Yes a cut and paste from today's email list.

28th March2011

The carbon tax may work –in a 1000 years



Professor Tim Flannery, the Commissioner for Climate Change said on radio on Friday,” If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years...”.

By the time this proposed carbon tax has had its affect Jesus will have come and gone, again!

The two great mysteries in 1000 years time will be, “Is Stefano DiMera from Days of Our Lives really dead?” and, “Who in the Australian Labor party honestly thought they could change the climate from a room in Canberra?”

cisco said...

Professor Tim Flannery, the Commissioner for Climate Change said on radio on Friday,” If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years...”.

It's good that you respect what Tim Flannery says.

He is suggesting that due to the all the greenhouse gases that humans have already released into the atmosphere that the climate will continue to change for hundreds of years, even if all emissions were cut tomorrow.

How did you interpret what he 'actually' meant in the above sound bite?

Cisco, are you on the National party mailing list by chance?

Seems like a pretty kooky email to try a discredit a well respected Australian.

They could do better.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.
If CO2 is the problem, then wherever that's taking us, then that's where we are going.
A piddling tax on carbon is not going to make the slightest bit of difference in the long run except to maybe delay the end point by a year or two. Big deal!
If you believe CO2 is the problem then the only way to change the outcome is to stop burning stuff now, or at least very soon.

If global warming is "the greatest moral challenge of our time" (KRudd quote) then every cent of the carbon tax should be spent on research into some form of energy generation to replace burning carbon based fuels.
Putting a tax on carbon and then paying the tax money to people so they can use more energy is madness.
It's nothing more than taking a collection to repaint the deck chairs on the Titanic,.. as it slips slowly beneath the waves.

How is it that we can we afford 43 billion dollars for a high speed broadband network so we can download porn a bit faster and yet we can't afford even one percent of that to solve "the greatest moral challenge of our time"?

The idea that we can all control the climate by paying extra for our Petrol / Diesel / Gas / Electricity is criminal.


Governments have seen a way to feed our fears and then prey upon them with extra taxation

http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2011/03/professor-carter-corrects-climate.html

"Climate Common Sense is not a sceptical site but a non-believer's site .Global warming and cooling are natural phenomena and carbon dioxide is a lovely gas vital to plant growth. Global Warming has stopped and Climate Change ( I call it Weather) is the new manufactured bogeyman. This website will present a realist view on the Climate Change debate."

ADS said...

A very good site, thanks Gizmo. Expect the fanatical alarmists to ridicule it though, that's their style.

Exactly.

I am surprised this thread got to see the light of day.

My last thread highlighting the benefits of living at the taxpayer funded tropical resort "Sherger Air Base" near Weipa, died in the night.

don't forget to stop eating meat and drink milk.......... cow fart is a bigg co2 add to the problem.

But anyway who cares it is all over in 21/12/2012 so enjoy as much as we can[}:)]

felixdcat said...

cisco said...

ADS said...

A very good site, thanks Gizmo. Expect the fanatical alarmists to ridicule it though, that's their style.

Exactly.

I am surprised this thread got to see the light of day.

My last thread highlighting the benefits of living at the taxpayer funded tropical resort "Sherger Air Base" near Weipa, died in the night.

Is that another 5* stay facility for stranded cruising ppl?

Wasnt this about carbon tax? Talk about flogging a dead horse

cisco said...







The two great mysteries in 1000 years time will be, “Is Stefano DiMera from Days of Our Lives really dead?” and, “Who in the Australian Labor party honestly thought they could change the climate from a room in Canberra?”

I don't know who Stefano DiMera is but I do know that both the Liberal and Labor parties intent to reduce Australia's CO2 footprint, currently they are both proposing different methods and perhaps we could debate the differences between those methods but some might not find that entertaining enough.

Another question might be who in Canberra represents the climate change sceptics, though I think there are members of both political parties that fall into that camp.

I may be naive but I think capitalism is merely a system of pricing things. There is always going to be a political component to that process and some in the "free market camp'" will think that the interference is to great a restriction on the growth of wealth while others will perceive that the cost or risk of certain activities out ways the benefits derived.

