Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

From an article by Tim Colebatch in today's The Age:

Garnaut proposes that of the $20 billion or more to be raised every year from emission permits, 50% be directed at households, through a combination of tax cuts, higher welfare benefits and energy-efficient renovations of battlers' homes. The bulk of this would go to low-income households, where fuel bills take up twice the share of spending as in well-off homes.
Another 30% of emissions trading revenue would go to business, mainly to emission-intensive industries competing with developing countries. And 20% should be invested to research, develop and commercialise technology — such as the solar power station at Robinvale, and the demonstration "clean coal" plant announced this week for Loy Yang.


Ergo, your statement that the $20b was a once off was patently wrong.

Damian.
I agree with you.
I remember the Ice Age coming in the 50,s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

And you were doing so well till this little pearler;



Mmmmmmmmmm.....maybe if we slowed up on the use of it then it may lessen the effect :rolleyes:

---

It's rather more complicated than that. First of all there isn't any really good data on how much CO2 is produced in any given timeframe (lets say per year), the data on how much we create is worse. Then there isn't any really good data on how self perpetuating the effect is of the existing raised levels. Finally what is known is that to have a really dramatic effect, say a measurable reduction in atmospheric CO2 over the next 100 years the reduction in human CO2 production would have to be dramatic. REALLY dramatic. When I say CO2 BTW I'm referring by inference to all the other so called greenhouse gases like methane.

Forget what I said before about water vapor being 95% of the insulating effect of the atmosphere, that's just an inconvenient truth. Lets jump the next mile high hurdle. I said above that the data is pretty ordinary, but what there is shows pretty clearly that the human contribution to CO2 etc is only a few percent of the total production. Most CO2 is actually produced by nature. We don't make 70%, or 30%, more like 5% of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere is human derived. The number is argued over endlessly these days depending on which faith system your promoting, but I invite you to find a credible source that suggests it's a BIG percentage of total CO2.

So for human CO2 reductions to change the direction of climate change, stall it or even slow the trend, the reduction in CO2 emissions by humans has to be utterly tremendous.

Now let me offer the essence of my objection to all this.

Suppose we decide to switch off all the carbon producing electricity generation tomorrow. Switch to carbon neutral generation. The number varies tremendously because of the specific replacement technology you employ, your distance from the generation source etc. but for a convenient rule of thumb lets assume everyone's power bill doubles.

I'm comfortable, so if my bill goes from $250/qtr to $500 it's a mild inconvenience. Maybe it's trivial for you also. But answer me this: are you prepared to do that to single income families ? to people who can only just make ends meet ? Are you prepared to uproot the main job source of whole communities ?

You might be surprised to know I am prepared to back that course. BUT! But only if I see a compelling case to damage those lives, to see my taxes and bills increase dramatically, to watch whole communities uprooted.

This is one example. If this is allowed to run out of control there will be multitude ramifications. Change is constant, inevitable, and people's lives get damaged all the time, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help that process when the catalyst is politics, vested interests and pressure to accept the "common belief" off the masses. The majority once believed the world is flat, doesn't mean they were right.

I'll say it again. I am not on any level advocating pollution, nor a contempt for our environment. The case for nursing our planet should be obvious, intuitive and need no scientific justification. The devil is in the details of how we administer that care.

2c.

Oh wait, I'm not finished yet.

Do you think solar cells are green ? In fact it takes more energy to create them than they can produce in their working lives. Trains ? Rubbery number but for a rule of thumb if there are less than 50 people per carriage on an EMU your making more CO2 than 1.4 people per car to transport them per mile/km whatever. Hydroelectricity ? a holistic analysis I read years ago revealed more greenhouse gases released by damming and tapping the river than a coal fired plant. Hybrid cars ? The total pollution load of a car incorporate the pollution in manufacture as well as disposal, not just running costs. Amusingly you can build a model that shows a Bentley produces a smaller environmental footprint than a Prius.

And finally (no really this time) it never ceases to amaze me that most of my hippie greenie friends live as far away from the environment as they can. Inner city suburbs. I live on Brisbane's rural outskirts and am confronted my the reality of nature every time I step outside. It astounds me that these people can believe we "rednecks" want to destroy the very natural environment we choose to live in and that people who only see it on the occasional holiday clearly know better than us how it should be managed.

:) Life....

HI Damien

My little stir is that frequently we like to make statements bout the other side being wrong and post something just as wrong. :wink:

It is not an us and them arguement. I dont sit in either camp, they being man made climate change will destroy us all OR keep on burning baby and she'll be right. What concerns me with regard to carbon is the fact that carbon has an atmospheric life of a minimum 50 years to a max 200years. Our use of fossil fuels is accelerating and will continue given the expected increase in population. The carbon % in the atmosphere is also growing. You are correct that man made carbon is a small percentage of the total released into the atmoshphere, some suggest about 4% of the total at the moment. Here is the prob. If thats correct, and we continue to add to this percentage, then it becomes 5%, 6% 7% ETC and that is not natural.

So if what we put up there lasts for a min of 50 years then by the middle of this century all the oil/coal/gas we burn around the world goes up there and stays there. As of 2005 we were using 83,000,000 barrells of oil a day. So all thats going up there and that accounts for less than 30% of the fossil fuels we use. Which means, if I have my maths right, that yearly we are using over 30billion barrells. So between now and 2058, even if we stayed at 2005 levels, we would have put the carbon from 1,500 billion barrels of oil into the atmosphere a year. And thats just a third of what we are putting up there.

