DO YOU SUPPORT GILLARDS CARBON TAX ?

[Tigersmurf]

I am not swayed either way by the argument, as I said earlier. I also don't agree with your second parragraph point 2\. I have heard interviews with a number of scientists from each side of the debate and they do back up their argument with scientific fact (as in fact based on evidence to suit their point of view).

Humans have not been here that long. One volcano eruption can spew out more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans can produce in a year. Also CO2 is not pollution, plants cannot live without it.

I understand that our (Australia's) production of green house gas constitutes less that 1% of global emissions. So how does charging me 30% more for my power consumption, and then giving me back the money to pay for it, have any affect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It will only have an effect if everyone does it, but if that was the case would India and China really be complying or just saying that they are complying.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the fossil fuel used to build a Toyota Prius is more than the level of CO2 it will ever offset over its lifetime.

I have no time for Allan Jones either!

 

[Winnipeg]

Personally, I think we are as responsible for global warming as the Woolly Mamoths were of causing the ice age!

what brings you to that conclusion?

Ice core data seems to show that CO2 fluctuations have corresponded with global temperature fluctuations over the past 420,000 years

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html

\
\
\
CO2 emissions have been rising far more over the past 100 years than could be seen as a natural occurence.


this is obviously an extremely simplistic view of the very complex global climate system, but as I said, every major scientific organisation on earth agrees that human activity is causing climate change.

 

[Tigersmurf]

You have canvassed every major scientific organisation on earth?? My statement was obviously simplistic. Our planet has evolved for millions of years and yet we are basing our theories on the data obtained from the past 250 years.

Earth has gone through periods when it was covered in hot lava and volcanic eruptions, meteor impact and an ice age. These took place hundreds of thousands of years ago and yet we are going to base a carbon tax on what has happened over the past 250 years??

Did you read any of my other posts Winnipeg? I am not for or against. In fact I love the debate, the graphs and charts and core samples of water which turned to ice when the dinosaurs were still roaming the Earth, but after everyone has manipulated the charts, graphs and evidence to support their point of view (I am not pointing the finger at yourself or Yoss) I just don't see how me paying an extra $500 per year is going to change anything.

 

[Winnipeg]

Then how does it actually achieve anything? Put up power prices, and then reimburse society so they can continue to chew through fossil fuels at the same rate.

the price on carbon is a market mechanism aimed at including the price of pollution into the cost of electricity. Electricity producers who are able to produce electricity with less carbon emissions will face less tax, their power will be cheaper and more attractive to consumers. Also as I've mentioned, part of the funding raised will go towards research into clean energy sources.

There is a lot of scientific evidence to support climate change, and a lot against it too.

Not really. You can count the number of scientists who oppose consensus on global warming without resorting to a calculator

\

If I know anything about scientists, it is that many of them survive of funding and grants. As such it is in their interest to manipulate (for loss of a better word), the evidence to suit their argument.

this works both ways. It doesn't take long investigating scientists who oppose consensus on climate change to discover that many of them are funded by the resource industry and other groups with vested interests.

 

[Yossarian]

I am not swayed either way by the argument, as I said earlier. I also don't agree with your second parragraph point 2\. I have heard interviews with a number of scientists from each side of the debate and they do back up their argument with scientific fact (as in fact based on evidence to suit their point of view).

Humans have not been here that long. One volcano eruption can spew out more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans can produce in a year. Also CO2 is not pollution, plants cannot live without it.

I understand that our (Australia's) production of green house gas constitutes less that 1% of global emissions. So how does charging me 30% more for my power consumption, and then giving me back the money to pay for it, have any affect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It will only have an effect if everyone does it, but if that was the case would India and China really be complying or just saying that they are complying.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the fossil fuel used to build a Toyota Prius is more than the level of CO2 it will ever offset over its lifetime.

**I have no time for Allan Jones either**!

And yet you use a lot of his lines. I'm yet to see many if any scientists in the field of climate change say that human activity doesn't increase global warming. I have seen scientists in other fields advance this position though. If you have a link I'd be happy to read it though.

The thing about volcanoes is just flat out incorrect. See http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science. I quote:

"Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons…data from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the International Energy Agency indicate that light-duty vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, wagons) contribute about 3,040 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and industry adds another 6,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. **The combined output is about 35 times greater than estimates of global volcanic carbon dioxide output.**"

The statement about CO2 not being a pollutant is a red herring and in any case not accurate. Too much CO2 will kill you without ventilation but that's beside the point. The important factor is that it is the root cause for global warming which does have detrimental impact on Earth. There are plenty of naturally occurring gasses that have minimal impact in moderation but a terrible effect when there is too much.

