Global Warming

[poppa x]

I'm a very confusded old Tiger when it comes to the carbon tax.
So who can help me out of my confusion?
As I see it, here's the problem.
The way to change behaviour is to make "bad" things more expensive so people buy/use less of these bad things and start buying/producing/using more of the "good" things.
For example, if I want my 10 year old to buy less lollies, then I'd be in favour of the store keeper putting the price up.
But this would be a pointless excercise if my wife compensated the 10 year old by giving him/her more pocket money. So the same amount of lollies gets produced and we're no better off.
Applying this simple logic to carbon, how can we hope to reduce carbon useage if the consumers of carbon based products (us) are compensated for the increase in price? Doesn't this maintain the status quo? For the life of me I can't see how a compensated carbon tax will change human behaviour. And isn't a change in human behaviour the fundamental trigger for a reduction in carbon based products?
I should add that I want a reduction in carbon in the atmosphere. I'm just not sure any of our pollies are on the right tram.

Can anyone help me out here?

 

[mld]

I don't agree with the compensation either - polluters should pay, and consumers are polluters. However, the theory is, even with greater than 100% compensation to consumers and/or businesses, the tax still represents a cost; that is, if a business can reduce its expenditure by reducing carbon dioxide emmissions, then it will have a competitive advantage over a business that does not.

 

[Tiger74]

I'm a very confusded old Tiger when it comes to the carbon tax.
So who can help me out of my confusion?
As I see it, here's the problem.
The way to change behaviour is to make "bad" things more expensive so people buy/use less of these bad things and start buying/producing/using more of the "good" things.
For example, if I want my 10 year old to buy less lollies, then I'd be in favour of the store keeper putting the price up.
But this would be a pointless excercise if my wife compensated the 10 year old by giving him/her more pocket money. So the same amount of lollies gets produced and we're no better off.
Applying this simple logic to carbon, how can we hope to reduce carbon useage if the consumers of carbon based products (us) are compensated for the increase in price? Doesn't this maintain the status quo? For the life of me I can't see how a compensated carbon tax will change human behaviour. And isn't a change in human behaviour the fundamental trigger for a reduction in carbon based products?
I should add that I want a reduction in carbon in the atmosphere. I'm just not sure any of our pollies are on the right tram.

Can anyone help me out here?

because when your kid finds out the new sugar reduced lollies are 50c cheaper, he starts buying more of them.

look at it this way, right now you can get a energy guzzling piece of crap dryer from China that costs bugger all. Cost of carbon will not force you to hang everything on the line, but will make the cheap rubbish less price advantageous than something well designed and more energy efficient. As such, you still buy a dryer, but the cost penalty for buying a decent one is lless.

 

[jb03]

because when your kid finds out the new sugar reduced lollies are 50c cheaper, he starts buying more of them.

look at it this way, right now you can get a energy guzzling piece of crap dryer from China that costs bugger all. Cost of carbon will not force you to hang everything on the line, but will make the cheap rubbish less price advantageous than something well designed and more energy efficient. As such, you still buy a dryer, but the cost penalty for buying a decent one is lless.

Kids hate reduced sugar lollies

 

[Tiger74]

Kids hate reduced sugar lollies

Not when it's their money they are spending, then it comes down to maximum candy for their buck

Same reason you drink Aldi beer :hihi

 

[jb03]

Not when it's their money they are spending, then it comes down to maximum candy for their buck

Same reason you drink Aldi beer :hihi

Excuse me, Aldi shandies if you don't mind.

Whatever happened to Swan super light?

 

[TigerForce]

Global Warming??

I just saw an SBS doc ad last night for the Ice Age to happen again.....

 

[Tiger74]

Excuse me, Aldi shandies if you don't mind.

Whatever happened to Swan super light?

Folded when Redford switched to West Coast Coolers

 

[Merveille]

Global Warming Thread for Deniers, Flat-Earthers and Bogans

Glardiasis and other dummies, check this editorial out. An excellent piece with links included, reflecting what the Climate Change debate has become for those who Believe - and also what it is for us dummies..