I am no scientist but have a reasonable IQ. I can think for myself and I dont think it can be helpful to do that to our one and only living place. Add in the fact that carbon has ppm% have greatly increased since the industrial revolution I begin to worry a little more.

This is where I sit. Man is effecting the world in ways that we (or our children) may very well pay harshly for. The problems are far worse than climate change.

My view is a holistic one. The world is a bubble. We are a small part of life in the bubble but impact it in ways that have never occurred before. We are overpopulating, over using the worlds resources and damaging the balance. The earths population is dependant on fertilizer from petrochemicals to provide enough food to feed us. What happens when this is no longer available, mass starvation?

And this is why we ARE being conned by our govts. They will make small changes to shut up the GREENIES at the expense of the world making the serious and very hard decision to move the world to a sustainable footing.

What to do and how that could occur is beyond me. :(

Here's my thoughts.

Since the creation of the Earth, the volcanic activity on the planet has changed the climate from an acidic blend of gases into a relatively balanced system that can support life, if I'm right, then that's quite a climate change right there.

I think we can all agree that there has been dramatic changes in the earth's surface/ambient/whatever temperature in the past (namely the ice ages). So, we can safely assume that the climate changes whether or not we have our lean mean polluting machine butts on the planet or not.

Now, we have been screwing around with forests, the environment and the atmosphere since we got past the stone age. But in the last, 100 years or so, we've really pumped out the nasty crap. HOWEVER, in 100 years of sending this gunk skywards, without even including before it, the temperature has changed what? A couple of degrees.

Now let's think, that means we need to pump out the same amount of stuff for the next 100 years to keep this oh so horrid disaster from happening.
Ever stop to think that fossil fuels are only estimated to last a lot less than that, and once it's gone, it's gone. And people aren't going to start foresting wood to make electricity.

Also, because of this depletion of raw materials, costs will inevitably rise, and either force people to rely more on people power, or find an alternative.

And that alternative will come in long before fuels run out. Less than 20 years ago, computers could barely handle graphics to a screen, now, I have something on my desk that can do 9.6 billion processes in a second.

Things like hydrogen fuel cells are already moving out of their infancy, and my bet is that the economy will drive these technologies to blossom, and they will essentially take over, even if it's 20 years away, we might devastate our environment by what? 0.1 of a degree?

And for all those who see this as a CRISIS, have you walked outside and honestly thought "my gosh, it is most certainly 2 degrees hotter on average today than it was 30 years ago"?

We are not ready to drastically reduce emissions, and make peoples pocket and life standards suffer, but we will get there, and the apocalypse isn't going to come in that time.

Our consumption of fossil fuels have peaked, a couple of years ago, can't remember exactly when. The ONLY reason we use oil to run cars and coal to make electricity is they have been the cheapest option. Also we are NEVER going to run out. What will and is happening is they are getting relatively expensive and so consumption goes elsewhere. You know Indonesia runs power plants on fuel oil ? Simply because they produce a heap of oil in government controlled operations and it's cheap than running them on coal, for them anyway.

The other issue is that CO2 production and methane isn't a 1 way street. As we produce more plants and other processes absorb and convert it to other things. In fact it has been documented that forests and crops grow measurably faster in CO2 rich environments. Note I am not saying producing CO2 is a good thing.

In fact I support people being concerned about the environment. That is a good thing. There are certainly cases where it is appropriate to step in and demand strong short term action. We should continue to pressure government and industry to improve on an ongoing basis and we ourselves should modify behavior as appropriate. What I object to is the evangelism and misinformation that so often drives these headline issues.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out some other stuff. No one ever listens to me and when this stuff comes to pass everyone will accuse me of being wise in hindsight:

1. The 20th century was abnormally calm both in terms of geological and extreme weather events. It is therefore more likely than not that this century will have more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, droughts, floods etc than last. Even so it'll probably be below the long term average.

2. The tectonic plate we are on is moving. It started a bit before the boxing day tidal wave. Actually that's wrong. It's always been moving but there is a shunt going on. This is why there have been earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc more so in recent years from SE Asia to NZ. There will be more until the plate settles again.

3. We are 3000 years overdue for a minor ice age.

The point is when the news is screaming doom and disaster because of the latest series of eruptions or hurricanes and historical highs of this and that just keep in mind in geological terms it's all waay down in the noise.

Forget geo-sequestration! The answer is bio-sequestration, specifically xylo-sequestration. Since trees are locking up carbon in their wood, we should actually be encouraging increased consupmtion of managed forest products and building timber framed, timber clad houses. In fact we should be concentrating of banning banning timber substitues such as plastic and MDF in cabinetry and furniture and legislating for solid timber! :D

Hi I have been away for 4 days since putting up this post and have now caught up with the comments.

I put up this post to see just how people would react to having to reduce their living standards an cause the reduction in the future living standards of their children, all purely based on a theory that has scared the pants off people all over the world but is far from proven correct, as Damian has well pointed out in comments over this thread.

There is no doubt that the world has cooled since the peak temperatures of 1998 despite increaced CO2 emissions. It is anybody's guess as to where it will go in the future. Also despite many scientists disputing the theory for which there are many dedicated web sites.

Despite the urgency advocated by the greens and pollies, surely the empirical evidence together with scientists arguing against AGW is enough for us to hang back a little before selling the farm.

This is even more pertinent given the fraction of a fraction differnce Australia can make without the big emitters following suit. This is crazy illogical stuff and in my view will go down in history as the biggest blunder by any government of Australia.

