Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

Here are some questions I would like to see the Media ask Rudd.
<o></o>
1. If the world has stopped warming, why have ascheme at all?
2. If world emissions will keep soaring whatever we do, why have a scheme at all?
3. If the biggest emitters - and our competitors - have no intention of cutting their own gases, why have a scheme at all?
4. If the price of coping with any warming is much less than the price of trying to stop it, why have a scheme at all?

There will be a lot of finacial pain for the average Joe in a Carbon Tax:((. It would be nice to have the benefit quantified with a cost benefit analyisis.
<o></o>
<o>Some how I dont think we will get that.:( </o>
<o></o>
<o>What do you guys think?</o>

Just another example of rushing in to be the good guy regardless. The bigger polluters will continue on and not worry. Meanwhile our costs go up and can't compete with the evil doers.
Rant off

Allan

I see absolutely no point in it unless the 3 biggest economies, (US, China, India) do the same, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. So why put ourselves at an economic disadvantage for no environmental gain?

Well, I hate to perpetuate stuff like this but here goes anyway:

Man made global warming is a con. If you stand on the equator of the moon at noon when it is on earth's orbit line you are near as dammit the same distance to the sun. The reason there is a difference in temperature is that the earths atmosphere insulates us. Solar radiation comes in during the day and heats up the earth and atmosphere and leaks off during the night. The GW evangelists claim CO2 is 30% of this effect, but they say 30% of the GASS'S effect. The reason they always say gas is because water vapour isn't a gas, it's a suspended aerosol. It's also 95% of the insulation in our atmosphere. So CO2 is 30% of 5%. Even if you assume some signifigant proportion of the methane or CO2 is manmade directly or indirectly it would still be irrelevant in the scheme of things.

No doubt there are some true believers here who will jump on me. I'd like to point out in advance that I'm telling 1% of the story here. I don't have time to write a book.

The media are pathological liars. They couldn't tell the truth if you handed them a story on the second comming. Geenpeace are not an enviromental organisation. They are a fund raising organisation who use similar tactics as women's magazines to get you to fork out. The so called scientists who stick their heads in front of TV cameras are furthering their careers and lining their pockets. I'd call them prostitutes but that is an insult to the working girls, who are a good deal more honest than those kind.

/rant....

hmmm, an enlightened summary :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

......

---

I like it:2tsup:

So, if i was to look into this any further - is there a website that has this infromation:?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ss_11000

I like it:2tsup:

So, if i was to look into this any further - is there a website that has this infromation:?:)

---

Yep, there are plenty of websites that have this info.... and plenty that do a very convincing job of presenting exactly the opposite too. You can't believe everything you read on the 'net. Problem is when a good deal of it is contradictory it's hard to know which one to not believe.

Peter

WOW.
Such blind, ignorant, 'head in the sand' thinking.
I had half a page of ranting but then i realised that if you haven't seen the writing on the wall then theres very little point in me trying to convince u any further.
A lot of people are scared & looking for somebody to tell them that 'everything is gonna be alright, nothing needs to change or at least not much'. Sadly there are also plenty of people who will tell them just what they want to hear, ignoring real hard science, or worse, twist & distort it along the way.
Come on people, open your eyes for real. I'm sure you're all seen the future population predictions so u don't need me to look them up. Add to it major population countries like china & India are jumping into the 21st century with both feet & making all the same mistakes the western world has been making for years. This planet is turning into a tip. If somebody doesn't start doing things the right way nobody will!
Don't give me that lame 'hes not doing it so why should i?' I stopped whining like that when i was 12 years old.

Yes its gonna cost & damn right its gonna hurt like hell but the simple fact is the sooner we start the cheaper & easier it will be. If people hadn't used the very same excuses that u are sprouting right now 20 years ago then we wouldn't have the crisis we have now on our hands.
& we DO have a crisis. Don't doubt that for a moment.

OK so it turned into a min rant. If i offended anybody, well good. It means at least some of my rant got thru.

PS, In 20 years i hope like hell that all of u will be able to point at me & laugh & say 'see, told u you were wrong fool'.

Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

Absolutely. It is a sad fact is that society as a whole dosen't seem to change or react until each individual has to bear the cost.

We all hear that oil is running out, and that carbon (CO2) is damaging the environment and most of us, me included, just go on our merry way.