I have no idea about the prius thing but it would not surprise me if that is correct. What you need to consider though is that mankind didn't go from hot air balloons to jet airliners in one go. Technology like the prius improves on existing technology and is a staging point for further inprovements.

 

[Tigersmurf]

The last points I will make on this debate…...If Australia closed down all of its power stations tomorrow what affect would it have on the environment......

We want to reduce our emission of Carbon into the atmosphere but build an unnecessary fossil fuel guzzling Desalination Plant to extract drinking water from sea water because global warming will significantly reduce our available water reserves. Yet only 2 years later our dams are full.

So Federal Labour Govt needs a Carbon Tax to reduce emissions, yet State Labour Government builds the desalination plant requiring an increase in emissions.

Is someone telling us porky pies...

 

[Tigersmurf]

I am not swayed either way by the argument, as I said earlier. I also don't agree with your second parragraph point 2\. I have heard interviews with a number of scientists from each side of the debate and they do back up their argument with scientific fact (as in fact based on evidence to suit their point of view).

Humans have not been here that long. One volcano eruption can spew out more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans can produce in a year. Also CO2 is not pollution, plants cannot live without it.

I understand that our (Australia's) production of green house gas constitutes less that 1% of global emissions. So how does charging me 30% more for my power consumption, and then giving me back the money to pay for it, have any affect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It will only have an effect if everyone does it, but if that was the case would India and China really be complying or just saying that they are complying.
\
\
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the fossil fuel used to build a Toyota Prius is more than the level of CO2 it will ever offset over its lifetime.

**I have no time for Allan Jones either**!

And yet you use a lot of his lines. I'm yet to see many if any scientists in the field of climate change say that human activity doesn't increase global warming. I have seen scientists in other fields advance this position though. If you have a link I'd be happy to read it though.

The thing about volcanoes is just flat out incorrect. See http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science. I quote:

"Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons…data from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the International Energy Agency indicate that light-duty vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, wagons) contribute about 3,040 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and industry adds another 6,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. **The combined output is about 35 times greater than estimates of global volcanic carbon dioxide output.**"

The statement about CO2 not being a pollutant is a red herring and in any case not accurate. Too much CO2 will kill you without ventilation but that's beside the point. The important factor is that it is the root cause for global warming which does have detrimental impact on Earth. There are plenty of naturally occurring gasses that have minimal impact in moderation but a terrible effect when there is too much.

I have no idea about the prius thing but it would not surprise me if that is correct. What you need to consider though is that mankind didn't go from hot air balloons to jet airliners in one go. Technology like the prius improves on existing technology and is a staging point for further inprovements.

I need to add that, I don't use any of Alan Jones' lines! I live in Newcastle and we don't get the Alan Jones program in Newcastle. My arguments are mine alone and I don't want it eluded to that I am just recounting someone elses point of view.

If our views are common - so be it. I have never heard him discuss this issue.

 

[Yossarian]

The last points I will make on this debate…...If Australia closed down all of its power stations tomorrow what affect would it have on the environment......

We want to reduce our emission of Carbon into the atmosphere but build an unnecessary fossil fuel guzzling Desalination Plant to extract drinking water from sea water because global warming will significantly reduce our available water reserves. Yet only 2 years later our dams are full.

So Federal Labour Govt needs a Carbon Tax to reduce emissions, yet State Labour Government builds the desalination plant requiring an increase in emissions.

Is someone telling us porky pies...

The desal plant is offset by wind turbines. http://www.sydneywater.com.au/water4life/Desalination/ The desal plant doesn't significantly reduce water reserves.

Besides, federal government/state government = 2 different groups. Just because they're both ALP doesn't mean they act in lockstep.

The thing about rain and water supply is its inconsistency. Just because it's not needed now doesn't mean it won't be needed later.

 

[Winnipeg]

Sorry I'm running a little behind all the other posts, pretending to work while also looking up the relevant graphs etc

You have canvassed every major scientific organisation on earth??

I'm yet to hear of any impartial scientific organisations who dispute that humans are the likely cause of climate change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science
\

Earth has gone through periods when it was covered in hot lava and volcanic eruptions, meteor impact and an ice age. These took place hundreds of thousands of years ago and yet we are going to base a carbon tax on what has happened over the past 250 years??

as I said previously ice core data shows a pretty strong link between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature. CO2 levels have been much higher on earth at certain times in the past, and temperatures were warmer then as well. But I can't really think of any other way to explain the exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years. It doesn't appear to be part of any natural cycle. Can you explain it? Do you think it is natural for CO2 to rise so much in a 100 year period?
\

Did you read any of my other posts Winnipeg? I am not for or against. In fact I love the debate, the graphs and charts and core samples of water which turned to ice when the dinosaurs were still roaming the Earth, but after everyone has manipulated the charts, graphs and evidence to support their point of view (I am not pointing the finger at yourself or Yoss) I just don't see how me paying an extra $500 per year is going to change anything.