I want to know what liability there is around man-influenced global warming.

In 20 years time, when it is found to be nonsense and all the loonies have moved on to new campaigns, will we be able to sue them to recover the losses incurred through this stupidity?

ie, will those who promoted these concepts and "solutions" be held responsible for the damage caused by their actions?

After all, someone who shouted "FIRE" in a crowded room where a person died in the resulting stampede would be held accountable for manslaughter. There isn't much difference here.

So just that I am not missing anything, just what effect do you think burning One and half thousand billion barrels of oil (thats 82 500 billion gallons) will have on our little barrell.

I have no idea, other than an increase in PPM of carbon in the atmosphere, but it cant be good.

Hell, if you spat in my beer I dont think I would drink, even though it aint toxic :-

dazzler, what worries me is that these things have, in the past, been fads.

Forty years ago we were going to die from overpopulation. Food was going to run out by the turn of the last century. It didn't.

Thirty years ago it was all acid rain. All the forests in the world were going to be dead from pollution. They're not.

Twenty years ago it was a coming ice age. The amount of particulate matter we were pumping into the atmosphere was going to block the sun, and we'd all freeze to death. We didn't.

Ten years ago was an aberration - Y2K. The consultants got rich, the computers didn't destroy the Earth, and the loonies and doomsdayers turned back to the environment.

Now it is Global Warming. Or is it Climate Change? Whatever. Apparently we're all going to be under water because of melting ice caps within the next few years, as evidenced by the sudden loss of ice at the North Pole.

Hey! Wait! The North Pole has melted!! Why aren't we at least paddling by now?

I just want to know who I'm going to sue to get back the ridiculous amounts I'm going to end up paying for stupid carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, and other schemes to extract money from my pocket to squander on bureaucrats and loonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

dazzler, what worries me is that these things have, in the past, been fads.

Forty years ago we were going to die from overpopulation. Food was going to run out by the turn of the last century. It didn't.

But it is running out. Look at the rises in food prices around the world.

Thirty years ago it was all acid rain. All the forests in the world were going to be dead from pollution. They're not.

Yes they are. Use google images to find pictures of acid rain affected forests in Eastern Europe and you'll see what acid rain does. (Here's one to get you started).

Twenty years ago it was a coming ice age. The amount of particulate matter we were pumping into the atmosphere was going to block the sun, and we'd all freeze to death. We didn't.

Yeah, ok, I'll give you that one!

Ten years ago was an aberration - Y2K. The consultants got rich, the computers didn't destroy the Earth, and the loonies and doomsdayers turned back to the environment.

No the world didn't fall apart, because someone got off their asres and did something about it.

Now it is Global Warming. Or is it Climate Change? Whatever. Apparently we're all going to be under water because of melting ice caps within the next few years, as evidenced by the sudden loss of ice at the North Pole.

Hey! Wait! The North Pole has melted!! Why aren't we at least paddling by now?

I just want to know who I'm going to sue to get back the ridiculous amounts I'm going to end up paying for stupid carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, and other schemes to extract money from my pocket to squander on bureaucrats and loonies.

---

Have a read of the fable about the ant and the cricket....

So Mr Hancock, are you ready yet to concede that you were wrong on the once of $20b, or won't your pride let you do that?

I'm glad you asked that! Here's the link to the research about how much money could be generated by the auction of permits. The research was done by Monash University and funded by The Climate Institute. The reason the amount increases is that the scheme gets tougher as time goes on, ie the permits become more expensive, at the same time as the amount of carbon emitted decreases.

I"ll concede that there will be repeated income, but it will not be $20 billion every year as the guy in the Age says. It may be $20 billion in 2020, but equally it may be $7 billion in 2020. In the years until then it will be less. If the great Australian public applies its muscle to reducing carbon emissions, after 2020 it would be much less again.

I still say its not a tax! But then I still say we should be doing something about the way we are abusing the resources which sustain and develop our lifestyle, which most of the contributors to this thread will not agree to.

My original point is still that you have some level of control of your exposure to increases in prices. It will be harder for some (my wife drives daily as part of her job, so we'll have to deal with that too), but we all make choices.

The whole point of the emissions trading scheme is to encourage each of us to make choices which don't generate carbon emissions. If we do that, we don't pay to emit carbon. Everyone wins. The hard part is making it fair. That is Kevin Rudd's challenge in the next few years. We'll all get a chance to tell him whether he's doing it right in a couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

I'm glad you asked that! Here's the link to the research about how much money could be generated by the auction of permits. The research was done by Monash University and funded by The Climate Institute. The reason the amount increases is that the scheme gets tougher as time goes on, ie the permits become more expensive, at the same time as the amount of carbon emitted decreases.

I"ll concede that there will be repeated income, but it will not be $20 billion every year as the guy in the Age says. It may be $20 billion in 2020, but equally it may be $7 billion in 2020. In the years until then it will be less. If the great Australian public applies its muscle to reducing carbon emissions, after 2020 it would be much less again.

I still say its not a tax! But then I still say we should be doing something about the way we are abusing the resources which sustain and develop our lifestyle, which most of the contributors to this thread will not agree to.

My original point is still that you have some level of control of your exposure to increases in prices. It will be harder for some (my wife drives daily as part of her job, so we'll have to deal with that too), but we all make choices.

