G'day Len In response to the above, you might find the results of this scientifically-conducted survey of interest: Griffith University study finds Australians concerned about climate change More like a case of a vocal, ill-informed minority trying to run roughshod over the views of the majority, perhaps? Cheerio, Mark
Reading the "letters to the editor" in the paper the last few days, one thing seems to be apparent - most people who are a against a carbon tax seem to be motivated by money - which is fair enough if you don't have much (those with young kids, carers, etc i can understand). Since our power, food, and water generally come from the cheapest means possible ie, coal power, overseas food sources and desal water here in Perth anything different sustainable or not is going to cost us more. Does this mean that our society thinks that it just cannot afford a future. Coal will get more expensive, higher oil costs as the world slowly recovers from the gfc will increase the cost of highly transported food, no one wants to recycle water here in Perth and the capital and running costs of a kimberly pipeline mean more desal water at higher prices as the groundwater drops off. I listen to audio books in the car to avoid the reality of traffic but this is a bit more serious. Can we afford a future?
anyway just to add to the confusion: our gov' has plotted all the coal seams from the sunshine coast up to atherton, they are planning a coal mine at bauple just south of maryborough, they plan mines at gunalda and anderleigh one an open cut further south from bauple, they plan to build railway lines to transport the coal, this will help he profit makers who bought that part of the rail network, oh! and they get prefference over tourist trains on the tracks. one real estate is looking for a local property boom?? ok boon, and this also includes coal seam gas. all of this will be sold to asia who are never going to slug their poor people with any sort of carbon control tax industry. so as our real estate heads to the doldrums like the US our economy is heading sameway yet glory be to the ccc worshippes their vision is too introverted. like i said yes we the masses go down with you. len
no edit function again: https://iminco.net/more-coal-mine-jobs-for-queensland/ do your own searches it is all there. we are going to be a coal mining economy. len
I found the following on another site and i was thinking of this thread.... “The tools that have allowed us to dominate our environment and survive outside of it will most likely ensure our ultimate failure. Our incredible mental abilities have developed to serve our emotions.“
https://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e Voices: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science “Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.” So says geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science.” With this assertion, Plimer brings volcanic carbon dioxide degassing front and center in the climate change debate, reviving and reinforcing this wildly mistaken notion.
i like the following quote: "Quote Originally Posted by A. Lincoln, US President I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." sums up this whole climate supposition debate realy, there is no truth and no facts in it, carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide no good splitting hairs to promote a furphy supposition. yes bring them the truth and the fact warts and all, go to the people a full on election find out how much of a minority group the CCC believers are. none of this rabbit out of a hat stuff. len
Please help me Marko. I watched the Abbot thing several times and still do not understand what he was getting at.
What worries me is that he is even remotely considered as a possible leader of this country. The fact that he leads a political party is in itself frightening. Now I know that only a fool would want to be a politician, but this bloke takes that notion to extremes. And please don't take my comments as politically motivated. I'm not particularly smitten with any of them. I just find Abbott ridiculous. He makes 'The Hollowmen' look solid.
he's in with a very good crowd then hey? like peas in a pod the sublime the ridiculous and the lunacy of it all. about time 1st past the post voting came in, the vast majority did not vote for the minority that is holding us to ransome. len
G'day PP Here's the longer version (the longest I could find; it adds a bit more context): [video=youtube;ZoCKhNr8Atk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoCKhNr8Atk&feature=related[/video] Essentially, I posted the video to show the hypocrisy of politicians, and the corrupt nature of the political machine in general. However, I hope the following paints a better picture of what we have before us today: Abbott's (then) preferred carbon tax is a model that imposes a tax-deductable cost upon the end user/consumer through a carbon surcharge - redeemable each financial year. This model differs from that of the current government, which proposes to tax the carbon-emitting industries, who in turn will pass on their increased costs/tax burdens to the end user/consumer, who will ultimately have their increased costs compensated through tax concessions (an increase in the tax-free threshold), and/or an increase in social benefits. Remember Ken Henry? He's the guy that put this model forward in his Tax Review: Ken Henry Tax Review 2010 Interestingly, Henry has now been made special adviser to Gillard (Australian Prime Minister), so it will be interesting to see what sort of influence he has on any future tax proposals. Then there is Prof. Ross Garnaut's model: Chapter 6: Better climate, better tax I'm not an economist, full stop. But from my reading of the literature (over the preceding years), I see Garnaut's model as one of the better (in terms of cutting GHG emissions) versions out there. Still waiting for the Productivity Commission to publicly release their report into global carbon pricing mechanisms. Once this occurs, we should have a better picture of how the others models are performing around the world. It's an oft repeated fallacy that 'other countries' (China is the usual whipping boy) are not doing anything to reduce their emissions. They are in fact doing plenty. It's now Australia's turn, and given we are the largest emitter of GHGs per capita in the world, it's not before time. Cheerio, Markos
G'day Michael I read Plimer's book shortly after he and I broke bread and drank wine (literally) late in 2009. That's a couple of weeks reading time that I will never recover! Anyway, after reading the book, I went to the literature on several points that Plimer raised, none more so important than the 'Volcano' data. The article that came up first is the very one you have posted which concludes (my emphasis in bold): Global volcanic carbon dioxide emission estimates contain uncertainties and are variable, but there is virtually no doubt that volcanism adds far less carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans. We live in a world of political filibustering, industry propaganda, and a 24-hour media cycle - all of which I detest. However, when we return to the (credible) science, and take the time to thoroughly analyse it, we find time-and-time again - the climate is changing, and humans are (at least in part) responsible for the never-before observed rate of change. Cheerio, Markos