Sorry, I think I've read every post in this thread but am not really across who said what. I'll take future note that you are neither here nor there (you mean in regards to the carbon tax, or the climate debate?).

For the record I am just responding to things other people have posted which to my knowledge are untrue. Part of the reason I'm here (in this thread) is that I'm frustrated by the political noise in this debate, mostly introduced by partisan politics. There are a lot of untruths that people take as gospel, such as that the scientific community is divided on the matter (it isn't), that the carbon tax will wipe out entire industries or send everyone broke paying their power bills (that remains to be seen but it doesn't seem likely), etc etc.

Some people believe that climate change is a hoax, others that it exists but the carbon tax isn't the right strategy to reduce emissions, and so on. But somehow all that ends up equalling that Julia Gillard is an evil witch who wants to destroy the economy…

How did you work out that the carbon tax would cost you $500 a year, or that your electricity price would rise by 30%?

 

[Tigersmurf]

I wasn't going to comment again as I wanted to let others have their say, but I like the way you present your argument Winnipeg. Those figures have been based purely off the top of my head. The effect could be a lot worse, or a lot more.

If the govt really cared about climate change then why did they disband the Solar Power Scheme? I installed 16 solar panels on my roof at significant cost in order to do my part. I get a good return for the power I generate and understand that this may have been too generous initially. But I cannot understand why we would entirely disband the scheme.

If we cared about reducing the level of fossil fuel consumption, then why didn't the state or federal government subsidise the installation of solar panels on every roof (as practical) in the country?

The reason was that they owned the power companies. Many of these have now been sold to the Chinese, who I am sure care significantly about how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere just like they care about how many tigers they kill for their organs or shark fins they chop off before dumping the living creatures back into the ocean to drown. More solar panels = less attractive the power stations were to sell.

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" Blah Blah Blah.

The one thing I am sure of is that no-one in influential positions is doing this for the good of the Earth. But I have my panels and I do my recycling (which is another debate altogether - Don Burke), and will continue to do my bit that I believe may make a difference.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It achieves something by raising the price as a disincentive for some and to provide a competitive advantage to others. Same way cigarette and booze taxes are designed to drive down demand. But **the carbon price redirects the money it takes in to provide compensation to low income earners** and to provide support for non-carbon energy producers.

There is very little to zero scientific data that indicates that 1\. global temperatures aren't rising and 2\. the most likely if not definite cause of this is human input. Only people (and this is not aimed at you) who deliberately misuse the data or don't understand it (I'm looking at you Alan Jones) claim it doesn't.

I doubt anything will convince you but read the CSIRO reports or the UN environomental reports.

This is one of my two issues with the policy in the first place (the other being an invitation for companies to price gouge under the guise of the Carbon tax.) There is no incentive for lower income earners to change their habits when it comes to their carbon footprint because they will be largely offset by financial compensation. The whole point of the policy was to take the step forward as a nation to be proactive in lowering our carbon footprint, both collectively and individually.

I hardly think it's fair the the tax is sold off as a policy of national responsibility in which we all must play our part, but in reality only a percentage of the population will in fact fund it while the other half have no real incentive to change their outlook on the carbon footprint they leave all the while being financially subsidised by others. The policy is meant to instill change in our approach toward energy consumption and have a bit of social responsibility and yet a portion of the population will be able to continue their habits, knowing that they will be subsidised by everyone else.

It should be a consumption tax where you pay for what you use. You don't like how much you're paying, find other alternatives. This of course does not apply to pensioners who should be getting special dispensation IMO.

 

[Yossarian]

I understand what you're saying CB but bankrupting OAPs and low income workers isn't a viable outcome and in any event there is still a financial incentive for these people to reduce their energy use. If your bill goes up $100 and you get $100 compensation, there is still an incentive to cut your bill by say $50 and pocket the difference.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I understand what you're saying CB but bankrupting OAPs and low income workers isn't a viable outcome and in any event there is still a financial incentive for these people to reduce their energy use. If your bill goes up $100 and you get $100 compensation, there is still an incentive to cut your bill by say $50 and pocket the difference.

Or you'll get people who are fine with the status quo and will keep happily using what they've used as long as it's being offset. It's promoting two different messages Yoss. The low income earner can use what he/she used before and nothing changes for them, while the middle/high income earner will have to make sure they change their usage. It doesn't embody the spirit of the policy which is as much a matter of social responsibility as it is a "tax" and if you force it upon the taxpayer, then it should be all inclusive.