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/of_cate_and_hate/

 

[Freezer]

Re: Global Warming Thread for Deniers, Flat-Earthers and Bogans

I don't understand.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Saw something amusing, or alarming, on the news today. Greenpeace put up a huge 'cheque' at the offices of BHP (I think), for 338 milliondollars. They claim that this is what BHP would have paid if a carbon tax was already in place. My questions are: How do they know what the figure is if the government has continually stated that they haven't fixed a price yet. If the figure is correct, then have the government been lying to us (again)? If the first answer is the government haven't, then Greenpeace's credibility is shot. If Greenpeace are right, then the government has a bit of explaining to do.

 

[Tiger74]

Saw something amusing, or alarming, on the news today. Greenpeace put up a huge 'cheque' at the offices of BHP (I think), for 338 milliondollars. They claim that this is what BHP would have paid if a carbon tax was already in place. My questions are: How do they know what the figure is if the government has continually stated that they haven't fixed a price yet. If the figure is correct, then have the government been lying to us (again)? If the first answer is the government haven't, then Greenpeace's credibility is shot. If Greenpeace are right, then the government has a bit of explaining to do.

Knowing green peace they probably just calculated with the $40 a tonne price the greens want.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Re: Global Warming Thread for Deniers, Flat-Earthers and Bogans

Glardiasis and other dummies, check this editorial out. An excellent piece with links included, reflecting what the Climate Change debate has become for those who Believe - and also what it is for us dummies..

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/of_cate_and_hate/

An excellent piece? More like an exercise in playing the victim with a sprinkling of the condoning of death threats.

It is a bit rich that they claim that the pro-lobby is claiming arguments from authority - ie. "I am scientist so you have to believe me without question". Those scientists are communicating the scientific position on climate change. This can be verified from the literature. Why else would they be doing it? Those juicy checks from 'Big-Green'? If you actually believe that then you have certainly drank deep from the conspiracy Kool-Aid.

Studying complex systems is hard, intellectually challenging work. You can't take shortcuts, you can't bluff. The nature of the scientific process will shut that type of operation down. Scientists can make their careers over showing where other scientists are wrong. When denialists, such as yourself, come out and claim that the scientific consensus is wrong, without pointing out where the specific flaw lie, or what a better model is, then of course they will be dismissed. It is scientifically lazy and more accurately, unscientific to argue in this fashion. If you aren't prepared to do the hard work, don't be surprised if your arguments aren't taken seriously. This is exacerbated by vested interest - there is big money in carbon-emitting industries. AGW being false would be financially beneficial for such industries. Casting doubt over AGW is in their interest and cherry picking data is the modus operandi of such an operation.

 

[ozserpico66]

Re: Global Warming Thread for Deniers, Flat-Earthers and Bogans

An excellent piece? More like an exercise in playing the victim with a sprinkling of the condoning of death threats.

It is a bit rich that they claim that the pro-lobby is claiming arguments from authority - ie. "I am scientist so you have to believe me without question". Those scientists are communicating the scientific position on climate change. This can be verified from the literature. Why else would they be doing it? Those juicy checks from 'Big-Green'? If you actually believe that then you have certainly drank deep from the conspiracy Kool-Aid.

Studying complex systems is hard, intellectually challenging work. You can't take shortcuts, you can't bluff. The nature of the scientific process will shut that type of operation down. Scientists can make their careers over showing where other scientists are wrong. When denialists, such as yourself, come out and claim that the scientific consensus is wrong, without pointing out where the specific flaw lie, or what a better model is, then of course they will be dismissed. It is scientifically lazy and more accurately, unscientific to argue in this fashion. If you aren't prepared to do the hard work, don't be surprised if your arguments aren't taken seriously. This is exacerbated by vested interest - there is big money in carbon-emitting industries. AGW being false would be financially beneficial for such industries. Casting doubt over AGW is in their interest and cherry picking data is the modus operandi of such an operation.

Would it not also be correct to say that there is big money to be made in "clean energy" industries and Carbon trading? I fully expect that down the track the trading floor at my workplace will be expanded to include a few carbon traders who will be manipulating this market in the same way other commodity markets are no doubt currently manipulated.

