceans to flourish.
By contrast, Julia Gillard, the Greens, and the Liberal/National coalition all plan to cut emissions by minimally five per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. Not only do they seek to deny nature this life-giving gas, but it shows they also intend to block any plan to rebuild our economy, because there’s no possibility of building major infrastructure and growing our economy without increasing emissions. "
-
where's my bloody wiring diagram for my DT? :'(
f--k, I get tired just typing 1 line :o
worms
-
wire to kill switch, wire to ign coil, earth or do you need lights as well ?
-
To hell with carbon tax. What the planet really needs is a radiation tax. That stuff will fry us quicker than a bit of smoke.
And as I've said before, this thread is only a small part of this forum and the fact that it has run 26 pages shows that some members have an interest in it, and I doubt it will lead to the decline of the forum. It will blow over and we'll be back to bikes.
Perhaps the 'General discussion' post should be at the bottom of the page so it's not the first one people go to. Or as some forums do, rename it as the 'Off topic' thread. That would solve any disgruntlement.
I also find it interesting to discuss topical subjects with bike minded people. We all love bikes which is our common bond, but outside of that we come from varied walks of life, with varied backgrounds, varied education, varied skills and varied opinions on life in general, the fact that motorcycles are the nucleus makes it a far richer conversation than with people you have nothing in common with. That's my opinion anyway.
-
Right with you Crashman!
-
After 25 pages of lurking this thread in the hope of getting my head around the global warming thing I'm still none the wiser and despite all of the pro and anti argument put forward here I don't think any of you have the answer either.
I just wish you enviromental scientists would put the same amount of thought and effort into contributing subject mater pertaining to the focus of this forum...OLD DIRT BIKES. Maybe you haven't noticed but while you guys were saving the world from carbon dioxide poisoning, the forum is quickly turning to shit. Yeah I know, "If you're not interested, don't read it" is the usual comeback..I've often said it myself in the past, but in the end OZVMX is not a global warming scientific theory think tank, it's a forum for us scientific Philistines to discuss old dirt bikes, an escape from the mind numbing stuff that pervades every other section of our social media these days. If you guys put as much intelligent writing and argument into discussing classic dirt bikes as you have on the carbon tax it just might quell the growing number of punters who are leaving the forum for good.
It's not that you're all contributing to a global warming thread that's the problem.....the real problem is that you're not posting interesting and relevent posts to do with old dirt bikes.
What would you put in the general discussion section?If you have a problem with the forum or the topic take it up with the guy who started the topic and runs the forum.
If you are upset that people aren't starting topics that are interesting enough for you don't wait for them, start one yourself.
I dont see any scientists on the thread only people who are drinking the "kool aid " and people who aren't.
-
If you are upset that people aren't starting topics that are interesting enough for you don't wait for them, start one yourself
You're kidding aren't you? If you'd get out of the carbon cloud for a minute you'd find that I've been doing just that for six fuc*ing years. My problem isn't so much with there being a carbon thread but with none of you contributing relevent stuff about old dirt bikes. The only time some of you post is to get into these type of political or enviromental debates. If it's come to the point that you'd rather argue the toss over something you have no control over than discuss the subject this forum was set up to cater for, you guys have lost your reason for being here. Carbon tax/global warming is an important subject but this isn't the place to discuss it.
Have a look through the members section and see the growing number of forum members who no longer or hardly ever contribute. I've asked many of those who've bailed out and they just about all say that the forum has lost its way and have lost interest.
What's that old saying about 'there are none so blind as those who can't see'?
-
If you are upset that people aren't starting topics that are interesting enough for you don't wait for them, start one yourself
You're kidding aren't you? If you'd get out of the carbon cloud for a minute you'd find that I've been doing just that for six fuc*ing years. My problem isn't so much with there being a carbon thread but with none of you contributing relevent stuff about old dirt bikes. The only time some of you post is to get into these type of political or enviromental debates. If it's come to the point that you'd rather argue the toss over something you have no control over than discuss the subject this forum was set up to cater for, you guys have lost your reason for being here. Carbon tax/global warming is an important subject but this isn't the place to discuss it.