Fellow Permies In response to persistent claims made by some who mistakenly believe 'other countries are doing nothing' to abate their GHG emissions, I have taken a lead from the Australian Productivity Commission's terms of reference in relation to their Emission Reduction Policies and Carbon Prices in Key Economies - Commissioned Study, inasmuch as I have completed a quick analysis of the current GHG emission reduction policies of the following countries: UK, USA, Germany, New Zealand, China, India, Japan and South Korea. The results may very well surprise you! UK - "...set legally binding emission reduction targets for 2020 (reduction of 34 percent in greenhouse gas emissions) and for 2050 (reduction of at least 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions)..." Source: UK Dept. of Energy and Climate Change - A low-carbon UK USA - No set targets at the federal level, but a range of 'voluntary partnerships and initiatives' are underway: Environment Protection Agency - Current and Near-Term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives Germany - "...40% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020 compared to 1990..." Source: World Energy - A Climate Protection Strategy for Germany New Zealand - "...a 50 per cent reduction in ... greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050..." Source: NZ Ministry for the Environment - Emission Reduction Targets China - "...is a non-Annex B country in the Kyoto Protocol and consequently does not have an emission reduction commitment... (1)". However, China does have a "self-reduction" policy, complete with a pledge to "...cut the unit GDP carbon dioxide emission level in 2020 by a range of 40 percent to 45 percent over 2005 (2)". Source (1): UNFCC- Amendment to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol Source (2): People's Daily Online - China's emission reduction pledge and global response India - Same as China, in that it is an Annex B signatory. However, and just like China, India is committed to making great changes. Take for example this statement released by the Minister for the Environment and Forests on 20 October 2009: "...India's interests and India's interests alone shall dictate our negotiating stance [on emission reduction policy]..." (1). Now compare it with this: "...[in] November 2009, ahead of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, India announced it would reduce its 'GHG emission intensity' — amount of gases released per unit growth in national wealth — by 20–25 percent between 2005 and 2020 (2)". It would now appear (according to the most recent report) India is indeed committed to achieving this target: "...emissions intensity of India’s GDP declined by more than 30% during the period 1994-2007, due to the efforts and policies that we are proactively putting in place..." (3). Source (1): Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests - Press Statement (20 October 2010) Source (2): Guardian Article (May, 2010) - India's greenhouse gas emissions rise by 58% Source (3): Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests - Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2007 (May 2010) Japan - aims "...to reduce its emissions by 25% by 2020 if compared to the 1990 level...". Source: Dr. Yukio Hatoyama, Prime Minister of Japan, Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change South Korea - "While not obliged under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol climate pact to announce binding cuts ... [t]he OECD's fastest-growing carbon polluter earlier this month ditched its weakest voluntary emissions target of an 8 percent increase from 2005 emissions levels by 2020 ... [and adopted] a 4 percent reduction (against 2005 levels)." Source: Reuters (Nov, 2009) - South Korea targets 2020 emissions at 30 percent below forecast None of the above countries are 'doing nothing' - each are doing (at the very least) something. Therefore, it is now time for Australia to take the lead, and do a lot more than the proposed minimum 5 per cent reduction by 2020 on 2000 levels! Cheerio, Markos
Like many others, I am confused about the whole climate change issue, but I do appreciate the "snapshot" provided above of the targets, intentions and pledges of other countries. My concern on that point is who can monitor or enforce those commitments and what's to stop countries simply "changing their minds" because it becomes unpopular and leaving us all out of pocket and alone in our efforts to save the situation?. As for which is the best "tax" model, well frankly I don't trust the government to administer the tax rebate system effectively (far too many beaurocrats with their snouts in the trough already) and I certainly don't trust "industry" to do the right thing without being very heavily monitored and face serious penalties when they are caught out (not "if" you'll notice) and their shareholders won't be the ones to push the investment - they just want their dividends!. It is a large and complex issue and I know that we have to do something, and the sooner we get started the better. I just wish I could trust either our politicians or our large corporations to do the right thing - sadly I just don't.
G'day Greg I tend to agree with your sentiments re: politicians and industry. However, until we (you, me, all of US) decide to take the over and govern ourselves (ah la a globalised Mandala Town), then we must put up with what they dish up. This is hot off the press: On Thursday, the Government will release the Productivity Commission's report on international climate action. Key independent MP Tony Windsor sees the global comparison as crucial to his thinking and his vote on the carbon tax. Mr Swan says the report shows seven of Australia's top 10 trading partners have adopted "major policies" to reduce pollution. He cites China, India, South Korea and Japan among countries adopting or trialing emissions trading measures. "The world is moving now to reduce pollution and we need to be part of that if we want to maintain and improve our competitive advantage," he said. Oh, and there is a bit in there about us "all being better off...". Source: ABC NEWS - Aussies wealthier despite carbon tax: [Australian Treasurer] Swan Cheerio, Mark
G'day Len What good would another election do? The information - scientific 'truths and facts' - is already freely available. It is just a sad state of affairs that more people are not able to access and digest it, due to a myriad of barriers: poverty, mental and physical health issues, lack of education opportunities, etc. Another election will only produce another crop of parliamentarians. What we need is more 'educators'; more permaculture demonstration programs/projects... Cheerio, Markos
an election would show that those who support CCC are the minority and put our country in the charge of a gov' duely elected, i've already said our pollies are no better than the science all thugs after their own glory and ego's. and if others want to believe what comes out of text written by vested interests that's their business (they are in bed with the gov' and support the science peer group), but if others are going to hold their breathe while they wait for the asian sector to cut the supposed carbon, then please every once in a while take a breathe before your lips go blue. len
Hey all, one question. Does Tony Abbott think we as humans are having a significant effect on climate change? Mark's video suggested he believes a taxed reduction in carbon would be a drop in the ocean - which if Australia does it alone makes sense (depending on your motivations for a tax) but in it he never says wether he believes in human induced climate change full stop.