So, let's implement a carbon tax and tip the economics in favour of alternative technologies. It's only when we are all hit with the extra cost of a carbon tax that we'll make the renewable energy sector viable - and the world a better place :)

But chrisp, we already have a carbon tax, oil has increased by 50-75% in the last 12 months or so, far more (I hope) than a carbon tax will do.

Has that made renewable energy more viable? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I repeat my point, and no it is not the whine of a 12 year old, there is no point in a country like Australia acting alone. Whether we like it or not Australia's economy is but a flyspot on the world's economic wall paper. We need the major economies, yes US, China, India etc to be part of this, otherwise we will be penalising ourselves and hurting our economy for the long term.

Our children and grandchildren will not look kindly on our kneejerk reactions.

Ranting and raving with religious fervour will do nothing to solve the problem. How many of the people that rant and rave about global warming have wall to wall plasma screens? Read what those gasses are doing to our environment, measured how much energy they use?

Do as I do, not do as I say (did you hear that Mr Al Gore?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petersemple

Yep, there are plenty of websites that have this info.... and plenty that do a very convincing job of presenting exactly the opposite too. You can't believe everything you read on the 'net. Problem is when a good deal of it is contradictory it's hard to know which one to not believe.

Peter

---

yeah, i know:) but what damian said is more to my liking than the rest of the BS people go on with:rolleyes::cool:

although, i do tend to believe the person that has the scientific and mathematic evidence to back up their entire arugment - its a pity that people make 'evidence' up!

statistically speaking, 99.9999% of all statistics can be misinterpreted.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Well, I hate to perpetuate stuff like this but here goes anyway:

Man made global warming is a con. If you stand on the equator of the moon at noon when it is on earth's orbit line you are near as dammit the same distance to the sun. The reason there is a difference in temperature is that the earths atmosphere insulates us. Solar radiation comes in during the day and heats up the earth and atmosphere and leaks off during the night. The GW evangelists claim CO2 is 30% of this effect, but they say 30% of the GASS'S effect. The reason they always say gas is because water vapour isn't a gas, it's a suspended aerosol. It's also 95% of the insulation in our atmosphere. So CO2 is 30% of 5%. Even if you assume some signifigant proportion of the methane or CO2 is manmade directly or indirectly it would still be irrelevant in the scheme of things.

....

---

Hi damien

Global warming is not a con. There is a lot of conning going on and rod points to some of it, stupid little measures that will do nothing as it needs to be a global thing not a local thing.

It is simple physics that man is effecting the atmosphere by releasing carbon into it. Remember, you cannot destroy anything, just change its composition. The coal/oil/gas that we are burning and releasing into the atmosphere all comes from a period of the earth where the CO2 % in the atmosphere was much much higher than today. It was sequestered into the earths surface when it decayed and was covered by silt etc and hidden away.

As we burn it, and we are burning it at rates beyond imagining, the carbon molecules are released and enter the atmosphere. The problem is that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less heat can leave and so the atmosphere heats up.

I believe what we are doing is changing the atmosphere simply because it makes sense. If I light up a cigarette in my house I can see the resultant contaminants floating around (smoke). The earth is just a big house, pump carbon into it and it changes.

So I believe that man is changing the atmosphere through the unregulated burning of fossil fuels.

But I disagree with the way us earthlings are going about reducing it. Without all countries coming on board, reducing or at least stopping overpopulation and reafforesting the worlds forest, its all just feel good crap. :rolleyes:

But surely, (whether you agree that human created global warming is real or not) if the point of an emissions trading scheme is to persuade people to use less (carbon emitting) energy, then

Current amount of monthly budget I spend on petrol = $400
Current distance driven per month = 1000km
Emissions trading increases energy cost by 50%
New distance driven per month = 666km
New amount of monthly budget I spend on petrol = $400

How much has carbon trading cost me?.....

Of course, I've simplified things, although for me this will work (Every month I drive about 25km to pick up takeaways!).

The difficulty is those people who are not able to reduce their mileage - tradies are top of that list, and some of the mileage I save will be by changing from a trade job to an office job, but still everyone has the ability to make some changes, many tradies for instance will restrict the area they are prepared to service.

And there's always this...

But petrol has already increased by 50%, by how much has that reduced your driving?

Nice theoretical exercise, but the real world is different..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

But petrol has already increased by 50%, by how much has that reduced your driving?

Nice theoretical exercise, but the real world is different..............