Have a look through the members section and see the growing number of forum members who no longer or hardly ever contribute. I've asked many of those who've bailed out and they just about all say that the forum has lost its way and have lost interest.
What's that old saying about 'there are none so blind as those who can't see'?
As I said ,if you have a problem with this topic take it upwith the guy who started it.
People have left for numerous reasons but for sure the cyber shitfights that develope would be a major one.
I agree about some people only getting involved in political issue's but at the moment that might just be because there is some major things going on.
Personally I have posted and do post on more than just general topics but it seems that the bigger response's come to the GFC and CO tax at the moment.
-
Its a free market ,people are obviously more concerned about the future, and who can blame them for not putting their heads in the sand as politicians and wall streeters would like us to do ?
Sheeeeeiiiiit Wasp ,you have a way with words lately.
-
Is that good or bad ?:o
good post IMO
-
It's going to get worse. The GFC thread is now 13 pages and the funnies/jokes thread is 91 pages of non motorcycle related jokes.
-
I have no problem with general discussion on any subject, including the jokes subject. I don't see what's wrong with these side issues being discussed.
Why I even look at other subjects that I can have little input in, such as sidecars, enduro, maico etc etc but they are not my main interests.
My main topics of interest are dirt track, fotos, and people, in no particular order.
I like to talk a lot [as people who know me will attest], and I like to know a little bit about everything. This forum fills the bill.
Double cheers pancho.
-
I totally agree with you Pancho. I did that last post as a tongue in cheek. I never even look at the joke thread but it doesn't bother me that it's there.
I like to talk a lot too. I have no interest in dirt track, but it wouldn't stop me talking to you about dirt track all day. I did get to watch a historic dirt track race meet at the Davenport Iowa historic Harley swap meet a few years back. They even had a few old veterans on 1930's Harley's racing that night. They usually don't race much as the bikes are now worth big dollars.
-
'The Cutting Edge' on SBS on tuesday night is about the essence of this debate. I think it's called 'Science under attack'
-
I think you're misunderstanding my point fellas. I'm not so much in opposition to the carbon tax or GFC threads. My main point is that when a carbon tax thread becomes the main thread on the forum we're losing our way from the days when this was the biggest and best on the 'net. Believe it or not, people come on here to communicate with like minded fellow old dirt bike owners and to pick up tips and see some cool bikes or learn how to polish plastic or whatever. When they log on and see the three quarters of that days posts are about global warming and other non VMX specific subjects, they often eventually move away. Sure it's an impportant subject but when guys are continually posting on that thread and contributing SFA to the main focus of the forum we've most definitely lost our way.
Surely the mass exodus of people over the last year must make you wonder why they've left? Don't you think that this loss of focus has at least something to do with it? Maybe it's me, maybe I can't see why everyone is getting so pumped on this, maybe I'm missing something?
-
I think you're misunderstanding my point fellas. I'm not so much in opposition to the carbon tax or GFC threads. My main point is that when a carbon tax thread becomes the main thread on the forum we're losing our way from the days when this was the biggest and best on the 'net. Believe it or not, people come on here to communicate with like minded fellow old dirt bike owners and to pick up tips and see some cool bikes or learn how to polish plastic or whatever. When they log on and see the three quarters of that days posts are about global warming and other non VMX specific subjects, they often eventually move away. Sure it's an impportant subject but when guys are continually posting on that thread and contributing SFA to the main focus of the forum we've most definitely lost our way.
Surely the mass exodus of people over the last year must make you wonder why they've left? Don't you think that this loss of focus has at least something to do with it? Maybe it's me, maybe I can't see why everyone is getting so pumped on this, maybe I'm missing something?