The whole point of the emissions trading scheme is to encourage each of us to make choices which don't generate carbon emissions. If we do that, we don't pay to emit carbon. Everyone wins. The hard part is making it fair. That is Kevin Rudd's challenge in the next few years. We'll all get a chance to tell him whether he's doing it right in a couple of years.

---

Thank you for admitting that you can be wrong, it is sometimes not obvious from the way you jump on people's opinions!

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" valign="top">

</td> <td valign="top"> Climate News

<!-- JW "Simple RSS Feed Reader" Module (v1.2) starts here --> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- var embedSRFRCSS = '<' + 'style type="text/css" media="screen">' + '@import "modules/mod_jw_srfr/mod_jw_srfr.css";' + '</' + 'style>'; document.write(embedSRFRCSS); --></script><noscript></noscript><!-- JW "Simple RSS Feed Reader" Module (v1.2) ends here -->
<table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td class="contentheading" width="100%"> Policy Brief (March 2008) - THE EMISSIONS TRADING DIVIDEND </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%">
</td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td colspan="2" valign="top"> The introduction of emissions trading in Australia is likely to see the Commonwealth Government generating significant amounts of new revenue through the sale of emission permits. Indicatively, in Climate Institute commissioned economic modelling this “emissions trading dividend” was worth between $7-20 billion in 2020 (Figure 1) assuming auctioning of all permits.

</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

I have taken the liberty to post this extract from your link. Please note the use by your source of the words "Emissions Trading Dividend" and "generating significant amounts of new revenue". If these do not refer to a "tax", ie money collected by a government to do with as it likes, then I don't know what constitutes a tax. You are engaging in semantics Sir!

Yes I agree, we all have to make "choices". It is just that some "choices" are more voluntary than others. I just happen to believe that Mr Rudd is going to jump the gun for no discernible benefit for this nation, other than allowing him to strut the world stage and say "look at me, look at me", to paraphrase you know who.

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what he is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

Well, yes, semantics involves defining terms and using them correctly. A tax is charged to pay for services provided by the government. The government is not setting up a new tax, as they did for the GST, for the purpose of generating money to pay for services. They are trying to influence the market to persuade people to change their behaviour. They will, in the process, end up collecting money. Garnaut discusses giving away the permits for free, which could have the same results, but is much more complicated to set up and much more likely to be unfair than auctioning the permits. If the government decides to give away the permits, there will be no money to try to smooth out the unfairness. Would you be happy then?

Garnaut also discusses why it is important that Australia takes a lead on a push towards a global emissions trading scheme - in short, we emit a bucket load of carbon per capita (2nd in the OECD) and we have most to lose (Barrier Reef, coastal cities, etc).

My belief is that I have a responsibility for the results of my actions. That's it in a nutshell. I have to clear up my own mess. I don't care if its 1% of everyone else's mess or not, its still mess I made.

Oh, and a debate is one person setting out their opinions, and someone else setting out opposing opinions. No 'jumping on' involved. I have strong opinions on this, and so I am prepared to stand up for my point of view, but I am also happy to admit the validity of others' opinions, especially where I don't agree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

---

Says it all

Like the way you think Bid Shed

Personally I see it as the Rudd equivalent of the GST. Another tax windfall that will be returned in middle class welfare to buy a couple of future elections. There are trading schemes extant (EU, NZ is about to start etc) but they all suffer from the problem of pandering to special interest groups such as refiners, coal miners, auto manufacturers etc. Basically the worlds pollies dont have the balls to do what is needed. They are not capable of implementing a scheme that will solve the problem as they are beholden to their financial backers.

Oil aint going down, this will have much more of an effect than any carbon tax. Maybe market economics will offer something worthwhile after all.

I found some of the points made in this article in The Australian quite interesting, not least because they support what I have been saying above:B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Yes I agree, we all have to make "choices". It is just that some "choices" are more voluntary than others. I just happen to believe that Mr Rudd is going to jump the gun for no discernible benefit for this nation, other than allowing him to strut the world stage and say "look at me, look at me", to paraphrase you know who.

The fact of the matter is that Australia generates about 1% of the world's emissions, so even if we by some miracle managed to eliminate 100% of all our emissions, we would not make one iota of difference to the overall environmental health of the world. (and yes I do know that per capita we are high emitters, it is just that we have a very small population)

Note here that I am nor arguing for or against "global warming", or whether that same global warming is man made or naturally occurring.

For our government to impose a tax on our economy for an ill defined benefit is in my opinion very questionable economic management. At the end of the day, we still have to pay the bills and survive as an economic entity. After all someone has to pay the bills.

If Mr Rudd wants to do some more globe trotting and get the major economies of the world to do what he is proposing to impose on us Australians, then and only then are we going to achieve something, if not a reduction in global warming (if it is not man made) at least we will all be playing on a level playing field.

[/SIZE]

---

:whs: I fully and 110% (excluding carbon tax) agree with Big Shed, it's nothing but pure carp and nothing more than a tax. When this new carbon tax is released, watch the next quarter for inflation, which it will and can only do, we'll pay higher interest rates because Rudd (taking a leaf from Sir Idiot Keating "The recession we had to have"), will have put extra burden and jacked up the cost of living because we had to have a Carbon Tax.

It will put immense pressures on the cost of living, everything will have to go up, because we somehow have to find a way of paying for what is pure carp. Carbon Tax will achieve nothing - how do you cut your "carbon footprint" (please!) when you can do nothing more to cut your energy consumption? Stop breathing? ::

But wait, Kev07 won't be paying for his electricity, gas, water or petrol, as he said in the Sunday papers, words to the effect, "previous PMs didn't pay so why should he?" ::

Especially when he said earlier that we all had to share the burden.