---

Maybe I'm not your average guy, but I take my kids to the shops on the bus these days, I cycle to work and uni 4 days a week instead of 2 days a week, the kids complain that we can't go to the big park we have to drive to, they can only go to the park around the corner. And, yes, I'm giving up trade work, and working in an office, but I did seriously consider buying a bike like that and filling it with tools and materials!

When it came down to spending an extra $20 on petrol or getting an indian take away on Sunday night, I made a choice - that is the point of an emissions trading scheme - getting people to change the choices they make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

But petrol has already increased by 50%, by how much has that reduced your driving?

Nice theoretical exercise, but the real world is different..............

---

Big Shed,

Probably not much for me, but it seems to be having an impact in Melbourne. Have you heard about the over crowded public transport system?

I use about 30~40 litres per month in petrol so the cost of fuel doesn't really impact on me too much. I know others who travel further and they have switched to using public transport. I suspect we are at the point were more people will move to public transport as the cost of petrol rises.

Interestingly, in the last week I have seen a 'report' from a group of 'scientists' backed up by some pretty good 'facts' and 'statistics' that calls for the wholesale removal of trees from the arctic regions are they are a 'major' contribution to global warming & have caused the Arctic to warm at twice the 'global average'. Seems the evil trees are both reducing the amount of snow, increasing the amount of snow during summer, reducing the reflection of heat & increasing the soil temperature causing bacteria to thrive & release CO2.

Yes, it seems you can have it both ways.

I actually asked by how much the 50% increase in petrol cost had reduced your weekly driving.

Good to see you making those sort of choices, although they are probably not all driven by a concern for the environment.
For instance, I choose to drive a car powered by LPG and therefore have less of a carbon impact than if I drove a petrol or diesel powered car. However that choice is as much driven by economic factors as it is by environmental factors.

Now, surely you are not suggesting that all tradies should give up trades work to reduce emissions and go work in an office? Likewise, whilst city people can choose to go on their bike to work or uni, country people cannot. Any carbon/emissions tax will, of necessity affect country people more. Country people also do not, in the main, have access to public transport, but still pay their taxes to subsidise city office workers to travel to work.

The point I, and others, are trying to make, is that we should be careful not to jump the gun and act too soon. If we do that we put ourselves at a disadvantage economically and we all still have to pay the bills, even people that work in an office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

But I disagree with the way us earthlings are going about reducing it. Without all countries coming on board, reducing or at least stopping overpopulation and reafforesting the worlds forest, its all just feel good crap. :rolleyes:

---

Can anyone please explain how our government intends spending the carbon tax. The announcements talk about carbon trading however as I see it this title is simply code for tax so where will it go.

Sure increased prices will force behavioural change no doubt about that but why does little old Oz need to be the pace setter at the expense of our standard of living. Yes self interest exposed.

But look at how successful our leading the charge on free trade has been in all but removing manufacturing from Australia. A slightly different debate but I can't help draw the parallel.

So I'm all ears or should I say eyes, how will it work:?

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

I actually asked by how much the 50% increase in petrol cost had reduced your weekly driving.

Didn't I answer that? Or do you want to see my log book?

Good to see you making those sort of choices, although they are probably not all driven by a concern for the environment.
For instance, I choose to drive a car powered by LPG and therefore have less of a carbon impact than if I drove a petrol or diesel powered car. However that choice is as much driven by economic factors as it is by environmental factors.

I didn't ever say my choices were driven by a concern for the environment. Some are, some aren't, most are a bit of environment with some economics thrown in.

Now, surely you are not suggesting that all tradies should give up trades work to reduce emissions and go work in an office? Likewise, whilst city people can choose to go on their bike to work or uni, country people cannot. Any carbon/emissions tax will, of necessity affect country people more. Country people also do not, in the main, have access to public transport, but still pay their taxes to subsidise city office workers to travel to work.

No, I didn't suggest that either. I don't want it to turn into a country vs city argument either. I thought about listing all the people who will be impacted by higher energy costs more than the average, but the list is long and is topped by anyone living outside of metro Australia, so I agree with you that country people will be affected more. As well as tradies. And anyone with a disability, or caring for a someone with a disability. Or pregnant women. Or anyone with a heavy load to move. and trucking companies. and... and...

Its a long list but it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make (see below).

The point I, and others, are trying to make, is that we should be careful not to jump the gun and act too soon. If we do that we put ourselves at a disadvantage economically and we all still have to pay the bills, even people that work in an office.

---

Over 20 years ago I started reading reports about global warming and the impacts it was likely to have. Is waiting 20 years jumping the gun?