'there are none so blind as those who can't see'
-
I think you're misunderstanding my point fellas. I'm not so much in opposition to the carbon tax or GFC threads. My main point is that when a carbon tax thread becomes the main thread on the forum we're losing our way from the days when this was the biggest and best on the 'net. Believe it or not, people come on here to communicate with like minded fellow old dirt bike owners and to pick up tips and see some cool bikes or learn how to polish plastic or whatever. When they log on and see the three quarters of that days posts are about global warming and other non VMX specific subjects, they often eventually move away. Sure it's an impportant subject but when guys are continually posting on that thread and contributing SFA to the main focus of the forum we've most definitely lost our way.
Surely the mass exodus of people over the last year must make you wonder why they've left? Don't you think that this loss of focus has at least something to do with it? Maybe it's me, maybe I can't see why everyone is getting so pumped on this, maybe I'm missing something?
Firko,
With the greatest of respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this instance.
The forum has definitely lost some of it's "characters" over the last 2 years, but this hasn't been, in my opinion, due to a lack of passion about VMX stuff. It has been about a background of conflict and just plain mean mindedness shown by some members to others. That has worn many people down (including yourself, twice) and those people may never return.
As for the carbon Tax debate, I for one wish we weren't even having a debate at all... (we shouldn't be, if our prime minisiter had done what she promised before the election) ::)
-
I for one wish we weren't even having a debate at all... (we shouldn't be, if our prime minisiter had done what she promised before the election) ::)
If only she had said it was a "non-core promise" then all would be good… or as old Joh said - "they are all the same these different people".
P.S. and debate is always good. It is those who try to stifle debate you should be worried about.
-
debate is always good. It is those who try to stifle debate you should be worried about.
With the greatest of respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this instance.
I love a good political debate as anyone who's spent much time with me will agree. I also think that the GFC and Carbon Tax debates are important and worth sturdy disection and discussion. However my 'problem' is that I believe that this forum isn't the place to spend 26 pages debating it. I believe this forum was created for like minded classic dirt bike enthusiasts to meet and discuss everything to do with our sport. Sure, there are the occasional left turns towards football, cars and even what's on TV but these little side tracks usually peter out after 5 or 10 posts. What prompted my concern ocurred a few days ago when I logged on to find that nearly every post that particular day was either for the Carbon Tax or GFC threads. The actual dirt bike contribution that day was saved by the dirt track guys and their photo posts. In other words, the nucleus of that days forum activity was alien to the original intent of the forum. If I didn't see anything on there concerning old bikes that I'd like to read about, what about a potential newbie or some of the less forthright in our vintage community. There's a good chance many would opt out and surf on to something else.
It's the same with the arguments, slags and personal shit fights. If that behaviour is a good thing for promoting our sport, I'll stand naked on the town hall steps. It really used to shit me seeing so-called funny guys slagging off other blokes bikes and their choices of parts used. The continuing slagging of Marcs oddball Suzuki 125 swingarm, and other stuff relating to his often left field view of our sport is annoying to me and I'm sure him. People need to be supported for their projects, not criticised. Dalesween posted elsewhere that he wanted to post photos of his project but didn't because he was afraid of it getting slagged by the usual suspects. How many others have felt the same aprehension and held back from joining in for fear of being 'judged'?
If discussing politics on a VMX forum is a legitimate thing, it must now be OK to dedicate a couple of pages of VMX magazine to discussing politics. Maybe Laurie Oakes or Andrew Bolt could be approached to pound out a few words, or if they aren't available I'm sure Nathan could cover the gig. ;D
-
I'd pay extra to see a regular column from Nathan...
-
IF people cant race cause they cant afford to after paying all these new taxes and are getting squeezed even harder.... isnt that grounds for any debate or topic infomation release ???
i wouldnt have read half of this topic, im just venting. venting it free. if you choose to read it thats free too.
-
debate is always good. It is those who try to stifle debate you should be worried about.
With the greatest of respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this instance.