Not so good is he, when you take off the rose coloured glasses?

Economic conservative? More like how do Mr. Swan and I make more taxes. Both of whom were Goss' men - who farked up in Qld. So no, they have no economic credibility. :rant2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

Have a read of the fable about the ant and the cricket....

---

I have read the one about the boy who cried wolf..:)

Ron Dunn: Your point about who to sue is well taken, and precisely part of my point. The Bureaucrats and politicians are to some extent held responsible for their decisions and thus have an incentive to make them responsibly. Doesn't always work, in fact often doesn't work, but it's more incentive than Greenpeace et al who's only motivation is to get your money in their pockets.

rhancock:

Ironically food prices are not being driven up by shortages, but in fact by global warming panic :) Unfortunately it's become fashionable to make fuel out of food and that has driven up staples like wheat, corn and even indirectly rice.

We don't have acid rain on the scale we had it in the late 70's.

Big Shed:

Our emissions aren't actually the point. The reason it's important to get us in on the scheme is to put pressure on China to limit it's emissions beyond their commitments to date. In fact China has committed to greater cuts in it's rate of growth than anyone but they were made against extraordinary growth so won't be enough (4% PA as I recall).

I'll say it again, just in case anyone's forgotten. I don't advocate pollution, I do advocate reduced pollution. I don't advocate bad policy based on poor data, evangelism, special interest groups and media hype. I do advocate good research and appropriate sustained strategies to reduce our environmental footprint.

And sequestration is BS. Won't work. Nil.

You know when Jimmy Carter was president the US lead the world in renewable energy research. When cowboy Ron got in he shut it all down virtually overnight. So many missed opportunities.

For any of you who may think us trashing our economy might encourage India and China to reduce their emissions might want to take a look at the links from this http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...omments/draft/

Without Inda China and the US nothing the rest of the world much less Australia will mean jack S. Even if AGW were true (which there is absolutely no basis for truth) there is nothing we can do without China and India.

The claim is that there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Inda and China will continue to increase CO2 even if they try to reduce it. If we stop producing CO2 right now just the increase in CO2 from China will replace ours in 27 days.

Now is Rudds plan in the best interest of Australians?

In the slimmest of slim chances that AGW is a fact, for the sake of argument, (and I am loath to even give it that much credibility), we would be far better off preparing to adapt rather than destroy the economy by attempting the impossible mitigation.

Most people of Australia don't have a clue about Climate Change, only what rubbish the media feed them. Now that some real costs are being put forward more and more people are starting to take note. Some sections of media have started to look at the cost/benefit of an ETS and they dont like what they see if China and India are not a part of it, (assuming most still believe in AGW) As the avereage Australian is starting to realise the risks involved they are starting to doubt this folly of Rudds ego.

As I get arround I hear more and more people starting to see this for the scam it is and they dont like it.

This will rightfully destroy Rudd as his ego will not let him back off, he has dug in too deep.

Let's just hope that AGW is happening as we are overdue for an iceage.:p:D:oo:

I'm about a quarter of the way through the Garnaut Report released this week and I've been trying to work my way through the 4th report of the International Panel on Climate Change.

They are both very heavy going.

There is a lot of information there. Even, for example, chapter 6 of the IPCC report, on very long-term changes in the earth's climate, cites about 400 scientific papers. (I'm totally bemused by opeople who say "there's just no evidence.")

There is simply too much information to enable people like us to claim the experts are wrong.

My own view is, like Garnaut's, that the sensible thing to do is to work on the basis that the great weight of opinion of people who work in this field is probably about right, subject to further research being done.

I've also tried to follow, where references are given, the "sceptic" arguments that crop up from time to time, for example, the 31,000 "experts" who are supposed to have signed a petition saying global warming isn't happening, or the idea that there is some evidence that the world is actually cooling down, or that we are on the brink of another ice age.

My experience with these and other "climate chance sceptic" arguments is that they just don't stack up as soon as they're looked at closely, which is something people promoting these arguments tend not to do, unfortunately.

On that topic, I'd also agree with Garnaut that "climate chance sceptic" is a misnomer. People in this category, apart from experts with specific doubts about some aspects of the research, are typically not sceptical at all but have made up their minds. They simply believe it isn't happening. Any evidence in favour of global warming is discounted as the result of a conspiracy of some sort and any to the contrary is accepted uncritically. It's hard, and probably pointless, to argue against such aposition.

Other points:

There is a price to pay for mitigation efforts but there is no reason to believe it will "destroy the economy".

The cost of doing nothing in the hope that the scientists are wrong, then having to play catch-up later on when it turns out they're right, will be much greater than paying for mitigation now and finding it wasn't necessary.

IN view of that, and given that the weight of evidence is that climate change is happening, and will have dire consequences, paying the price now is the obvious choice.

It's clear climate change mitigation won't be successful if China, India and other late developers do not join in, but they probably won't unless the developed countries do, so we should.

We'll all be forced by circumstances to join in sooner or later and costs will just grow, and the benefits of being a technology leader will diminish, the longer we leave it.

Gaz.

Koala Man,

There is mounting evidence that AGW is not and can not happen this can not be ignored.

