Julia's New Carbon Price

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by eco4560, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. Colin S.

    Colin S. Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

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

    Society is made up of many people (at last count, close to 7-billion), each holding a view of the world. Some of these views are shared, some are not. This is a beautiful thing, to be sure. Diversity of thought (and subsequently, expression) is what provides us with the fine web of intricately laced bits of information that, when weaved together, provide us with an overall understanding of our world, and subsequently, our place within it. But it is how (where from) we obtain these bits of information that is of the utmost importance to the topic at hand. For if we are to simply rely upon a narrow band of sources for our information, then surely our understanding of the topic must also follow the same narrow tack. Ignorance is not something that we should use to denigrate, rather, it is merely a sad reflection of a society that does not provide for free and equitable access to its vast knowledge base. Ignorance is a sad state of being, but there is however an antidote to it, and this is of course to provide free and secular education. Education can, and does, come in many different forms. But if we are to ever really gain a true (factual) understanding of this, and any other topic that piques our interest, then we owe it to own intellectual integrity to ensure that the information to which we base our understanding (and subsequently express our views) is subject to a rigorous, scientific and above all, rational process of inquiry.

    Take for example the source of a reference cited in this thread in support of one very valid (albeit in my opinion, misguided) view on human-induced climate change:

    www.newsweekly.com.au

    Now ask yourself the following question: does this source stand up to a 'rigorous, scientific and above all, rational process of inquiry'? For me, the simple answer is no, it does not. Why do I hold this view I hear you all ask? Well, allow me to use the above example by way of a response:

    Newsweekly, by its own admission, has a 'philosophy' that is grounded in the unscientific and the irrational. It is, among many other things, of the belief that there is only one form of 'religion', that of the Judeo-Christian variety; only one form of 'family', that which constitutes a mother, a father, and many children; and, only one form 'democracy', that of the executive. All together it believes that there can only ever be one set of (undefined) 'traditional values' that we should all adhere to, and that if we should choose to follow any other, then we are at best to be seen as abnormal, and at worst, cast out of the very society to which we belong.

    I ask again: is the above indicative of the kind of information base that we wish rely upon for our understanding of the vastness of the universe? If your answer is yes, then good for you, I sincerely wish you all the best upon your chosen path. If however you join me in feeling that the above provides for a very narrow view of the awe-inspiring universe that we all inhabit, then please read on.

    A final plea: avail yourselves to the very fine work that I have consistently provided links to (both in this, and the plethora of other threads related to this topic), and by all means then make up your mind. To do any less is not only to do a disservice to the intellect of your own good selves, but to all of humanity that must surely follow in our footsteps.

    Cheerio, (off to the library) Markos
     
  3. Glenn18

    Glenn18 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Juilia's new carbon price.....
    That was the thread that I bought into."There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead"....LIAR,all said in desperation to try and gain votes.If it's true what she said in parliment the other day about allways having it on the back burner of the Labour party's table,she DECIEVED the Australian public as well.As far as Bob Brown goes..He is the PIMP.He is just like any other pollie now he gets a grip on some sort of percieved power..All his good goes out the window,he used to believe/fight for keeping the forrests(Which by the way WOULD do something for carbon reduction,GLOBALLY)At the moment the greens are sculking in the dark and not really talking about this carbon tax openly at the moment,are they.They are lieing thru their teeth,both party's,Tax..Tax..Tax.They don't give a hoot about C/C G/W or the people who SERVE THEM,whatever they can use to Tax us and bring their pissy budget deficet under control while proping up the coal burners with YOUR hard earned dollars while pretending to subsidiseing the poor and effected households of Australia with the revenue is about the best you concerned sheep can hope for.

    As for the other issues that have come up regarding the validity of CC,I don't doubt(Anyone would be a compleate cretin to think that the climate dosen't change),that the climate is changeing but,any educated person that says"Yes,it's true,the climate of the earth has evolved and changed over the millenier of it's lifetime,and then on the other hand,accepts the stats of even the last 100yrs(Some of which have been doctored by peer reveiwed prostitutes(sorry,meant scientists)) as proof positive that it's because of anthrapological(Hope I spelt that right) reasons solely is,daft and blind.And even more uneducated or Indoctrinated(Hope I spelt that right also)if they do not see that the "Proof not so positive" of said reasons is,infact,the only mechanism to which the powers that be can tax us apon and make it all sound so honest.It's all about MONEY,YOUR money and how they will get it and use it how THEY see fit.

    Permaculture/organic/self reliant and small footprint lifestyles are a choice(Although a lot better for the earth than whats going on enmass)but,do not buy into the ellusion that this carbon tax is the way to achieve some golden egg,especially on pollitical track records.As far as reduceing carbon emmissions,take a look at Germany.Good for our economy this tax will be??,Take a look at Germany.This tax will encourage renewable R&D???.Take a look at Germany.Funny thing is,you arn't gonna have a say at all by the time our pollies get what THEY want,sucked in and spat out.Julia's new carbon price,HA,it's a tax to nothing.

    Want links to see what does work??Look it up your self,I only have a 1st yr highschool edumacation.
    Like lambs to the slaughter......
     
