Carbon Dioxide Tax

[Pollux]

This carbon tax is much like people who believe that "liking" a group on Facebook will have some sort of real life effect.

Based upon the tables I found in today's Daily Telegraph (so there is no certainty they are accurate) most people will not have their overall budget affected, we personally will as we are just at the top end of the "middle income earners" (household income of 130-140K) and from what I can tell it will cost us a total of $230 odd per year. Hardly the sort of money that is likely to make us totally change what we do day to day and try to converse energy.

And as Bribie has said, the effects of our country lowering it's CO2 emissions by 5% is really not going to have a large effect when looked at relative to the outputs of countries like China/India. Never mind the fact that no-one has been able to categorically prove that man-made CO2 emissions are causing any form of climate change that would have not occurred through the natural processes of the planet.

 

[Malted]

Yes carbon molecules can be bad for the environment. Let's think a little about what science that is informing our politicians, us and the great unwashed, and what it may or may not be telling us.

Let's take this for example: How Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is Affecting Your Health


Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

• Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
• Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
• Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
• DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
• Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
• Contributes to soil erosion.
• Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
• Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
• Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
• Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
• Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

• As an industrial solvent and coolant
• In nuclear power plants
• By the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels
• By elite athletes to improve performance
• In the production of Styrofoam
• In biological and chemical weapons manufacture
• As a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant
• In abortion clinics
• As a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs
• As a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation
• In cult rituals
• By the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families
• By both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches
• By pedophiles and pornographers (for uses we'd rather not say here)
• By the clientele at a number of homosexual bath houses in New York City and San Francisco
• Historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran
• In World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture
• By the Serbian military as authorized by Slobodan Milosevic in their recent ethnic cleansing campaign
• In animal research laboratories
• In pesticide production and distribution

DHMO is just water. Di = 2 Hydrous = H Mono = 1 Oxide = O H20. It is amazing what you can do with junk science.

 

[Malted]

This carbon tax is much like people who believe that "liking" a group on Facebook will have some sort of real life effect.

*Snip*

Never mind the fact that no-one has been able to categorically prove that man-made CO2 emissions are causing any form of climate change that would have not occurred through the natural processes of the planet.

 

[bum]

the effects of our country lowering it's CO2 emissions by 5% is really not going to have a large effect

There is data suggesting that a reduction of as little as 10% in global emissions could stop the damage progressing if it occurred quickly enough so 5% is not as insignificant as it seems. Of course, it will ultimately do nothing - and not because of China but because of complacent, comfortable arseholes thinking that they shouldn't have to do anything about it.

when looked at relative to the outputs of countries like China/India

If they jumped off a bridge, etc?

Never mind the fact that no-one has been able to categorically prove that man-made CO2 emissions are causing any form of climate change that would have not occurred through the natural processes of the planet.

There is significant evidence suggesting that this is the case. Even the fossil fuel industry has stopped spouting your bullshit. It's got me fucked why the Australian public is still pushing it.

 

[Pollux]

There is data suggesting that a reduction of as little as 10% in global emissions could stop the damage progressing if it occurred quickly enough so 5% is not as insignificant as it seems. Of course, it will ultimately do nothing - and not because of China but because of complacent, comfortable arseholes thinking that they shouldn't have to do anything about it.

Note your use of the word "global", unless this is going to occur on a global scale the end result won't be altered.

There is significant evidence suggesting that this is the case. Even the fossil fuel industry has stopped spouting your bullshit. It's got me fucked why the Australian public is still pushing it.

There is also significant evidence in the other direction. And even if we are responsible, then why not let our past choices run their course and see if mankind can learn to evolve, what is it with humans thinking they can control everything? In reality our best bet is to learn to adapt to living in a planet undergoing change and work on what we can do in that field....

 

[Eater]

Ive read through this BribieG and see more sense in your inciting of this debate than all the tv and radio coverage i have absorbed in my time at home this month.
Im still missing one pivotal point that is yet to be made clear, and i turn to you my learned colleagues and general genius

By taxing the companies that produce the most amount of "carbon" , who then pass this directly to consumers, who may or may not be undertaking their own reduction of pollution or "carbon" footprint, where is the incentive for the companies to reduce or change their current process?
Will they not continue to pay lipservice to Green movements and Brown words of wisdom and not actually change their ways whilst the public will pay more in 12 months from now, for the services they had less than a month ago at an already inflated rate.

Whilst I wish I could have faith in great change to awareness of the actual cost for items we as a whole consume on a daily basis, I have the overwhelming realisation as a realist that reality as a will send me reeling, really.

 

[colonel]

Not sure if the whole "we're too small to make a difference" argument stands up here.

Could you not extend that to a thousand things?

Like..."I'll take those 3 undersized fish, what difference can they make?"

Or..."tip fees are getting steep, how's one more ute load of crap in the bush gonna hurt?"

Or..."I wonder what those nude photo's of my kids will get me on the perv market, there's already heaps out there (I think)."

Don't get me wrong, I don't think what we do here is going to make a skerrick of difference to the worlds climate, but any change in attitudes and practices that will result in less pollution can't be a bad thing, can it? (I'm still on the fence regarding man made climate change).

And who knows, perhaps one country trying something could encourage other countries to have a go too.

Of course there could be a bit of pain for people working in any of the "unclean" industries, but, one day we'll run out of fossil fuels anyway, so why not think of some alternatives now?

People have thought the world was going to end in the past, because certain industries/hobbies have gone out of favour, and it didn't.

eg. whaling,
slavery
driving without a seatbelt
crackers (alas!)
and cutting the tails off dogs (wagging's the best fun they have, f$%k cosmetics!)

