Global Warming

[Liverpool]

you are right. we are not a world leader. we are following in the footsteps of the EU, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, New Zealand, California and several other US states, who already have an ETS or similar. We have however acted ahead of Japan, South Korea and several provinces and cities in China who are about to introduce an ETS (or similar.)

So what if we aren't the first to introduce such a scheme but we are the world leader in the price....$23 per tonne to China's $1.55 per tonne.
I'm sure that'll keep our businesses competitive with China....NOT!

These countries above you speak about have put such plans in place to appease while attempting to keep their economy and businesses viable.
The carbon tax here is meant to be a world leader at using it to drive massive change at the expense of our businesses.

is a copout. Australia, with about .3% of the worlds population produces 3% of the worlds emissions, but we should just carry on and let others worry about it?
at what % stage should a country act? 10%? 15%? 20%? or should everyone just say it is not their problem.

anyway i thought you didnt think man was influencing global warming? why try argue other points, such as an ETS is the wrong solution, or it is not our problem to try to assist with the solution if you dont think there is a problem to begin with?

You are right, I don't think man has that big of an influence on climate change as many make out, so why do you think I am arguing against a carbon tax for?
But to top it off, even IF human intervention was the main factor in climate change, I still don't think a carbon tax in Australia makes one iota of difference in the grand scheme of things.

It isn't a copout but simple logic.
I read somewhere last year (can't find the link but will keep looking) that Australia could be shut down tomorrow and it would not make one bit of difference to global warming.
Like I said, we emit 3% of the world's emissions so a carbon tax here to save the planet from global warming is akin to p!ssing on a bushfire.

If the planet is fair dinkum about man-made pollutants being the main reason for climate change then I would have thought that it would be imperative to go hard and go early at countries that spew the most emissions first and work your way down the list from there?

 

[AngryAnt]

Sorry Livers, I'm in Bali this week travelling like you apparently did for a couple of years so haven't been keeping my end up in this debate.

IIRC Australia is one of the highest global emmitters of CO2 on a per capita basis in the world.

BTW still waiting for you to condemn the evil market distorting subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Australia as this is socialist market interference that costs us all in tax and prevents renewables from competing on cost, attractiveness to investors, R&D etc etc etc reductio ad infinitum

Kthnxbi

 

[Brodders17]

If the planet is fair dinkum about man-made pollutants being the main reason for climate change then I would have thought that it would be imperative to go hard and go early at countries that spew the most emissions first and work your way down the list from there?

or go hard at the people that emit the most emissions. ie Australians.

 

[Liverpool]

Sorry Livers, I'm in Bali this week travelling like you apparently did for a couple of years so haven't been keeping my end up in this debate.

IIRC Australia is one of the highest global emmitters of CO2 on a per capita basis in the world.

BTW still waiting for you to condemn the evil market distorting subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in Australia as this is socialist market interference that costs us all in tax and prevents renewables from competing on cost, attractiveness to investors, R&D etc etc etc reductio ad infinitum

Kthnxbi

Why is it that with this debate, there are people who always look at the "per capita" figures to try and make their case more attrative? :spin
They mean squat, Antman.
If one man is on a desert island and he has a large bloody bonfire going, you know what, per capita he would most likely be the biggest emitter in the world.
Does killing him save the planet from global warming?
No, because his fire is only 0.00000001% of the world's emissions and affects the planet not one iota.
So per capita figures are worth diddly in this argument.

Some heavyweights leading this list :hihi watch out Netherlands Antilles, Antman is out to get you! olice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

or go hard at the people that emit the most emissions. ie Australians.

see above

 

[AngryAnt]

That's a very longwinded rationalisation for saying that the people who pollute and consume the most should just keep on doing it.

By the way, none of the actions that we as individuals make a great deal of difference. But - pay attention here Livers, this concerns you - they do make a finite difference. Through the magic of a thing called mathematics, we can even quantify the totality of human actions and effects.

Maths Liverpool. It helps you understand things. Suggest you look into it.

So anyways, I take it that you are pro-socialist style market interference then?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Why is it that with this debate, there are people who always look at the "per capita" figures to try and make their case more attrative? :spin
They mean squat, Antman.
If one man is on a desert island and he has a large bloody bonfire going, you know what, per capita he would most likely be the biggest emitter in the world.
Does killing him save the planet from global warming?
No, because his fire is only 0.00000001% of the world's emissions and affects the planet not one iota.
So per capita figures are worth diddly in this argument.

There is such a man. It is you. And 22 million of yours and my best mates are on an island that sits abreast the Pacific and the Indian oceans and we're emitting more carbon (or just call it pollution if you like) each than almost anyone on the planet. Think of it like bullying. If the smallest weakest kids tries to make a stand he doesn't have much of a chance, but does that mean he shouldn't? And what happens when he does, and his neighbours notice. And then they stand?