The point I am tryig to make is that each of us has a certain amount of choice in how we do what we do. Since LPG is very fuel efficient for lots of short distance trips, most tradies would be able to justify the choice when they buy the next vehicle. People living in the country might be able to car pool for some journeys. Or buy some products online. Or drive to the train. Or something else...

We all make choices. Emissions trading is about influencing some of those choices.

Editors Note: Bold text removed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

Can anyone please explain how our government intends spending the carbon tax. The announcements talk about carbon trading however as I see it this title is simply code for tax so where will it go.

Sure increased prices will force behavioural change no doubt about that but why does little old Oz need to be the pace setter at the expense of our standard of living. Yes self interest exposed.

But look at how successful our leading the charge on free trade has been in all but removing manufacturing from Australia. A slightly different debate but I can't help draw the parallel.

So I'm all ears or should I say eyes, how will it work:?

Mike

---

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

<-- How Far To The Edge Of The World ? --> :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

I actually asked by how much the 50% increase in petrol cost had reduced your weekly driving.

---

I think costs have to go up way beyond a 50% increase to have a significant impact, but it will happen - it's just a question of when.

Part of the problem, I think, as that we have all become a bit spoilt with the relatively low cost of energy. It doesn't really matter if you talk petrol, gas or electricity - they are all dirt cheap!

Let me repeat that - dirt cheap - do you believe it?

If I asked a average person to work for the equivalent cost of the energy they produce, I'd be charged with exploitation.

For example, a 80kg person running (i.e. hard work) for 8 hours consumes:

30 kJ/kg/hr x 80kg x 8 hr = 19200 kJ

Their useful work output would be far less, but we'll use input figures for this exercise (pun :rolleyes: ).

Electricity costs the average household about $0.14/kWh

1 kWh = 60 x 60 kJ = 3600 kJ (=$0.14)

The cost in electricity per kJ:

$0.14 / 3600 = $0.0000389

Cost of energy used by a 80kg person running for 8 hours:

19200kJ x $0.0000389/kJ = $0.75

If that person was paid at the going rate for the work they do at the same rate we typically pay for electricity, they'd earn less than:

$0.10 per hour

I suspect most of us produce far less output (=energy) in a typical day. Would you be willing to work hard for 8 hours to be paid less than $0.10 per hour?

I'm sure the energy cost per unit for petrol is higher, but I'm an electrical engineer, not a chemical engineer:rolleyes:

The point I'm trying to make is that we have under valued the true worth of our energy supply. We are using energy sources that took millions of years to produce and burning it up like it costs nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

Over 20 years ago I started reading reports about global warming and the impacts it was likely to have. Is waiting 20 years jumping the gun?

The point I am tryig to make is that each of us has a certain amount of choice in how we do what we do. Since LPG is very fuel efficient for lots of short distance trips, most tradies would be able to justify the choice when they buy the next vehicle. People living in the country might be able to car pool for some journeys. Or buy some products online. Or drive to the train. Or something else...

We all make choices. Emissions trading is about influencing some of those choices.

Editors Note: Bold text removed

---

I wasn't having a go at your personal choices, merely pointing out that we all make choices, some out of necessity, others as real choices. If you decide to convert an Indian takeaway in to a petrol purchase, that is your choice (and perhaps better for the environment as Indian takeaways have been known to produce the odd bit of emissions:D)

When I talk about people in the country having fewer options, I do that from the point of view of someone who lives in the country, just as you obviously do as a person who lives in the city. Point here is that it is not a case of "one size fits all".

When I talk about "jumping the gun", I am not saying that we should not do anything, far from it. What I am saying is that we should not throw out the baby with bath water and disadvantage the country as a whole economically.

When you say that the government collecting 20 billion for emissions permit is not a tax, that is what most people would call "spin". Of course it is a tax, it money collected by government by compulsion, if that isn't a tax, then the GST is a "surcharge".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

---

As it happens I am just reading a report in today's Age, which quotes Ross Garnaut as saying "the government will eventually collect $20b A YEAR". This is confirmed by modelling by the Climate Institute. Wayne Swan has said that "every penny will be spent on households". Remember that when the GST was introduced the states would get rid of taxes such as stamp duty, yeah right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

---

OK I get that much but what happens when a goal burning generator cannot find someone to buy permits from. Do the government keep issuing as per the start up or do they shut down.