There needs to be a complete stocktake of the "evidence" of both sides by an independent scientific forum (if one can be found). Many of the claims supporting AGW are purely a therory that 10 years ago had some impirical support, eg. temeratures were rising. Then taken up as a cause by greens and politicians to gain popularity. They are now painted so far into a corner they cannot escape. Read this if you dare http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-ee9098538277.

Since then temeratures have not continued to rise as predicted by the models yet GHG's have. To the contrary new evidence has appeared that contradicts the AGW therory, yet this evidence is shouted down by the AGW crowed. You claim you can't find any! you obviously did not look very hard or you were looking through green coloured glasses.

It beggars belief that you think that we can have any influence over China and India where they have come out disputing the effects or existence of AGW in a similar report as that prepared by Garnaut's.

We produce 1.5% of manmade GHG in the world which is an even smaller % of all GHG Cant you see that attempt to reduce this is ONLY symbolic and will have NO effect whatsoever. A sybollic gesture that can only cause us harm while doing nothing PERIOD for the environment.

If you truly believed AGW exists then the most prudent course of action would be to have a CTS mapped out ready to go Then take it to the big emitters and convince them that they need to adopt a similar plan and that upon doing so we will bring into effect our plan. For the benefit of the world, for without them on board nothing, zilch, nadder, will stop GHG's from rising.

Putting our economy at risk just to prove a point is just about the most damaging and stupid thing any leader of a country could do. If this goes ahead (and I seriously doubt it will), it will go down as the most shameful mistake by an Australian Politician.

Nelson has got it right. He will never have to introduce an CTS because he knows dam well the other big emittes will not. If by the slender chance they do, all is good, because it will be a level playing field. This is the wedge that will see the end of the Rudd Government simply because it is the most logical course of action. We will see an advertising campaign to rival the Union workchoices campaign that makes sure it does. That is if the media don't start to see sense and start reporting it first.

I don't know anyone who is not a died in the wool green that can't see the logic of this course of action once it is explained to them correctly.

The longer we leave it the less likely it will be needed. Lets see who gets egg on our face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

So just that I am not missing anything, just what effect do you think burning One and half thousand billion barrels of oil (thats 82 500 billion gallons) will have on our little barrell.

I have no idea, other than an increase in PPM of carbon in the atmosphere, but it cant be good.

Hell, if you spat in my beer I dont think I would drink, even though it aint toxic :-

---

Well.....nothing, heaps,.........dunno :)

:ranton:Melbourne university in 1986 had students for an exam / paper show that tomatoes are not fit for human consumption for the following reasons
1 Every convicted child molester had eaten tomatoes
2 If you took a goldfish and put it in a tank of tomato juice the fish would die
etc I can't remember all the stuff now but it followed the same line , you can make a case for anything by interperating the facts to suit your arguement and not using facts that dispute your arguement, both sides of the climate change arguement are guilty of this , only last week penny wong minister for whatever showed pictures of the murry river and implied that is was the result of climate change ... people get real talk to the aged in this country , those in their 90's who are still with their facilities and ask them if where now hotter than we have ever been ask them what the weather was like 60 or 70 years ago you may be surprised

As for our Carbon tax , what is it in reality a jesture by rudd to try and make him look taller so make no mistake this tax will make more people unemployed we will price ourselves out in any form of manufacturing and haveing more poeple unemployed many will lose their homes , family breakdowns will be a direct result and for what

Rudd got in on green preferences pure and simple and now he has to pay the piper, we have 0.3 % of the worlds population but rudd is trying to be a big figure on the world stage, why ego..small man syndrome , who knows, what I do know is its putting my children and their childrens quality of life in jepody, oh the pro GW lobby will say there will be no future for anyones kids or grandkids if we don't have this carbon trading tax because if Australia doesn't have it and reduce their citizens to a lower standard of living then no one else will and the polar caps will melt sea levels will rise and etc etc about time you woke up smelt the roses and took of your rose coloured glasses looked at the real world where there is a need to survive and to survive means feeding your kids tonight and tomorow and next week , providing shelter for them , education and a future and does not mean that you take the high moral ground and destroy our economy on the basis of unproven and disputed theories where we will be the only participents in this unthout out new tax ( bit like the alcopop tax that they didn't think through and now may have to returne but to who ) :rantoff:

Ashore your whole argument is specious. :D
Families are breaking down now and people are losing there houses and teenagers are running amok.:D I sound like my grandmother now :2tsup:

You know if you read newspapers from the turn of the 20th centruy there were stories about teh widespread concern in the community over the gangs of youths getting about with pistols committing violent crimes.

Point is there have always been teens running amok, families breaking down etc. If anything young people these days are a good deal more conservative than when I was young.

I'm always telling my freind's kids to experiment with drugs and sleep around more, buy faster cars....

The parents love it, but not as much as my friend who always slips the kiddies red cordial just before they leave...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

people get real talk to the aged in this country , those in their 90's who are still with their facilities and ask them if where now hotter than we have ever been ask them what the weather was like 60 or 70 years ago you may be surprised

---

Hmm, good idea! I wonder if grandma was calibrated? Gee it'd save the cost of doing all those tricky scientific measurements. Hell, why didn't we think of it sooner?

But come to think of it, it was rather cold in Melbourne yesterday, and I do remember it was warmer a few months ago. Yep, the global warming theory must be wrong!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Read this if you dare http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-ee9098538277.

---

I dare, I dare!

OK I've readit and as an exercise have followed up a couple of the links. Not impressed so far. Will follow up with some comments tomorrow.

Gaz.