The same evil big business that drills for oil and digs up coal will be making millions out of solar energy, wind farms etc. GE is a perfect example of this. Is it any wonder that its CEO Jeffrey Immelt was recently installed as the leader of Obama Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Follow the money

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Global Warming Thread for Deniers, Flat-Earthers and Bogans

Would it not also be correct to say that there is big money to be made in "clean energy" industries and Carbon trading? I fully expect that down the track the trading floor at my workplace will be expanded to include a few carbon traders who will be manipulating this market in the same way other commodity markets are no doubt currently manipulated.

The same evil big business that drills for oil and digs up coal will be making millions out of solar energy, wind farms etc. GE is a perfect example of this. Is it any wonder that its CEO Jeffrey Immelt was recently installed as the leader of Obama Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Follow the money

And this is why big business is starting to change their strategic technology planning and investment. The writing is on the wall, either get on the train or go broke. Personally I don't care whether it's big business or small business that goes green, as long as they all start to do it. The fact that there is money to be made as old technologies/industries are phased out and replaced by new, cleaner ones actually gives me hope rather than makes me despair.

 

[tigersnake]

I see. So if we made the tax bigger the economy would be even more stimulated, right?

It's like a magic pudding!

The short answer is actually yes. But being an anonymous footy forum where long policy and data heavy lengthy replies are pointless, suffice to say, you have to have transition stategies in order to turn around an economy, which is like turning around an aircraft carrier. Economists have been tossing around ways to tax pollution for 30 or 40 years, none of this is new.

The magic pudding analogy is actually a good one to apply to burning fossil fuels, for 100 years we thought it was a magic pudding of cheap energy, we now know different. Come on evo, lift.

 

[tigersnake]

I'm a very confusded old Tiger when it comes to the carbon tax.
So who can help me out of my confusion?
As I see it, here's the problem.
The way to change behaviour is to make "bad" things more expensive so people buy/use less of these bad things and start buying/producing/using more of the "good" things.
For example, if I want my 10 year old to buy less lollies, then I'd be in favour of the store keeper putting the price up.
But this would be a pointless excercise if my wife compensated the 10 year old by giving him/her more pocket money. So the same amount of lollies gets produced and we're no better off.
Applying this simple logic to carbon, how can we hope to reduce carbon useage if the consumers of carbon based products (us) are compensated for the increase in price? Doesn't this maintain the status quo? For the life of me I can't see how a compensated carbon tax will change human behaviour. And isn't a change in human behaviour the fundamental trigger for a reduction in carbon based products?
I should add that I want a reduction in carbon in the atmosphere. I'm just not sure any of our pollies are on the right tram.

Can anyone help me out here?

the compo is just a transition strategy untill people get used to it. Because its indirect, the government is banking on behaviour change, which should happen. People will receive a bigger power bill and think 'Holy *smile*, get rid of that beer frige and turn down the air con'. They won't be thinking ''Ill wait for the compo cheque to pay it'. But when they receive the compo cheque they'll go 'You bewdy I'm off to Harvey norman/ Phuket/ the bank/ whatever' .You have to pragmatic about it, particularly in politics. Under Gilliards model low and middle income will actually be better off in the short term. But they still don't want it.

 

[mld]

Under Gilliards model low and middle income will actually be better off in the short term. But they still don't want it.

Ungrateful sods.

 

[tigersnake]

Re: Global Warming Thread for Deniers, Flat-Earthers and Bogans

Glardiasis and other dummies, check this editorial out. An excellent piece with links included, reflecting what the Climate Change debate has become for those who Believe - and also what it is for us dummies..

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/of_cate_and_hate/

Flat earthers = blogs
Climate scientists = peer reviewed journals

same old same old.

again, it always amazes me how people only seem to reject the science they don't like. It would be funny if it wasn;t so serious..

 

[tigersnake]

Ungrateful sods.

Come on mld, sarcasm and all that. By the way, I apologise for calling you a blacksmith, dunno what came over me.