There's a couple I'd like to add to the list, like religion, tough guys, and women over 20 who think they can get away with wearing tights!

Anyway, I'm rambling here, it's good to hear the difference of views.

Oh, and to those people who keep banging on, and on, and on, and on...etc. about Julia the liar, I think she meant that if she was running the government, and, as we all know, BB is.

Cheers

 

[bum]

And even if we are responsible, then why not let our past choices run their course and see if mankind can learn to evolve, what is it with humans thinking they can control everything?

That is one of the most fucked things I have ever read.

I'm out. Most of you are morons.

 

[drew9242]

There is also significant evidence in the other direction. And even if we are responsible, then why not let our past choices run their course and see if mankind can learn to evolve, what is it with humans thinking they can control everything?

I Don't believe in evolution. But i can understand why people who believe these scientist about evolution (the same who are telling us carbon is causing global warming), can then think this statement. Evolution is a theory that we evolve over millions of years to what ever the world has thrown at us. The world changed and we evolved to make do with the changes. Like Pollux said why is this any different?

 

[kocken42]

Australia is a wealthy country, rich in many aspects.

Our people are educated and employed.

We should be the benchmark.

We should set the example and make the rule, not just in regards to climate change, but in all manner of advances.

 

[marksfish]

so Julia lied, so what, i can remember "non-core promises" being used by a former P.M not to mention children over-board and iraqi W.M.D. so the confected outrage seems a bit over the top to me. and if we shoudnt do anything on climate change because we can only have only have a small effect on the overall problem then we should apply the same logic to everything else in this country. such as disbanding the armed forces as they are so small compared to china and india.

 

[goomboogo]

what is it with humans thinking they can control everything?

So you believe we are better off just coping with what the world throws at us rather than the perceived evil of human intervention. Your logic would see us still attempting to cope with disasters such as small pox and polio. Would you prefer if humans had not tried to control such diseases? Would you prefer that we left it to nature to battle infection? How would the world be in a better position if millions of people were dying because nobody bothered to develop antibiotics.

 

[thelastspud]

This is a little bit :icon_offtopic:

So I'm generally for a reduction in carbon emissions but I think the priories are a little off

1 child dies every second in the world mostly from pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria,
measles HIV. In a third of all cases malnutrition plays a part. These are all pretty preventable
In the last 20 years the child mortality rates have dropped a lot. 8.1 million deaths in 2008 from 12.4 million deaths in 1990.
The gains have come from mostly international aid. proper sanitation, vaccines, food aid, oral dehydration solutions and son on.

So where does this fit into a discussion on carbon tax?

Well things going to be more expensive? food diesel petrol energy costs in general will go up for everyone.
So maybe this is a bit of a stretch but if costs for everything go up there will be less money for international aid.

Less money for international aid means more kids dying of preventable diseases.

So it could be said that trying to save the planet for the children of the future might kill the ones dying of preventable diseases right now.

Pollox said that this tax would probably cost him around 250 bucks a year. That's a fair bit of aid

So anyway in my opinion. Once the third world's rate of child mortality is the same as ours (3 kids per 1000 in Sweden 6.3 in the US) or at least a lot closer
We can start to spend money on carbon.

 

[goomboogo]

I Don't believe in evolution. But i can understand why people who believe these scientist about evolution (the same who are telling us carbon is causing global warming), can then think this statement. Evolution is a theory that we evolve over millions of years to what ever the world has thrown at us. The world changed and we evolved to make do with the changes. Like Pollux said why is this any different?

I can see why you don't believe in evolution. You don't actually know the proposition. At least learn something about natural selection before making such condemnations. I had better stop before I fall from the edge of the world.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

The best way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions would be to drastically reduce the world population.
We need a super virus to kill a shit-tonne of people.

 

[argon]

There's a couple I'd like to add to the list, like religion, tough guys, and women over 20 who think they can get away with wearing tights!

Whoaaaa there!!! This is getting outta hand! Let's not ever discourage this from happening;

 

[WarmBeer]

There's a couple I'd like to add to the list, like religion, tough guys, and women over 20 stone who think they can get away with wearing tights!

Fixed that for you.

 

[Pollux]

So you believe we are better off just coping with what the world throws at us rather than the perceived evil of human intervention. Your logic would see us still attempting to cope with disasters such as small pox and polio. Would you prefer if humans had not tried to control such diseases? Would you prefer that we left it to nature to battle infection? How would the world be in a better position if millions of people were dying because nobody bothered to develop antibiotics.

Slightly different concept. An infection going through the population we can control. Simple hygiene techniques such as a hand washing between patients made mass headways in that area. But you consider the scale of what we are trying to achieve here.......We are trying to cool/slow the heating of a planet that has it's own cycles that we really know very little about.

As I said, we would be better off putting funding into areas such as working on new forms of food (yes, I am talking about genetically modified food) that can handle a tougher climate, making advances in medicine to help allow healthcare to be produced cheaper and become more accessible to poorer nations, not some foolish tax that will achieve very little in reality to combat the supposed manmade climate change.

Bradley said it well, there are higher level concerns on this planet than a 1deg temperature increase.

 

[goomboogo]

So, you've changed your mind on this now.

what is it with humans thinking they can control everything?

Now, humans can take control, as long as the individual considers it ideologically suitable.

 

[Pollux]

There is a degree of what we can control, there is also a degree of what we can't control.......

Perhaps I should re-word that statement for the simpletons.....

"What is it with humans thinking that can control concepts so very much larger than themselves?"


Consider the Serenity Prayer.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.