PS I am ignoring the fact that the guy who wrote the article is a Republican party PR hack who works for a creationist senator from Oklahoma. I'll blot that out of my mind altogether and just stick to the scientific arguments and any supporting evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koala-Man

Republican party PR hack who works for a creationist senator

---

An eminently reasonable and sophisticated intellectual position to take. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

OK Here goes.

Some first impression of the article cited by Rod.

Part 1:<O:p

As I said in my previous post, my first impression is not good. The "climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference" turns out to have been signed by "scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders".


How many of each? I can't find any reference to that, but the misleading reference to the people who signed it hardly put me on side. Having said that, perhaps there is something worth looking into so, in eager anticipation, I browse the article. I find an Aussie cited. That's a good place to start.
<O:p

'Also last week, Geologist William F. McClenney, a California Licensed Professional Geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia, announced that he had reversed his views about man-made global warming. McClenney now says he has done the math and realized that you just can’t get to global warming with CO2.

Very impressive, I thought, and you can always trust an Aussie. But, I wonder, just what is a "certified environmental auditor in Victoria"?
<O:p

Surely you'd need a PhD or something, five years of rigorous study, right?


Well, no, actually, you can get this qualification in just five days, as it turns out.

Oh well, I won't be sidetracked by his credentials, I'll just focus on the work he's done. He's "done the math", but unfortunately the article's link to it is broken. Oh Dear.
<O:p

Not to worry, I hunt around and find his views in a multi-part article on the icecap.us site.<O:p


I'm looking forward to this because I'm sure his skill as a professional expert witness and contaminated soil consultant ( see the environcorp.com site ) for corporate USA, including Chevron, mean he really knows what he is talking about, even if his expertise is not really in the field of climatology.
<O:p

OK, so I wade through the first part and so far it's just a longwinded and pompous (read it, you'll see what I mean) version of the old "climate used to change before humans were around so humans can't be having any effect now". No more logical than usual.

The section ends with the observation that the glacial/ interglacial changes of the past 400,000 years or so can’t have been caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs) because there's no source of GHGs on that scale. Not only that, but the rise and fall of GHGs followed the change in temperature, not the other way around!! Amazing!!
<O:p
Now to the casual reader this might seem an impressive refutation of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but it isn’t.

As I said in my earlier post, I'd just waded through chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC report, which dealt with paleoclimatology, so I know that the glacial/interglacial cycles are generally thought (without much dissent as far as I can tell) to be the result of "orbital forcing".
<O:p

That is, predictable changes in the earth's orbit and axis result in more or less solar radiation hitting the earth, causing changes in average temperatures and associated variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations related to the marine carbon cycle.
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O<?xml /><O<?xml:namespace ns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" prefix="v"></O<?xml:namespace><?xml:namespace prefix = v /><v:shapetype class=inlineimg id=_x0000_t75 title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<>Now the way this guy presents his argument suggests the orthodox global warming theory says GHGs caused the previous ice ages. But it doesn’t. He's arguing against an idea that no-one supports in the first place.</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<>(continued in part 2)</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<></v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<><O:p</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<>Gaz</v:shapetype>
<v:shapetype class=inlineimg title=Tongue smilieid="653" alt="" border="0" src="images/smilies/tongue.gif" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" v:shapetype o<><O:p
<O:p></O:p>
</v:shapetype>

Part 2

If you weren't familiar with what the IPCC report said, you'd think the guy was a great genius, tearing down the orthodoxy with a rapier thrust of logic. But he's just set up a straw man that no-one believes in anyway.

He writes as if he just discovered orbital forcing and its effect, through the glaciation/interglaciation cycle, on atmospheric carbon dioxide. It's ridiculous.

It's this sort of pathetic sophistry that annoys me when I'm trying to gather real knowledge and plain nonsense keeps popping up.

Maybe the other 4 parts of the series will make more sense, but please don’t blame me if I sound unenthusiastic.

(Stop press: I just read part 2. More of the same. Confronted with the well-known fact - only just now discovered by himself, apparently - that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise and fall in response to global temperature changes through the glacial cycle, he asks the question "Could it be that C02 changes were reflecting temperature driven equilibrium concentrations between the ocean and the atmosphere?" Well, yes, William F., and you'd know this if you'd read chapter 6 of the IPCC report. There is a discussion on page 446 which goes into this and the various hypotheses in great detail. It's no great secret.)

The implication of the argument is that because global forcing causes temperature variations, which in turn cause CO2 concentration changes, then we must assume there is no other cause of CO2 concentration changes. We must also, the argument implies, conclude there is no feedback between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Neither conclusion is logical, of course, but you hear them again and again.

You see my problem? I've started reading the thing, tried to follow up the arguments in good faith, haven't found anything of value, and wasted a lot of time in the process.

I'll keep plugging away though and keep an open mind.

In the meantime, still just getting first impressions, I'm not impressed by the use of this sort of quote:

"The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models." (See my next post for the rest of this.)

That's a quote from Dr Joanna Simpson, PhD in meteorology and former NASA scientist, so she probably knows what she's talking about. And the way her views are presented by Marano makes it fairly clear she believes anthropogenic global warming (AGW) isn't happening.

Let's look at what she really believes in a minute but first let's look at this whole issue of models.

A model is just a mathematical representation of a scientific theory. Without models there is no climate science or much of any other sort of science for that matter.

So what Simpson says is not a criticism of climate science as such, just a recognition that models of complex systems can never be perfectly accurate, because they can't include all relevant variables, can never be as complex as the real world, and use data which can never be perfectly accurate.