  4. Tegs

    Tegs Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For my two cents worth;

    I feel that regardless of personal beliefs about climate change, based on environmental destruction alone the consequences of inaction are far too horrid to contemplate.

    I think we are all going to head down the "economic gurgler" with or without any carbon tax. When will we all wake up and see that infinite growth just isn't compatible with a finite world?

    We can only hope that peak oil starts to hurt the hip pockets of the high and mighty before we do too much more damage to our earth & ourselves.
     
  5. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ok a bit over the top maybe lol?? but the saying is "the truth is oft' spoke in jest"

    www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/03/02/3153400.htm

    the way i see this whole C/C issue is, their plot is lost, it seems like the majority are against this new form of worship and its rubbery facts. their tenticles spread too wide too fast without factual evidence.

    lets put it to bed, those mixed up in it can go get real jobs (there's old people out there need real time help around their homes, it's honest work) and leave the rest of us in the relative peace and harmony we have in this world where change is natural.

    replant the habitat not don quixote windmills, the habitat is the go, another honest job.

    len
     
  6. Colin S.

    Colin S. Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think Tegs has put it nicely, action on climate change that "may not exist" (There is sufficient evidence, although not 100% proof-which is experimentally impossible, like trying to reach absolute zero-although 100 billionths of a degree is pretty close), might result in economic catastrophe...who cares!! Those visiting this website have the impetus for self sufficiency, which can be (and is) taught to people all over the world. Not a big problem (except for those who have money invested in industry).

    Inaction however, runs the risk of severe environmental collapse. This scenario would have major impacts on not only the economy, but the ability of the planet's ecosystems to function properly. While climate has changed in the past (with some catastrophic results-see Permian extinction and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)), it has done so on a relatively slow timescale and species and ecosystems have had time to adapt or evolve. The aforementioned PETM is thought (some evidence exists, but not 100% proof...) to have been caused by a massive influx of methane (which breaks down to CO2, both of which have been demonstrated in the lab to absorb and reflect Infra-red radiation (also known as heat!!!)), causing temperatures to increase rapidly over several thousand years. This rise in temperatures did cause massive extinctions even over thousands of years! We are experiencing massive temperature increases over decades and a few centuries. Even if warming is not caused by CO2, ocean acidification which is caused by CO2 has the potential to cause massive marine ecosystem collapse by disrupting the food chain. If the ocean goes, we go.

    To think that 7 billion humans have no impact on the environment and atmosphere is ludicrous, and only a fool would make such a statement.

    As for the peer-review process, it is in place to guard against scientific falsification of data (as an ecologist, I believe this act is despicable and horrendously unjust), and is a lot more credible than an article written by someone with a political agenda. I would give my ear to someone who provides proof/evidence over someone who does not.

    Colin
     
  7. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm with Tegs.
     
  8. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I Agree with Tegs too...

    On the "Julia Lied" debate, She didn't really lie... she said she wouldn't bring in a carbon tax under the government she leads... I don't think she was expecting to have to negotiate a deal with the greens and the independents just to form a government. If she did win outright... I doubt we'd be looking at the implementation stage of a carbon price right now.
     
  9. Tegs

    Tegs Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    awww thanks guys :p

    Be glad to share a permaculture paradise with you all when the shit hits the fan.
     
  10. Glenn18

    Glenn18 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dillard just happens to LEAD the current Govt.She did lie,and B.Brown turned into a pimp.

    " If she did win outright... I doubt we'd be looking at the implementation stage of a carbon price right now.[/QUOTE]"
    No one will know that for sure now will they.

    "I feel that regardless of personal beliefs about climate change, based on environmental destruction alone the consequences of inaction are far too horrid to contemplate.
    This is about a carbon Tax and it's implication,we all know CC is real.

    I think we are all going to head down the "economic gurgler" with or without any carbon tax. When will we all wake up and see that infinite growth just isn't compatible with a finite world?"

    Spot on!!!.And if average Joblow thinks his tax's are out there somehow "Miraculacley" saveing the planet,he ain't gonna do diddly squat to help,many have said as much over the Flood levey,sorry "Mateship levey".(Thats the sort of lowlife rehtoric we'll see from Dillard)
    I can't believe that some ppl think a tax on carbon is gonna fix it,even start to fix it,for that matter.21mill going up against 7Billion..If only we could see the forests for the trees,we might not be haveing this talk.I for one don't wan't to pay a carbon tax for coal that China buys (And burns in their own land),when they won't put a price on carbon.Putting a price on carbon DOSEN'T stop it from entering the atmosphere.Full stop.Average Joblow is gonna suffer the price and turn on the switch thinking it's allright,he's gonna keep driving his car on congestered freeways till there just aint any oil left to go round cause thats what he is use to.The govt has no track record with smarts,and don't tell me "The system isn't perfect ,but it's the best we have",cause it aint."You know it,I know it and so do they.Only problem is ppl keep eating what they feed ya like it's gospel.
    Big multy national business's hold the reins that guide most of those 7Billion ppl,not ethics.