I love a good political debate as anyone who's spent much time with me will agree. I also think that the GFC and Carbon Tax debates are important and worth sturdy disection and discussion. However my 'problem' is that I believe that this forum isn't the place to spend 26 pages debating it. I believe this forum was created for like minded classic dirt bike enthusiasts to meet and discuss everything to do with our sport. Sure, there are the occasional left turns towards football, cars and even what's on TV but these little side tracks usually peter out after 5 or 10 posts. What prompted my concern ocurred a few days ago when I logged on to find that nearly every post that particular day was either for the Carbon Tax or GFC threads. The actual dirt bike contribution that day was saved by the dirt track guys and their photo posts. In other words, the nucleus of that days forum activity was alien to the original intent of the forum. If I didn't see anything on there concerning old bikes that I'd like to read about, what about a potential newbie or some of the less forthright in our vintage community. There's a good chance many would opt out and surf on to something else.
It's the same with the arguments, slags and personal shit fights. If that behaviour is a good thing for promoting our sport, I'll stand naked on the town hall steps. It really used to shit me seeing so-called funny guys slagging off other blokes bikes and their choices of parts used. The continuing slagging of Marcs oddball Suzuki 125 swingarm, and other stuff relating to his often left field view of our sport is annoying to me and I'm sure him. People need to be supported for their projects, not criticised. Dalesween posted elsewhere that he wanted to post photos of his project but didn't because he was afraid of it getting slagged by the usual suspects. How many others have felt the same aprehension and held back from joining in for fear of being 'judged'?
If discussing politics on a VMX forum is a legitimate thing, it must now be OK to dedicate a couple of pages of VMX magazine to discussing politics. Maybe Laurie Oakes or Andrew Bolt could be approached to pound out a few words, or if they aren't available I'm sure Nathan could cover the gig. ;D
Hey Firko,
Feel free to disagree, good luck to you.
The fact that is that this thread has muddled along for so long is not for you or I to comment, it has taken on a life of its own, fueled by contributions from OzVMX members - that is what a Forum is all about.
For the most part it has been been a simple exchange of ideas, nobody has gotten their noses out of joint an I can't remember any particularly personal comments. If that offends you, then that is your problem. It is a big and enormously complicated issue and if tossing a few ideas out there for comment on OzVMX helps then that is just fine with me. As many other posters have said - "if you don't want to read it then don't click on the link".
IMHO the slagging seems to have really calmed down over the last few weeks and I can see some of the old forum feel returning. I have followed this thread and the GFC one, whilst also keeping up to date with the Yamamaico and Suzuki swingarm stories. All good and with a bit of humour as well.
If discussing politics on a VMX forum is a legitimate thing, it must now be OK to dedicate a couple of pages of VMX magazine to discussing politics. Maybe Laurie Oakes or Andrew Bolt could be approached to pound out a few words, or if they aren't available I'm sure Nathan could cover the gig. ;D
You could always use your column to try to enlighten us with your insights on these kind of topics. And maybe, just maybe it would get published - but I wouldn't be holding my breath.
P.S. and you should also enjoy the irony of extending this slowly dying thread with your comments that you know quite well will illicit responses and thereby contributing to the life of the thread you obviously hate.
-
P.S. and you should also enjoy the irony of extending this slowly dying thread with your comments that you know quite well will illicit responses and thereby contributing to the life of the thread you obviously hate.
That's irony in its purest form! I'm done on this whinge, there's nothing more I can add. The class bully has gone to wherever twisted little pricks hibernate, Doc's back and the forum vibe has noticably gone up a few degrees, all that was needed was a bit of a wake up call. All I need is a new date for my postponed surgery, a new water pump for my beloved Jagwah and my world will have returned to being a beautiful place. ;D
-
Mark, that swingarm is/was/will be, alway's ugly.... ;D ;D ;D.....mArc with a C loves it and thats all that matters aannd he know's where just taking the piss.... ;D......Now what about the new paring of Steve Williams and Adam Scott.....Aussie and Kiwi combination that hopefully will smoke em for a few years...that cotton picker from down south will be still choking on his crawdagg's and grits :D.