 

[Sintiger]

There is such a man. It is you. And 22 million of yours and my best mates are on an island that sits abreast the Pacific and the Indian oceans and we're emitting more carbon (or just call it pollution if you like) each than almost anyone on the planet. Think of it like bullying. If the smallest weakest kids tries to make a stand he doesn't have much of a chance, but does that mean he shouldn't? And what happens when he does, and his neighbours notice. And then they stand?

Exactly. This whole argument that we can't make a difference is such a crock.

How about we all take our share of the responsibility? Virtually nothing we do as individuals makes a difference, so why vote, why give $50 to the salvos, why separate garbage into recycling bins? If we all do it then it does make a difference. No difference at a national level. Maybe we could lead, maybe we could set an example for others?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Virtually nothing we do as individuals makes a difference, so why vote, why give $50 to the salvos, why separate garbage into recycling bins?

Been my philsosphy for years

 

[Giardiasis]

Exactly. This whole argument that we can't make a difference is such a crock.

How about we all take our share of the responsibility? Virtually nothing we do as individuals makes a difference, so why vote, why give $50 to the salvos, why separate garbage into recycling bins? If we all do it then it does make a difference. No difference at a national level. Maybe we could lead, maybe we could set an example for others?

I know you aren't going to like this sinny, but this post is clearly how the left operate. The policy itself is more important than the results of the policy.

The whole argument is clearly not a crock, if you think that 0.00024 deg C doesn't constitute making a difference (assuming the output won't be taken up somewhere else in the world).

 

[Sintiger]

I know you aren't going to like this sinny, but this post is clearly how the left operate. The policy itself is more important than the results of the policy.

The whole argument is clearly not a crock, if you think that 0.00024 deg C doesn't constitute making a difference (assuming the output won't be taken up somewhere else in the world).

I was addressing a generic point. What individuals or small nations do is insignificant, so there is no point in doing anything . I could have been addressing anything which is why I gave the examples I did which are not related to global warming. The point I was trying to make is that if we took that attitude to many things in our lives and in society then not much would ever get done.

Forget global warming for a moment, it's not about that. You have missed the point.

What the ?*%& has that got to do with left and right ? Do you ever argue anything without putting people's views in your neat little spreadsheet of lefties and righties in your head?

 

[Giardiasis]

I was addressing a generic point. What individuals or small nations do is insignificant, so there is no point in doing anything . I could have been addressing anything which is why I gave the examples I did which are not related to global warming. The point I was trying to make is that if we took that attitude to many things in our lives and in society then not much would ever get done.

Forget global warming for a moment, it's not about that. You have missed the point.

What the ?*%& has that got to do with left and right ? Do you ever argue anything without putting people's views in your neat little spreadsheet of lefties and righties in your head?

Bollocks, you were addressing the argument critics of the carbon dioxide tax make, that it will make no difference.

AGW has everything to do with the political compass. You've put forward the notion that a carbon dioxide tax is important to be doing our bit for the climate. Or am I wrong, and you in fact do not support a carbon dioxide tax or similar?

 

[Sintiger]

Bollocks, you were addressing the argument critics of the carbon dioxide tax make, that it will make no difference.

AGW has everything to do with the political compass. You've put forward the notion that a carbon dioxide tax is important to be doing our bit for the climate. Or am I wrong, and you in fact do not support a carbon dioxide tax or similar?

You are funny. Once again you have tried to tell me what i believe and once again you are wrong.

I was not addressing that at all. I suggest you have a look back at this thread and see if you can find one opinion that i have expressed on AGW. You won't find one because I haven't given one.

My point is this. Argue all you like about the science, it's why I look at this thread along with other sites to try and inform myself on that subject. However don't trot out this argument that what we do as a nation and as individuals makes no difference. Just for a moment accept that AGW is real and we have to do something about it. If that is the case then everyone needs to do something, even a country with 3% of the world's carbon emissions. This argument is one I have heard over and over on many subjects, that what i do or what we do as a nation is too small to make a difference. It's a bollocks argument .

The discussion should be about the science, not about that.

My opinion on AGW is a simple one. I don't understand the science and I am not a scientist. Right now my opinion is based on 2 things
1. Even if you and the sceptics are right reducing emissions and energy use in general is a good thing.
2. I approach it like an insurance policy. What if it is real and is the cost of ignoring that possibility is too high?

That may sound non scientific to you because it is. I don't understand it completely and i freely admit it.

That has nothing to do with left or right , zero.

 

[AngryAnt]

AGW has everything to do with the political compass. You've put forward the notion that a carbon dioxide tax is important to be doing our bit for the climate. Or am I wrong, and you in fact do not support a carbon dioxide tax or similar?

Wrong again G-man. The Libs accept AGW, only their policy approach to it differs. John Howard's government did too, and an ETS was bipartisan policy for a while. It's only left right politics in so far as you want to make it so.

 

[Giardiasis]

You are funny. Once again you have tried to tell me what i believe and once again you are wrong.

So you don't support a carbon dioxide tax or similar?

 

[Giardiasis]

Wrong again G-man. The Libs accept AGW, only their policy approach to it differs. John Howard's government did too, and an ETS was bipartisan policy for a while. It's only left right politics in so far as you want to make it so.