    Use less electricity,drive less,plant trees and try ya best folks,but don't get fooled by their promise's of a cleaner greener world on the premise of "A Tax will lead the way".
     
  11. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just spent the evening listening to Dr Peter Ellyard... he seems to know a thing or two...
     
  12. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glenn, Most capitalistic snobs don't give a shit about anything other than their own back pocket... most won't look at permaculture because there is no profit in it... they are the reason for even needing to consider a carbon price...
     
  13. Glenn18

    Glenn18 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aint that the truth!!
    All their talk about looking to the future gets me riled up good and proper,like,"Where were they in the past".Wether we choose to admitt it or not,we are all partly to blame for the mess thats been created,I've allways tried to be green but not allways to the best of my ability.I refuse to cut trees on our acerage and allways break the law by taking fallen trees on the side of the road,I just don't see why it should be illeagle.If I ever get caught I'm gonna play the carbon card LOL.
     
  14. permasculptor

    permasculptor Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Putting a price on carbon is a good idea come to late but good all the same .I don't care that the greedy pricks are getting all the money they always do anyway.I think it is a step in the right direction on a global level.I would include agriculture.
     
  15. matto

    matto Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    People don't like a tax, but this could initiate the change that is needed in people's choices and behaviour. If it was administered correctly and the big polluters weren't compensated it would create thousands of green collar jobs, not cost jobs as they predict. But I don't think it will work that way initially, and am putting more hope into the Green Farming Initiative that is also in the works.

    Im with permasculptor, agriculture needs to be included. I was listening to Darren's Rx for the biosphere talk and he stated that 470gigatonnes of fossilised carbon has been released through agriculture compared to 250gigatonnes from burning fossil fuels. We can all afford to pay more for food, as we should. The farmers are at the pointy end of the stick, enslaved for little profit and also at the mercy of the climate. We live in a society that spends the least of our wages on food compared to those in the 2/3 world who spend most of their money on food, if they have any at all.

    If Allan Yeomans figures are correct, and the peer review readily agrees, then an increase of organic carbon in agricultural soils will offset historical carbon emmissions. It doesnt cost alot to do, is quick to acheive and comes along with the whole swathe of benefits that increasing humus has. This alone begs for action, and pulling the CO2 from the atmosphere can only benefit all of us, those who accept or deny climate change.

    Although, it is probable that it is not just these emmisions that are causing the crazy weather that is playing out recently. I think we all know that there is many links in the web we have created. The loss of our great airconditioning, climate mitigatoring trees are an obvious factor. I have planted over 400000 trees for forestry and carbon credits, its hard work and probably wont do alot on that scale. But its a start. I reckon that "Water for the Recovery of the Climate - A New Water Paradigm" is a must read, a free download at https://www.vodnaparadigma.sk/indexen.php?web=./home/homeen.html

    Something needs to happen, and soon, before our grandchildren are left to repay our debt. I think its us that should shoulder the debt already left to us.
     
  16. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seems to me it is just like the GST arguments. Both sides really knew it was necessary and an idea whose time has come. But both sides made political capital out of opposing it. I do object to the aggressive,vitriolic, divisive way Abbot is making his "political capital' though. It seems to be bringing all the right wing loonies out of their caves.
     
  17. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The biggest issue is working out how to administer the compensation package while still encouraging a change in behaviour.

    If the compensation is cash based there is no incentive to change - most will probably just move on like they are today, paying more but being compensated for it.

    The best form of compensation would be credits towards green power, perhaps even larger solar rebates, etc. and other similar rebates for other industries. We don't want to compensate people to continue doing what they are doing - that completely defeats the purpose.
     
  18. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am sort of getting the idea, eric, that this policy is not geared primiarily towards the man in the street's behaviour modification but towards the carbon producers. I got this idea from reading about carbon trading emissions on wikipedia.

    Evidently, its not what the man in the street who the future of the world is going to depend on but what the big polluters do. That's what i deduce is meant by this carbon policy. This i understand is how they expect to get the carbon in the atmosphere down.
     
  19. springtide

    springtide Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is an extension from the last few comments. If big business is a big controlling force in the world then we can assume that "they" would like us to believe in an infinate world where we ppl should never concern ourselves with living a more honest life and just keep spending and consuming, buying "their" products and putting money in their coffers.
    From this i would assume that ideas like climate change would be a threat to their way of life and a carbon tax at least in title would be a national confession that we as a nation have being doing the wrong thing by the planet and accordingly be the worst kind of news, people might consider their actions before buying a product rather than just spending money on the biggest tv and air conditioner they can afford.
    If i were in charge of a big company i would be worried.
    So why then do people think that climate change and a tax on carbon would be in the best interests of multinationals? The government would be able to take money from their customers, plant trees with it and give some to the united nations fund to help third world countries develop in a more eco friendly way... well the trees can't watch plasma tvs and poor countries cant afford fresh water let alone air conditioners.
    So where is the plutocratic boogeyman?
     
  20. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately the circle is that with consumer compensation based on cash, the polluters have no reason to change. Its like forced inflation on consumer prices. Its simply changing money from one bucket to another.
     

Share This Page

-->