-
mArc with a C loves it and thats all that matters aannd he know's where just taking the piss....
John,I know you're taking the piss, and Marc probably does too but I know for a fact that there a quite a few who think you're for real and because of that are aprehensive about showing off their pride and joy.
Nobody likes being told their missus is ugly even if she is, we still love her despite the funny growths and moustache. It's the same with bikes, nobody likes being told their pride and joy is a piece of shit or ugly. god only knows my bikes are out of left field and not to everyones taste but I hate it being told they're ugly. I hid the Hindall in the tent at CD8 because even I thought it was ugly and knew I'd cop shit for it.
-
Nobody likes being told their missus is ugly even if she is, we still love her despite the funny growths and moustache.
youve met the missus then Firko ;D .... you know you don't call a thread "Swingarm of the Gods" without expecting a bit of a wind up .... but WTF I kind of built that RM125 for shits and giggles and ended up really pleased with the way it turned out ..... believe it or not I have had a very good cash offer for it from a guy in Japan ;)
I just try and take it on the chin and hide my disappointment at not having a 'real HL' owning an ugly swingarm and possibly having dated the girl hanging off that Harley :o
(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/marcFX_photo/untitled.jpg)
-
IF people cant race cause they cant afford to after paying all these new taxes and are getting squeezed even harder.... isnt that grounds for any debate or topic infomation release ???
derrrrr gee freaky I neva tort uf it like dat.
-
'The Cutting Edge' on SBS on tuesday night is about the essence of this debate. I think it's called 'Science under attack'
interesting. Which science do they mean ? The science that disputes the theory and is under attack by vested interests or the "offical"science that has all the backing from the banks and corporations?
-
.... you know you don't call a thread "Swingarm of the Gods" without expecting a bit of a wind up .... but WTF I kind of built that RM125 for shits and giggles and ended up really pleased with the way it turned out ..... believe it or not I have had a very good cash offer for it from a guy in Japan ;)
Whats wrong with the swing arm ?
I thought it was neat :)
-
Fair enough Fiko. At least it's only one thread.... :P
And by the way, who thinks our current government could just be stupid enough to forge on regardless with the imposition of the Carbon tax burdeaon on the economy, despite the imminent and expected arrival of GFC II?
;D
-
Fair enough Fiko. At least it's only one thread.... :P
And by the way, who thinks our current government could just be stupid enough to forge on regardless with the imposition of the Carbon tax burdeaon on the economy, despite the imminent and expected arrival of GFC II?
You can keep picking at the scab till the cows come home but nothing you say here will change anything…
But please will you at least remember that BOTH SIDES of politics [yes that includes your beloved Libs] are committed to action on climate change. The spots are different but the suit is the same. Just get over it…
If you listen to Joe Hockey the GFC never actually happened.
-
All I was doing was trying to stay on subject... ;D
And after all that, Barneby was right about the credit rating downgrade all those months ago... ;)
-
And after all that, Barneby was right about the credit rating downgrade all those months ago... ;)
If you keep pissing into the wind long enough, one day you will get it in your eye.
Barneby Joyce - good grief Charlie Brown - if that the best we've got, heaven help us. He makes Hockeynomics look logical…
-
And after all that, Barneby was right about the credit rating downgrade all those months ago... ;)
If you keep pissing into the wind long enough, one day you will get it in your eye.
Barneby Joyce - good grief Charlie Brown - if that the best we've got, heaven help us. He makes Hockeynomics look logical…
LOL ;D
Nothing wrong with Hockeynomics either. :P
Yep, get rid of the climate change dept AND the soon to be established Bob Brown Green Bank. That'll save billions. ;)
-
'The Cutting Edge' on SBS on tuesday night is about the essence of this debate. I think it's called 'Science under attack'
interesting. Which science do they mean ? The science that disputes the theory and is under attack by vested interests or the "offical"science that has all the backing from the banks and corporations?