Carbon tax aside, climate change aside, how is it a good thing that we (read the developed world) continue to use "more" of everything?

Here's an interesting view on "consumption" (and washing machines!)

Does anybody really think the Government is going to use anywhere near all funds raised from this tax towards reducing carbon. Let's not be naive, the country is broke so this will disappear into the treasury "black hole" like so many other "necessary" taxes and levies that have come before it.

$26 a tonne to dispose of rubbish! What a bargain. It costs me $45 to get rid of half a ute load, at the local tip.

Ian K said...

$26 a tonne to dispose of rubbish! What a bargain. It costs me $45 to get rid of half a ute load, at the local tip.

you should have burnt it in your backyard!

SomeOtherGuy said...

pweedas, most of what you say makes sense except the bit about governments putting all the money into research. I'd think that if governments created a huge alternative energy research scheme (something which actually they do already fund on a much smaller scale through the universities) then what that would do is create a huge alternative energy research business. They'd be in the business of doing research, not necessarily the business of finding solutions. In fact the cynical among you (what here?) would say they would be in the business of NOT finding solutions 'cause that would stop the money flow.

40 years ago Australia had some excellent government funded research facilities which used government money to find and develop new ideas into commercial reality and then sell / release them to general industry.
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was one of them. CSIRO was another.

The new energy source project would slot nicely into CSIRO which I think is still government owned. Otherwise it could be set up as a separate entity.

The idea of using government money to fund a large project is not new.
After all, the government thinks that the benefits of high speed porn is of sufficient benefit to the community that it warrants setting up a new government funded communications company just for the purpose. (NBN Company)
This is a bit of a joke since they have only just finished selling off their last communications company (Telstra) back to it's original owners, us taxpayers whose money they used to set it up in the first place.

Meanwhile the corporations in the business of burning things have no motivation to stop. In fact, they're motivated NOT to stop because it'd cost them money to move to different technology and every corporation is in the business of improving profit. Which means controlling costs.

That's right. They have no incentive to develop new technology which would bring about their own demise. That's why any new technology will have to be developed outside of their influence by an authority which is beyond their control. They can get on board later by buying any successful technology from the government funded research organisation.

On the other hand, if you slug a large corporate a big tax on their pollution, they instantly have lots of motivation to go find something cheaper. They have the motivation to both do the research and stop burning things.

They do, and they may well do this in a small way. However, their first reaction is to incorporate the extra charges into the final cost of their product, coal, oil, electricity, whatever.
They have to. It's the way the system works. No profit means no company which means no jobs which means financial disaster.
By having it a government funded project it becomes partly removed from the necessity to show a profit every year. I say partly because there will still be many who sledge the whole operation on the basis that "It's been operating for two years now and hasn't made a single cent!"

I've heard it all before.
Back in the 1960's I was boarding with an old chooky who couldn't understand why we (mostly the American Government) was spending millions of dollars sending up rockets to wizz around the world for "no good purpose other than their own amusement." (she said)
This was at the same time I was doing an engineering degree and in spite of my best efforts trying to explain that what she was looking at was a critical turning point in civilisation and particularly in communications, she remained totally unconvinced until the day she died.

Like it or not, we are at another critical turning point in civilisation.
If we shut our eyes and blindly forge straight ahead on the same path we are on now, we are going to run off the road,... at high speed. It wont be pretty!

KRudd was close to being right when he used the expression "the greatest moral challenge of our time".
He was wrong when he thought that it could be solved by a carbon trading scheme.
The problem will not be solved by putting bandaids on the present technology.
It will not be solved by cutting back emissions by 10%, 20%, any% simply because the rapidly increasing numbers will quickly drown out to the point of insignificance any small reductions.

It can only be solved by a totally new, clean, cheap and inexhaustible energy source.
It solves everything from water shortages, food shortages, air pollution, and yes,.. excessive atmospheric CO2, whether this is a problem or not.

SandS said...


Question to someone who understands.........

who is going to pay the carbon tax for the Desal plant about to be commissioned in victoria??

That's EASY !!!!!! taxpayers