Call me nuts, but you take a group of lefties, and a group of conservatives, and I bet you I could pick the majority that think AGW is real, and those that do not. The libs accept AGW, well they also accept the minimum wage, yet I don't think you will find that policy to be found in a conservative's guide to policy making.

 

[Sintiger]

So you don't support a carbon dioxide tax or similar?

No I don't really support it but I do support action to reduce emissions and also to reduce electricity usage. For instance i support the VEET scheme in Victoria which has been running for a few years which makes energy generators buy certificates which have been created from electricity reduction actions such as solar hot water, stand by power controllers etc. Even if it is not necessary from an AGW point of view a scheme like that reduces power consumption and therefore delays investment in infrastructure which has been the main driver for power cost increases to consumers.

Even though I am not a supporter of the carbon tax I do believe that the affect of it will be far less than what many expect and that some of the rhetoric about it is quite laughable.

 

[AngryAnt]

Call me nuts, but you take a group of lefties, and a group of conservatives, and I bet you I could pick the majority that think AGW is real, and those that do not. The libs accept AGW, well they also accept the minimum wage, yet I don't think you will find that policy to be found in a conservative's guide to policy making.

On this point you are probably right. The conservative rank and file will be dragged along kicking and screaming as the more practical policy leaders take the initiative

 

[Liverpool]

There is such a man. It is you. And 22 million of yours and my best mates are on an island that sits abreast the Pacific and the Indian oceans and we're emitting more carbon (or just call it pollution if you like) each than almost anyone on the planet. Think of it like bullying. If the smallest weakest kids tries to make a stand he doesn't have much of a chance, but does that mean he shouldn't? And what happens when he does, and his neighbours notice. And then they stand?

The problem Knighters is that we are 22-million out of 7.025 billion....thats 0.31% of the world's population.

How anyone can justify the Australian Government, the Australian people, and Australian business to more or less destroy ourselves in a competitive global market thinking that 0.31% of the world can have any bearing on GLOBAL warming is just insane.

"Make a stand" you say...sounds all very noble but its not very logical or smart.

Exactly. This whole argument that we can't make a difference is such a crock.

How about we all take our share of the responsibility? Virtually nothing we do as individuals makes a difference, so why vote, why give $50 to the salvos, why separate garbage into recycling bins? If we all do it then it does make a difference. No difference at a national level. Maybe we could lead, maybe we could set an example for others?

Set an example to the rest of the world?

0.31% of the world's population that emits less than 3% of the worlds emissions is going to set an example....yeah, in how to implode and go it alone and be a laughing stock on the world stage.

The highlighted parts in your post I marked in bold because you mention the word "all".
There is no "all".

Not only do we have a high carbon trading price compared to other nations with a similar scheme (I think we are over 20 times more expensive compared to China) but these nations will see it as a chance to gain even more market share in the manufacturing sector as businesses here look to move to countries with either no scheme or at least a very low ("token") carbon price.

On top of this, we are not lowering emissions as the problem will be moved to another country and our economy will take a hit from higher unemployment (high Australian dollar + cheap overseas goods and now a carbon tax to make the decision easy for businesses lookjing at going elsewhere) and higher costs passed on from businesses who do stay here (such as electricity...see Synergy).
You will also get businesses who will see the carbon tax as a chance to justify price rises in their good/services even though they may only be marginally affected (see Brumby's and a cemetery already)

In a GLOBAL issue such as climate change, the word "all" has to be ALL countries and quite clearly at the moment, it is not.

Go hard at the countries who emit the majority of the pollutions and work down the list from there.
For us to attempt to be a market leader by trying to up the carbon price is bloody ridiculous especially when our population and therefore total emissions are inconsequential on the big stage.

 

[bullus_hit]

Go hard at the countries who emit the majority of the pollutions and work down the list from there.
For us to attempt to be a market leader by trying to up the carbon price is bloody ridiculous especially when our population and therefore total emissions are inconsequential on the big stage.

It's also about innovation and a new energy paradigm. All the renewables are still in their infancy and it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies. If ever there was a boom waiting to explode, it's energy and it won't be fossil fuel. Australia used to be a world leader in that regard, but a series of governments welded onto the coal industry have ensured very little recent progress. Most of our solar entrepreneurs have moved to China and those that remain are faced with a very hostile energy policy.

 

[Sintiger]

In a GLOBAL issue such as climate change, the word "all" has to be ALL countries and quite clearly at the moment, it is not.

I will just address this point. (As pointed out to Gia, my point is that i don't agree with the contention that individuals and countries can excuse themselves from action if they see that action as insignificant.)

You are right, it is not all. My question is this. As a rule of thumb what is the share of emissions that a country has to have before it is significant enough to make a difference? It's not 3% according to you so what is it 10%, 20% ? You say start at the top and then work down. So I assume from that you suggest that unless the largest emitting country does something then everyone else should do nothing? Or does that only apply to countries at say less than 10% of emissions?

What is significant and what is insignificant?