Anyone watch it?
-
And by the way, who thinks our current government could just be stupid enough to forge on regardless with the imposition of the Carbon tax burdeaon on the economy, despite the imminent and expected arrival of GFC II?
;D
Me , they will forge on regardless .CFCII is just GFCI growing under the carpet and reappearing.
BTW Julia Gillard refused to answer why the carbon tax$ go's to Europe in Parliment the otherday.(I heard)
-
And penny Wrong just conceived a child with her girlfriend . Where is the balance of nature ? Its all in now , fully government sponsored with maternity leave , the full works . far out :o i think its OK have watercooling for pre 75 soon :D
LOL
-
By the look of that couple, and the one who is pregnant, I'm presuming that Jenny is the "father". ;D
-
By the look of that couple, and the one who is pregnant, I'm presuming that Jenny is the "father". ;D
Penny?
-
DOH. :-[
-
Whats Australia coming to?.....no wonder the economy's farked.....look at the shit running it!!! >:(
-
This is the nice me....I havent mentioned the "H","Q", "P" or "L" words.........whats the next generation going to be like?
-
.....no wonder the economy's farked.....
The rest of the world would love to have an economy as farked as ours. We don't know when we have it good - too busy whinging about how tough it all is…
-
Oh well, back to the grindstone...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/carbon-debate-has-just-begun/story-e6frg6zo-1226111937932 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/carbon-debate-has-just-begun/story-e6frg6zo-1226111937932)
:P
-
Oh well, back to the grindstone...
Now that is funny… ;D ;D ;D
-
The chickens are coming home to roost.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
-
The chickens are coming home to roost.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
That's gotta hurt your sense of self importance.
Snicker
You'd give up the weather stuff and get a job as a street sweeper.
-
Hate to revisit this but the situation here in Qld has changed and I am pissed.
Because so many people put in solar panels ,to save the world , the electricity company's are now making less money and the shareholders are suffering.
The government has decided to fix this and is proposing to change the way consumers are charged.
There is now to be a fixed charge [ which will go up every year forever ] and the cost of electricity will go down as per pre election promises.
The fixed charge is expected to start at $250 a year.
They say it's only fair as the normal customer has been subsidizing the solar panel owners.
So I ,who built a house that uses 60% LESS than the local average with NO solar panels , will now be paying more so that the high end user will not be subsidizing my power bill ???
I will now have to pay $250 more a year because I wanted to NOT be a burden on this planet , because I did the right thing , because I gave a FU*K.
User pays ??? Yer right.
Fuc*in Arseho*es.
Kevin Rudd once said that home grown terrorists could be a problem and I say that home made ones could be worse.
-
In Tassie we have to pay a carbon tax on our power , funny thing is our power is from Hydro mmmm Iain
-
In Tassie we have to pay a carbon tax on our power , funny thing is our power is from Hydro mmmm Iain
;D ;D ;D
Its all that concrete that they used 50 years ago. Very environmentally unfriendly that concrete stuff.
-
In Tassie we have to pay a carbon tax on our power , funny thing is our power is from Hydro mmmm Iain
You might be very surprised the % of Tas. power that comes from Vic. brown coal stations.
-
Hate to revisit this but the situation here in Qld has changed and I am pissed.
Because so many people put in solar panels ,to save the world , the electricity company's are now making less money and the shareholders are suffering.
The government has decided to fix this and is proposing to change the way consumers are charged.
There is now to be a fixed charge [ which will go up every year forever ] and the cost of electricity will go down as per pre election promises.
The fixed charge is expected to start at $250 a year.
They say it's only fair as the normal customer has been subsidizing the solar panel owners.
So I ,who built a house that uses 60% LESS than the local average with NO solar panels , will now be paying more so that the high end user will not be subsidizing my power bill ???
I will now have to pay $250 more a year because I wanted to NOT be a burden on this planet , because I did the right thing , because I gave a FU*K.