I support a CPRS as I believe it will wean us off our reliance of fossil fuels and the like, but the policy stinks in it's current form IMO.

I still think the government should bring in other policies to get the ball rolling as well, a mandate for a minimum amount of solar power for new homes in order to drive up a bit of volume, invest more in biofuels etc.

I would also like to see some of this tax money go into driving up the pension a little as well of off-setting their cost of living.

 

[Winnipeg]

I wasn't going to comment again as I wanted to let others have their say, but I like the way you present your argument Winnipeg.

Thanks, I appreciate that.
\

If the govt really cared about climate change then why did they disband the Solar Power Scheme? I installed 16 solar panels on my roof at significant cost in order to do my part. I get a good return for the power I generate and understand that this may have been too generous initially. But I cannot understand why we would entirely disband the scheme.

If we cared about reducing the level of fossil fuel consumption, then why didn't the state or federal government subsidise the installation of solar panels on every roof (as practical) in the country?

The reason was that they owned the power companies. Many of these have now been sold to the Chinese, who I am sure care significantly about how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere just like they care about how many tigers they kill for their organs or shark fins they chop off before dumping the living creatures back into the ocean to drown. More solar panels = less attractive the power stations were to sell.

I can't explain that, I guess they thought it was not good value for money. The thing about a price on pollution is that it will make solar panels more competitive against other forms of power. As a market mechanism it will not discriminate in favour of any particular industry or company. It is simply a tax on pollution. The cost of solar panels has been dropping as it is, and obviously with other energy sources getting more expenisve they will become even more attractive to home owners.

Also the Chinese may now own the electricity generators but they are still based in Australia and will still pay the carbon price, so I'm sure they'll have some concern over their emissions.

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" Blah Blah Blah.

Yeah, there's that again. She's not the first politician to break a promise, Howard did it several times, yet she is being crucified it. It was Labor policy to install an ETS, and she was forced to alter this slightly due to the political circumstances of a hung parliament. You can be sure if Tony Abbott had managed to 'sell his arse' to any of the cross benchers, he would have made his own compromises. For one thing he offered Wilkie billions for a new hospital in his electorate, I don't think he'll be putting that back on the table after the next election.
\

The one thing I am sure of is that no-one in influential positions is doing this for the good of the Earth. But I have my panels and I do my recycling (which is another debate altogether - Don Burke), and will continue to do my bit that I believe may make a difference.

Seriously good for you. If I had a house I'd have my own solar panels, unfortunately I live in an apartment.

 

[Winnipeg]

It should be a consumption tax where you pay for what you use. You don't like how much you're paying, find other alternatives. This of course does not apply to pensioners who should be getting special dispensation IMO.

- That's exactly what it is: the more energy you consume, the more you'll pay. A poor person using their dryer for 5 minutes will pay the same amount as a rich person using their dryer for 5 minutes (assuming they're the same brand of dryer). On the other end, a poor person who is able to reduce their energy usage by X amount will save Y amount of dollars, a rich person reducing by X will save Y as well etc etc. It's just a tax on pollution. that's all it is.

- Everyone will benefit from the rise in the tax free threshold, ALL taxpayers will pay no tax on the first 18k they earn. It's just that that makes a bigger difference to someone earing 20k as opposed to someone earning 120k.

- Wealthy people are in a much better position to reduce their emissions. Traditionally they are the highest users of energy and have the opportunity to make the biggest cuts. Not only that, they have the capital to invest in things like solar panels, or new energy efficient appliances, again reducing the amount they'll pay.

- The compensation is just there as a safety net, the same as we have the pension and unemployment benfits already. It's not really possible to reduce energy usage to zero.

 

[Winnipeg]

I would also like to see some of this tax money go into driving up the pension a little as well of off-setting their cost of living.

Pensioners are already receiving an increased payment

http://www.cpsa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:compensation-kicks-in-for-carbon-tax&catid=4:cost-of-living&Itemid=46

 

[Yossarian]

I would also like to see some of this tax money go into driving up the pension a little as well of off-setting their cost of living.

Pensioners are already receiving an increased payment

http://www.cpsa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:compensation-kicks-in-for-carbon-tax&catid=4:cost-of-living&Itemid=46

Just to clarify - CB said that, not me. The quoting got a little muddled along the way! :slight_smile:

 

[Winnipeg]

whooops, sorry

was trying to avoid creating a massive mess of quotes within quotes and make it easier to read

 

[Kul]

This thread reminds me of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qi
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_