Climate change confusion

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by annette, May 23, 2011.

  1. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have just had an election Len
    [video=youtube;ckcH0Wrmy74]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74[/video]
    https://www.independentaustralia.ne...and-a-carbon-price-makes-real-economic-sense/
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...ustralianOpinion+(The+A ustralian+|+Opinion)
     
  2. hawkypork

    hawkypork Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The carbon tax is a tax on pollution. The pollution is generated from our consumption. If you consume less of products with a carbon footprint you will pay less tax. Permies should be least threatened by having our pollution paid for and our consumption curtailed.
     
  3. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if only the world was so simple!

    so our consumption is food, medicines and medical, as little power as we can use, water mostly our own, and as little fuel as we can get away with where public transport stinks. don't know what of that does not fit permaculture. all of the above will be affected and prices will increase over time, we are not of the yuppie classes chasing latest fads and fancies. our bills get paid and then we buy what food we can with what is left, at times it looks like some need a reality check.

    all sounds rather hairy fairy.

    len
     
  4. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes, I understand what other countries are claiming. But look deeper into things please. The UK for one is putting taxes on their farmers. Then they import fruit and veges because they are cheaper. No consideration of the carbon miles employed to import. Also all the "dirty stuff" is done overseas and shipped back to the UK in regards to manufacturing so they can claim it is green.

    China yes doing things. On the other hand building coal fired power stations at an alarming rate. The statisitics we are being fed are very scewed.

    There is no coordinated approach on a global scale. Just picky statistics. Each trumpeting their accomplishments but on closer examination it doesn't stack up.

    As for Tony Windsor, just look at the job he did on the Murray Darling. RIP Murray Darling system.

    Theres lies, lies and then statistics.
     
  5. springtide

    springtide Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I understand Len that this might sound like fad or fancy but it still sounds to me like a good "forced diet" to get the general population ready for the very expensive future ahead.
    It's all about choices - I would like to be a landscape gardener, i love getting things to grow but I can earn nearly double the money as a marine/industrial electrician, more than i can in aquaculture and environmental monitoring too. Most of the people I know have cars with engines exceeding 6 litres and buy new tv s every year or so. What hope do we have if this is "normal", how else do we get 22,640,000ish people to change their ways?
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Key points from the report, make of them what you will (p. 137):

    The resources committed by different study countries to emissions-reduction policies vary as a proportion of GDP.

    – In electricity generation, Germany made the largest relative resource commitment, the United Kingdom was next and Australia, along with China and the United States, were in the middle.

    – In biofuels, the US resource commitment was substantially higher than other study countries, though Germany also devoted considerable resources to this abatement policy.

    • The cost effectiveness of these actions in achieving abatement, and the amount of abatement actually achieved, also varies widely, both across programs within each country and in aggregate across countries.

    – Explicit carbon pricing in the United Kingdom appears to have been a cost-effective way of achieving considerable abatement.

    – At the other end of the scale, policies to encourage small-scale renewable generation are substantially less cost effective and have led to relatively little abatement.

    • The impacts of supply-side policies on product prices appear to have been modest for most countries, with the notable exception of electricity prices in Germany and the United Kingdom, where impacts of over 10 per cent are estimated to have occurred.

    • The relative cost effectiveness of a price-based approach is illustrated for Australia by stylised modelling that suggests that the abatement from existing policies could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost.

    • However, the estimates in this report cannot be used to determine the appropriate starting price of a broadly-based carbon pricing scheme in Australia.

    • Similarly, the estimates provide only a small subset of the data required to make assessments of what assistance would be needed to avoid undue levels of carbon leakage, and competitive disadvantage. Additional countries and relevant industries would also need to be assessed.


    You can read the lot here:

    https://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/carbon-prices/report
     
  7. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "mark pointed this out;

    – Explicit carbon pricing in the United Kingdom appears to have been a cost-effective way of achieving considerable abatement."

    yes i like the way those who suppose thee is acarbon issues and those who worship get on bended knee maybe?? but how does the above manifest itself?? will the manifestation be obvious in england only or will some other community in the world see the manifestation? ie.,. one of those islands in the pacific out of hundreds of islands will notice their local sea level dropping, i mean hey they could end up with more land than they ever had. maybe venice will stop crumbling and falling into is it the adriatic? and not be to only community around that sea to do so they won't stand outfor all the wrong reasons, funny how the island they grow their food on isn't sinking beneath the waves only 20k away i think.

    doesn't matterhow much is posted abou the support of the hypothesis it still remains they cannot explan how the new tax industry will help, or how painfull it will be nor how long this burdensome tax will be on the backs of the few who may have jobs. but no top of all that how is our effort to shed 60%of 1.2% of a total 20% going to manifest itself. all the while the qld gov at least is gearing up for ever more mining nearly all for coal and the asians are going to buy it from us.

    need to apply the litmus test of common sense and sense, none of what is promoted makes sense so there is no common sensein it just supposition.

    the floor now belongs to the worshippers, they have won the day, the century even, will the masses rise just like egypt or the french revolution, reckon they might once they work out the con'. time to bow out and let the believers preach to their hearts content.

    len
     
  8. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    If the tax reduces consumption then it will be working to bring balance back. Rampant consumption is responsible, We can discuss how that should be done but surely not that it needs doing.
     
  9. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so the assumption is the lower masses are into rampant consumption, i can assure the worshippers my comassion tells me they are having trouble paying artificially inflated bills as well as food. if you want to target rampant consumption then look to the pseudo plastic yuppie rich and the wealthy levels of society you can tax them as hard as you like and you won't change them. sweden i think demonstrated that.

    anyhow not much good saying anything like i said the poorer masses ahve lost and just need to cop it in the neck.