User pays ??? Yer right.
Fuc*in Arseho*es.
Kevin Rudd once said that home grown terrorists could be a problem and I say that home made ones could be worse.
That's pretty fuct up. Three cheers for state governments, past and present... ::)
-
Even so Montynut , it should be a % of the bill not the whole amount . But then again our leaders ( Joke ) are so bankrupt they will do anything for some more cash .
-
In Tassie we have to pay a carbon tax on our power , funny thing is our power is from Hydro mmmm Iain
You might be very surprised the % of Tas. power that comes from Vic. brown coal stations.
Tasmania had the opportunity to reverse that and to be a provider instead of a user , thus creating wealth for the apple isle , and the great forward thinking BOB BROWN and his gay green mates scotched that idea.
-
don't talk about that fool . the best thing anyone could say would be he's a great future target for a political assasination .
-
I was under the impression "Can Do " froze electricty prices for 12 months or was it only tarrif 11.
-
Seeing he's out of politics, I think it would be called murder...
-
I,me just pissed guys ignore me.
You do the right thing personally and you end up getting slapped down.
I put the thought and effort and dare I say it the MONEY into this house to make a difference when I could have just sat on the dole watching telly and eating chips.
All the people who spent the money installing solar panels WILL be impressed when the price they get drops to 8c a kw and they have to pay $250 fixed a year.
That fixed price is for the connection , the electricity is extra. :o
I was under the impression "Can Do " froze electricty prices for 12 months or was it only tarrif 11.
Yer oldie the price of a kw is to go down so he is keeping his promise. ::)
And before you guys say tut tut isn't that sad just remember that your state gov's aren't all that bright and this idea will probably look attractive to them.
Smart meters are the federal gov's answer to the problem.
Just think our grandfathers made the electricity system for the country's benefit , we used to own it and now we are slaves to it.
Brilliant turnaround that.
-
No Mike thats what the pollies would like . I say shout it from the roof and let every one know you are being ripped off again by a govenment that supports the weak and stupid but penalises anyone who stands up for themselfs .
-
We are way over governed, too much of our hard earned goes straight into the public service trough.
Obviuosly we need a Federal Government, so who should we get rid of, Local or State?
-
I am now looking at ww2 wood gas generators.
Stuff the enviroment. ;D
-
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/households-to-be-slugged-240-a-year-to-pay-for-solar-power-feed-in-tariff/story-e6freoof-1226511045375
And who owns Energex ...... Qld Government and whos there Boss "Can Do"
-
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/households-to-be-slugged-240-a-year-to-pay-for-solar-power-feed-in-tariff/story-e6freoof-1226511045375
And who owns Energex ...... Qld Government and whos there Boss "Can Do"
The last male labour leader here [ forgot his name ] privatized it.
I think the gov now just has shares in it.
-
I am now looking at ww2 wood gas generators.
Stuff the enviroment. ;D
Ha, I can do you a deal on one.
My old man made a 'Charcoal burner', reckons it was common during the 'war years'
I've seen it produce a flammable gas but we never got around to connecting it up to an engine.
I've been saving it for when fuel reaches $5.00 litre
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/gmcloa/Misc/Charcoal-burner.jpg)
-
Now that needs a topic all it's own Geoff.
I have photo's somewhere of an old car in the late 40's with one of those on the back bumper that my dad & uncle used to drive.
-
Deja vu with governments / local councils from a few years ago?? WATER TANKS. How many of us got on the band wagon for that product??
The authorities ranted about limiting water useage to sustain water levels in our dams and yes we were going through a big drought. Unfortunately we got so good at limiting water use, with the help of water tanks, that the authorities were loosing money at a fast rate of knots.
So hence the dramatic ongoing rise in water prices to the consumer.
Looks ominous with solar electricity. Electricity providers advised us about saving household electricity with many suggestions, which we got good at. They supply a product to help the environment and to save consumers money. Once again we got on the band wagon, limiting electricity useage and adding it back to the grid, and now the authorities realise they are loosing money again. Hence the dramatic rise in prices to the consumer.