These limitations of climate science are repeatedly and explicitly acknowledged by such reports as Garnaut's and the IPCC reports. And that's why Garnaut spends a lot of time discussing the appropriate policy response to information which is known with a limited degree of certainty.

More in part 3

Gaz

Part 3 from Gaz

My observation of climate change "sceptics" is that they often in one breath deride climate models, for the above reasons, then in the next come out with assertions which implicitly embody another (unspecified) model, usually with fewer (implied) explanatory variables, often only one. They don’t even seem to realise they are doing it either. You know how it goes - climate models are nonsense, they say, global warming's actually caused by sunspots or whatever. But that's just another model. Sigh.

Anyway, back to Dr Simpson, who actually doesn't appear to be in that camp.

Here is what I think is the illuminating bit in the full blog entry of hers, from which the selective quotes in Marano's article were taken.

'What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

Well she should be sceptical, as we all should. That's what science is all about, and we should deplore institutional bias in favour of whatever orthodoxy rules at any time. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Simpson shows some good honest scientific scepticism, but to include her in an article in a way that implies she's rejected all the evidence on global warming is misleading to say the least.

Her whole blog entry is worth reading. It's on the climatesci.org site.

And now I have to chose - should I continue investigating the content of this very polemical article by Marano when the two threads I have chased up have not been useful to say the least?

I will, but my patience is wearing thin.

Gaz. :)

Thanks Gaz, I think you're doing a great job. To be honest I don't have the time to spend reading the sort of stuff you've been trawling through.

Its obvious that no one participating in this forum is likely to change their views (me included!).

I enjoyed the discussion. I learnt something new. But I'll stick to lurking on this thread from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

Thanks Gaz, I think you're doing a great job. To be honest I don't have the time to spend reading the sort of stuff you've been trawling through.

Its obvious that no one participating in this forum is likely to change their views (me included!).

I enjoyed the discussion. I learnt something new. But I'll stick to lurking on this thread from now on.

---

You're right, I think, it seems the climate's much more likely to change than anyone's mind. Anyway I really engaged in that exercise to test my own prejudices. An ongoing process.

Gaz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durdge39

And for all those who see this as a CRISIS, have you walked outside and honestly thought "my gosh, it is most certainly 2 degrees hotter on average today than it was 30 years ago"?

---

It is not feeling the two degrees it is what effect those two degrees have on an environment in which we live. I can see over my life how the weather systems have change our weather locally, now that was caused by the two degrees or if not entirely at least they had a huge influence. I also recall when people and cigarette companies said smoking had no effect on our health, the majority of those people kept smoking and are now dead. Do you smoke?

Couple of points. Note I've only skimmed your posts, because from what I read it sounds a lot like stuff I've read many times before.

1. Regarding the grandmother comments, I am constantly amazed people can try to apply human timescales to geological events. The fact is we don't deal with timeframes over a year well, and over a century is virtually inconcievable for people. Many of the cycles that influence our enviroment strech over 100's, 1000's and 1000000's of years.

2. I realise the comments are not directed at me personally, but I want to once again make my postion clear. I've read an awful lot of the propaganda on both sides, I've also made a passable study of the data, the raw data, and the analysis. Many of the arguments on both sides are utterly flawed. From the data: is change happening ? yes. IS there are clear direction ? No. Is there very much that's conclusive ? No.

3. So once again the pro GW comes down to "can we afford to take the risk ?" and the anti GW argument comes down to "can we afford the cost of acting?"

4. In an intelligent debate you argue the point not the person. It absolutely does not matter if the argument is put by Professor Bigtrousers of Very Prestigeous University or Joe Bloggs down the road. Unfortunately title impress the ignorant (and there is no one more ignorant than a journalist) and attacking the person is an easy refuge for a failing argument. If the point is valid you MUST address the point. Also just because something is misrepresented by the media doesn't make it the origionators fault. People on both sides have been tarnished with accusations of lies and misleading information when in fact it was misreporting by the barely literate pathological liars that dominate the media.

5. I have no problem with the ongoing rational scientific argument, and that is going on in the background. If they can offer something that compells me to accept radical action is necessary I'll buy in. What I do object to is drowning that debate and investigation in BS. Virtually everything that has been in the media has been BS.

6. As I said I've had an interest in climateology for about 18 years. I'm a mechanical engineer not a climate physicist, nor a meteorologist, nor a paleontologist, but I have read extensively on all those subjects. Thermodynamics was my best subject so perhaps my whole of system view is a result of that bias, but I do know something about energy, light, heat and heat flows. As I said earlier if you do a whole of system analysis the gasses in the atmosphere have a trivial effect on temperature, at least directly, so humans bumping up the content of CO2 or methane won't do anything much in itself. Infact if you do increase CO2 enough to matter the climate change is somewhat outweighed by the inconvenience of suffocating to death virtually every animal on the planet. Now if you argue a secondary effect that increased CO2 will yield a vast increase in water vapour in the atmosphere that is another story, but I am yet to see that demonstrated. Nearly all the secondary evidence both ways is nonsense. Ice sheets, glaciers, short term weather patterns, all rubbish. Also the statistical dances they perform.

6. I'll say it again, I don't advocate pollution, not one little bit.

:2tsup: I agree with you Damian.

Show me some conclusive proof and I will change my position no problem.

Show me lies and discredit/stifle debate, hype up false claims of things cause by GW and I will call it down as BS and question the underlying intention.