Second point as I asked in my previous post what will happen to the $20 billion its OK to say we'll compensate low income families but how, when and how much. What is the level of cap that they talk about. There is way to much hand on heart trust me in this one, at least with the GST we knew the amount despite the fact the State governments reneged on many of the tax offsets.

I just hope we don't see more of hand outs to companies like we have seen in the Toyota case. One off grants do not ensure viablility to an industry and don't get me started on why we gave $35 mil out of the green inovation fund to Toyota. Yes it is a small amount in the scheme of things just window dressing really but the technology is old hardly inovative and studies prove it is not as environmentaly friendly as it is promoted.

So I am still doutful, unconvinced and lacking enough information to understand how it will not harm our economy.

Mike

It isn't collected by the government. In fact they haven't actually decided to auction the permits yet, they're still thinking about giving them away. In which case there would be no money going to government at all.

Still the most likely case is that in the year the trading starts, the government will auction the permits and get a windfall of $20 billion, which is a lot of money. And yes you can see that as a tax if you insist, but it is a one off tax, never to be repeated, and there will be an enormous compensation package to pay for - maybe it'll be as big as the windfall and maybe it won't, but it will be one off. After that the government gets no income and so is unlikely to pay any more compensation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp

I think costs have to go up way beyond a 50% increase to have a significant impact, but it will happen - it's just a question of when.

Part of the problem, I think, as that we have all become a bit spoilt with the relatively low cost of energy. It doesn't really matter if you talk petrol, gas or electricity - they are all dirt cheap!

Let me repeat that - dirt cheap - do you believe it?

If I asked a average person to work for the equivalent cost of the energy they produce, I'd be charged with exploitation.

For example, a 80kg person running (i.e. hard work) for 8 hours consumes:

30 kJ/kg/hr x 80kg x 8 hr = 19200 kJ

Their useful work output would be far less, but we'll use input figures for this exercise (pun :rolleyes: ).

Electricity costs the average household about $0.14/kWh

1 kWh = 60 x 60 kJ = 3600 kJ (=$0.14)

The cost in electricity per kJ:

$0.14 / 3600 = $0.0000389

Cost of energy used by a 80kg person running for 8 hours:

19200kJ x $0.0000389/kJ = $0.75

If that person was paid at the going rate for the work they do at the same rate we typically pay for electricity, they'd earn less than:

$0.10 per hour

I suspect most of us produce far less output (=energy) in a typical day. Would you be willing to work hard for 8 hours to be paid less than $0.10 per hour?

I'm sure the energy cost per unit for petrol is higher, but I'm an electrical engineer, not a chemical engineer:rolleyes:

The point I'm trying to make is that we have under valued the true worth of our energy supply. We are using energy sources that took millions of years to produce and burning it up like it costs nothing.

---

Thank you, that is an interesting way to put in perspective the real cost of electricity. So a labourer, say, should there fore be paid more than an office worker?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

It isn't collected by the government. In fact they haven't actually decided to auction the permits yet, they're still thinking about giving them away. In which case there would be no money going to government at all.

Still the most likely case is that in the year the trading starts, the government will auction the permits and get a windfall of $20 billion, which is a lot of money. And yes you can see that as a tax if you insist, but it is a one off tax, never to be repeated, and there will be an enormous compensation package to pay for - maybe it'll be as big as the windfall and maybe it won't, but it will be one off. After that the government gets no income and so is unlikely to pay any more compensation.

---

All you need to know about Garnaut, see under "the Government must be making a lot of money.........." about 2/3 down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

So a labourer, say, should there fore be paid more than an office worker?:rolleyes:

---

I thought they were :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp

I thought they were :rolleyes:

---

Touche...:D:2tsup:

I'd like to keep discussing this all night but I have to go to work tomorrow (on my bike).

I'm researching the issue of how much the government will make each year, and I'll post tomorrow when I have more information.

Big Shed, that's the article I"m working from, but I can't find where the Climate Institute says that, or Garnaut for that matter.

Watch out for Ross Garnauts draft report tomorrow - it'll have more recomendations, although the government is starting to suggest they might not listen to Garnaut...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

I'd like to keep discussing this all night but I have to go to work tomorrow (on my bike).

I'm researching the issue of how much the government will make each year, and I'll post tomorrow when I have more information.

Big Shed, that's the article I"m working from, but I can't find where the Climate Institute says that, or Garnaut for that matter.