Soon they will introduce a tax or cost for the air we breathe?? ???
-
Now that needs a topic all it's own Geoff.
I have photo's somewhere of an old car in the late 40's with one of those on the back bumper that my dad & uncle used to drive.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/69facc8a3998.jpg)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/gasproducerJuly1941.jpg)
-
We are way over governed,too much of our hard earned goes straight into the public service trough.
Obviuosly we need a Federal Government, so who should we get rid of, Local or State?
No,not in my opinion.That would just give more power to Federal governments and we would be less represented.
A dangerous situation as history has already shown. I would prefer less governance at the federal level and more representation/control at the regional and local level,similar to the Swiss model. We should never have allowed our government(s) to over spend our money and then dictate to us ever increasing tax's and the selling off of the public utilities that we inherited from forefathers hardwork. Best I shut up at this point. >:(
-
Hence, coal seam gas, carbon tax, we're still on topic.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dnZfV4R_qk
-
We are way over governed,too much of our hard earned goes straight into the public service trough.
Obviuosly we need a Federal Government, so who should we get rid of, Local or State?
No,not in my opinion.That would just give more power to Federal governments and we would be less represented.
A dangerous situation as history has already shown. I would prefer less governance at the federal level and more representation/control at the regional and local level,similar to the Swiss model. We should never have allowed our government(s) to over spend our money and then dictate to us ever increasing tax's and the selling off of the public utilities that we inherited from forefathers hardwork. Best I shut up at this point. >:(
I pretty much agree.
Part of me thinks that state governments are a waste of time, but then I look at the way we 'always' ensure we have a different party in state government (vs federal) - by design or accident, there's a form of safety net there.
-
Be warned about centralization of power. It leads to inefficiency and corruption. The soviet system is a classic example.
-
Not real worried about governments as I am over them.
What is scarey is when they start charging more for people who use less and less for people who use more.
I am looking from the point of view of saving the planet of course.
If I wanted to destroy it then this new way of charging should work well.
-
What is scarey is when they start charging more for people who use less and less for people who use more.
That's socialist politics. Penalize those who CAN pay as opposed to those who should be paying.
-
The World explained by 2 cows…
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income..
VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has died.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.
You eat both of them.
The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.
The IMF loans you two cows.
You eat both of them.
The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk.
You are out getting a haircut.
-
I have always considered up till nowdays that Aust. has far to many pollies for population and I think that the immediate concern is the state upper houses. They should be turfed out ASAP. Q'land did it years ago.
On this point I consider now that the increase in population from the 8 or 9 million when I was a kid now to 20m mill. plus means we will soon have about the right amount of representatives.state and federal.
The Oz constitution has no mention in it anywhere re 'political parties'. and I don't get to concerned about which 'party' is in power as long as they realise that they are elected to manage the country to the benifit of the voters and not to make a big profit (surplus)
To me a government (talking Feds here) whose budget comes in as a surplus (after allowing for a future fund) is as bad a manager or worse than one producing a deficit.
Governments exist to provide services for the benifit of the people.
When a budget runs a deficit because of unexpected events that's fine, as opposed to a budget that still runs a surplus in the face of natural disasters etc. means to me that too much emphasis has been made on profit rather than services.
Al very interesting and no doubt some here will think I'm nuts.
cheers pancho.
-
Al very interesting and no doubt some here will think I'm nuts.
cheers pancho.
Not at all Pancho. There's a lot of soul searching going on in western democracies presently about politicians and systems of govt. Chief amongst these is the US where over 20 states have petitioned to cede from the union stating that they did not benefit from the humongous deficit the federal govt has acquired and they want sweet FA to do with it. Texas is one of the states that has petitioned to cede from the union.
We really need to sit and think about a local and federal govts resposibilities. I agree that a federal govts should be foreign affairs and defence (aren't they the same thing?).