    3 assumptions that something needs fixing, that a tax system will fix it, and that all the people of australia are into rampant consumption. sounds like very blinkered introverted vision.

    no humanitarianism there

    len
     
  10. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    It will be the psudo plastic yuppies that will be hit hardest Len - that is exactly the point. It has been attempted before to help you understand but you seem incapable of grasping that people who do not pollute, who do not consume, who do not drive unnecessarily, who grow some or all of their food, will be least impacted by the measures.
    But we too need to be prepared to do our part on the lower end of society and to lead the others to a lifestyle that impacts less on the planet. The measures about to be implemented will assist us to show the way to a less consumer-driven, polluting society.
     
  11. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    this is nonsense ...... over here we have seen people on TV whingeing that they cant afford to pay their power bill - sitting there in front of a palsma TV with the aircon on

    both are rampant consumerism .......... aircon is NOT an essential item and is one of the major problems ......... both buying and running and plasma TV is a luxury
     
  12. andrew curr

    andrew curr Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    carbon is our sponge
    carbon is our friend
    the fat controllers will as usual work out a way to shirk their responsibilitys does the cayman islands tax carbon
     
  13. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think what the PC's report best conveys is the ineffectual nature of supply-side economics in combatting anthropogenic GHG emissions. Rather, the solution (it would appear) resides firmly in demand-side economic practices. Yep, demand less from the GHG-intensive industries, and more from the GHG-neutral/negative, and they (we) have no option but to change our practices. Whether governments of any persuasion have the ability to do this effectively through policy reform remains to be seen. More than likely it will be up to us, the permie practitioner (experts in demand-side economics), to continue to lead the way.
     
  14. andrew curr

    andrew curr Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Plimers book knocks me out quicker than valerian tea, i havent finished it yet my crusty old geologist mate recons he"s on the money.
    is he?
     
  15. PennyWA

    PennyWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haven't seen the book- what is it called-I'd like to read it.
    On the carbon tax I do not believe that our CO2 output is the problem the believers in climate change say it is. However, humans are destructive,in the past because the did not know all the damage they were causing now big corporations don't care and we by our consumption encourage them. Yes this decade has been warmer than any since recordings began, but climate change is driven by much more than what has been measured since we began recording the weather. There have been times in the earths history when there was no snow at the poles. Our major problem is that animals would migrate as climate changed but because of borders we humans can't do that without conflict. I also feel that we should not use the term climate change deniers or scaremongers as that reduces the debate to name calling. We should always be able to have a calm rational debate.
    I will make a prediction in the future human CO2 emmissions will be found to have a negligible effect on climate change but we will still have it.
    Furthermore before people make the assumption I am a rabid consumer- I live in a solar passive rammed limestone house with photovoltaics, solar hotwater heating and we do everything we can to save resources. We do need to clean up our act but need to also discuss things rationally.
    So far no one who believes in human driven climate change has been able to explain to me why the vikings could farm greenland before industry was around.
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Andrew

    On reviewing Plimer's Heaven and Earth, here's what one eminent scientist had to say:

    ...

    I'm an earth scientist whose research is directed at the interactions between the solid earth, the oceans, ice sheets and atmosphere. And this research is directed not merely to interpret the geological record, but to distinguish between cause and effect, and to understand what may happen when natural and anthropogenic forces clash. In recent years my research has been on sea level change from millions of years to recent times. And this has included geological field work in Australia, Europe, Antarctica, Greenland, amongst other areas, and has given me some insight into at least this one aspect of climate change.

    I believe this allows me to conclude that Heaven and Earth is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist.

    ...

    Source: ABC Radio National - Ockham's Razor: Comments on Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science, 7 June 2009

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  17. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day PennyWA

    This might help 'explain':

    The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  18. PennyWA

    PennyWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WHo is the author of the article? Thanks for the link if you google "scientists who do not believe in Co2 being the major driver there are lists of them, climatologist space scientist geologists etc. All academics and apparently well educated in their area. Because of this I keep asking questions. Polititions are not a reliable source of anything much less anything as complex as this subject. I realise that many may think I am in error and do not have a problem with taking action against polution BUT I still have not heard a convincing arguement yet and I just want to learn
     
  19. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Penny it is good to question. We get fed so much misinformation these days that we need to delve deeply into these things. It doesn't mean you don't care, you just want to know the facts. I try to meander my way through the spin and sometimes it is hard.
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day PennyWA

    You are welcome. In answer to your most recent question. The author's name is clearly positioned at the top of the article. I wonder if you could now answer a question. Did reading the article help you to understand "...why the vikings could farm greenland (sic) before industry was around"?

    In response to your suggestion that one uses Google to search for contrarian evidence. I am a social scientist. Large slabs of my waking hours are dedicated to conducting research. As such, I certainly understand why it would appear to the lay community that there is some sort of reasoned debate to be had. You know, something along these lines... 10,000 scientists 'believe' in human-induced climate, yet 10,000 other scientists do not. Well, I am here to tell you, this is simply not the case. By far the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence points to a case for recent human activity altering the global climate.

    John Cook at Sceptical Science (the web page I pointed you toward in my last post), has put together an interactive history of climate science that graphically shows (through the medium of mapping, over a period of time, published, peer-reviewed papers) the balance of evidence fully supports my above statement.

    I trust by engaging with this great tool (indeed, by studying the entire website) that you can find answers to the all the questions you may have.

    Cheerio, Markos
     

Share This Page

-->