Watch out for Ross Garnauts draft report tomorrow - it'll have more recomendations, although the government is starting to suggest they might not listen to Garnaut...

---

this bit.......

The Government must be making a lot of money. What should they do with it all?
Modelling by the Climate Institute says the Government could eventually reap as much as $20 billion a year from emissions trading. What Garnaut says on how this should be spent seems a moot point - Treasurer Wayne Swan has already committed to spending every cent on households.
But the Garnaut Review has suggested it should be divided between a larger number of groups. Candidates for help include: poor households needing help coping with price rises; communities built around the coal industry, such as Gippsland's Latrobe Valley and the Hunter Valley in NSW; research and development in clean energy technology; energy infrastructure to connect new developments to the main grid; public transport; helping cut emissions offshore; and heavy-polluting, trade-exposed industries.

(Editor: Bolding by The Age, wasn't me your honour, honest!:D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petersemple

Yep, there are plenty of websites that have this info.... and plenty that do a very convincing job of presenting exactly the opposite too. You can't believe everything you read on the 'net. Problem is when a good deal of it is contradictory it's hard to know which one to not believe.

Peter

---

It's easy for me because I'm a mechanical/research engineer. I know a lot about climate physics, and I know the few people in Australia who know more than I do. Thermodynamics is my best subject.

"Climateology" isn't a discreet field. It encompasses climate physics, palentology, oceanography and even some biology. If you want to analyise how heat flows around the planet the examination is complex. If you consider the planet as a whole system it is easier to grasp. I've done a lot of reading, and was doing so long before this hippy panic ensued, on long term weather patterns. I didn't read the conculsions I studied the data sets, and having spent most of my life in research, even in areas not my specialty, I can still reduce data as well as anyone.

If you filter out the vested interests on both sides you'll find that:

The climate is moving, always has.

The recent changes are well within the noise.

It is extremely unlikely that man made pollution is making a signifigant contribution.

It is almost certian that even if we're causing it we can't change it.

Note I am in no way advocating pollution. Quite the opposite, I argue that we don't need science to know we shouldn't pollute. It is intuitive. What I object to is damaging people's lives to sate fear and panic based on propoganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattrap

WOW.
snip...

Yes its gonna cost & damn right its gonna hurt like hell but the simple fact is the sooner we start the cheaper & easier it will be. If people hadn't used the very same excuses that u are sprouting right now 20 years ago then we wouldn't have the crisis we have now on our hands.
& we DO have a crisis. Don't doubt that for a moment.

OK so it turned into a min rant. If i offended anybody, well good. It means at least some of my rant got thru.

PS, In 20 years i hope like hell that all of u will be able to point at me & laugh & say 'see, told u you were wrong fool'.

---

Actually your absolutely wrong. Sorry.

30 years ago we had acid rain, our cities were covered with a thick brown haze and people were collpasing in the streets of some cities from respiritory problems. The fact is we have been addressing pollution for decades, centuries in fact.

The difference between your approach and mine is I believe we should make a consistent considered effort to modify our behaviour over time, giving people time to adjust. You are suggesting a panicked response to bad data.

And you were doing so well till this little pearler;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

It is almost certian that even if we're causing it we can't change it.

---

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

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:

---

Well that's the end of the forum then we are wasting electricity running our puters:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

Its not a carbon tax. You don't pay money to the government.

If a company is emitting more than a set level of carbon, they have to buy a permit from another company which is emitting less carbon. Since (coal generated) electricity and oil companies will emit more carbon, they will need to buy a permit, and so they will pass that cost on to consumers.

The only money the government can get is by auctioning the first set of permits, which could net up to $20 billion for the government. Its most likely the government will use that money to compensate those affected more than the average. If they compensated half of the poplation, you'd get $2000 each, as a one off payment.

Once that money is gone, there is no more income for the government.

---

According to Prof Garnaut the $20billion, or whatever the yearly figure will be, is definitely not a once off windfall to the government. It will be on an on going basis.

Also, only 50% of this windfall will be used to compensate households, 30% to compensate some industry and the remaining 20% to fund R&D in to alternative energy supplies.

So your assertion above is not correct.

Still researching, but getting ready to stand corrected!

So far, I can find a report in which Garnaut says that $20 billion could be generated by an initial auction, and a reference to "multi billion dolllar" income for government after that. Still reading though...

I don't see anything terribly wrong in allocating some money to households directly, and some to industries who will be unfairly impacted, and some to stimulating R&D in new technologies.