Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Bully » Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:52 am

anyone else noticed or it is just me that since labor lost the last election ,that my bestie, fish has not posted on how the carbon tax is the best thing since sliced bread?
Bully
Coach
 
Posts: 12496
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:28 am
Location: The best place on earth
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 120 times

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Psyber » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:33 pm

What you get out of what you read is affected by the brain's filtering the input and measuring it with your prejudices and expectations.
We are all potentially vulnerable to that and need to strive for balanced comprehension rather than seeing (and believing) what fits the faith we already have.

It might be aptly called the "Jesus is on my toast phenomenon".
(But that displays my scepticism of religion and deviation there from majority opinion.)
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12212
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:30 pm

Even when 97% of climate scientists are saying it is so? But wait, of course, they are conditioned to think that way aren't they!
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Psyber » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:32 pm

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Even when 97% of climate scientists are saying it is so? But wait, of course, they are conditioned to think that way aren't they!

Roxy, I was saying it worked both ways and that all of us are affected by our pre-formed perceptions and need to be careful about that preventing us considering alternative views. I was not suggesting that only one side of any argument is influenced in this way.

However, history shows that majority scientific opinion has been wrong sometimes in the past, on several occasions in several sciences, and so it cannot be taken as a truth that the majority is always right..

I don't dispute that climate change is occurring - it has been obvious for years that it is - and I agree we should act to minimise the effects. I agree that current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for at least 500,000 years - the highest past peak was about 325,000 years ago - and that humanity is contributing to this. What I dispute is the assumption that humanity is the sole cause of this, rather than additive factor to long complex cycles.

I also take issue with weather records since 1890 or so being trotted out as proof of anything since they all date from immediately after the last mini-ice age (which lasted from about 1100AD until the late 19th century) and so, of course, show rising temperatures and CO2 levels - something would be very wrong if they did not do so.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12212
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:45 am

I agree that all of us are influenced by our preformed perceptions to some degree and need to be careful about that preventing us considering alternative views. My point is that we need to be equally careful that the few with pre determined views or vested interests are not allowed to disproportionally distort the discussion.

Psyber wrote:However, history shows that majority scientific opinion has been wrong sometimes in the past, on several occasions in several sciences, and so it cannot be taken as a truth that the majority is always right..

I don't dispute that climate change is occurring - it has been obvious for years that it is - and I agree we should act to minimise the effects. I agree that current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for at least 500,000 years - the highest past peak was about 325,000 years ago - and that humanity is contributing to this. What I dispute is the assumption that humanity is the sole cause of this, rather than additive factor to long complex cycles.


I'm not looking to cut in on Fish here but really? certainly the field of natural science has been wrong in the past, plate tectonics being a good example of this but generally this was in a time of limited technological experimentation and one which relied more on observation and perception, in particular, religious persuasions, which swayed thinking to a much greater extent.

The immense volume of data being gathered and analysed today is very strongly confirming that climate change is indeed occurring and that it is being driven by anthropogenic activity. The evidence to this affect is so strong that 97% of climate scientists are unified in their belief that that anthropogenic activity is driving climate change and statistically this is a very strong confidence level sitting above the recognised 95% deviation.

There will always be opponents to those things which threaten their interest and we can cite many examples where a few 'experts' argued vehemently against a mounting volume of evidence to the contrary. Smoking doesn't cause cancer, hydroflurocarbons have no impact on the ozone layer, creation is the origin of species rather than evolution and so on. It puzzles me that for most of these debates we ultimately have put faith in scientific rigour and acknowledged that there needs to be acceptance of this evidence with a view to change . But on the issue of climate change everyone seems to be a self professed expert in the field and therefore qualified to not only dispute the science but dismiss it if they wish. The interest groups seem to have done their job very well in this case, but they are exactly the people to whom you refer when you say we need to be careful about "our pre-formed perceptions and need to be careful about that preventing us considering alternative views". it is the few vocal self interested climate change deniers who are preventing meaningful and constructive action on this issue by clouding the facts with speculation.
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Psyber » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:53 pm

I wonder how many people genuinely believe climate change is not occurring - I don't understand how anyone realistic or rational can really believe that.

I've been convinced it has been occurring since the 1970s, yet I have been called a "climate-denier", at times in recent years, merely for being prepared to question the conventional view that human activity is the sole or even the major factor in it rather than just a substantial part of a more complex group of effects we still don't fully understand. I've never argued there was not a human contribution, nor that more industrialised countries contribute more to it, nor that we should take what action we can.

I have debated the issue of what the best action is, and whether solar technology is sufficient to the task. One of the big problems in dealing with CO2 output levels in industrialised countries is the total resistance of many to the use of nuclear energy, due to fear based on past incidents involving old technology and poor maintenance, given that safe options are now available that also produce waste of low half-life - 100-150 years for modern Uranium reactors, and 70 to 100 years with Thorium fission. (Thorium fission plants are melt-down proof.)

Yet the Chairman of the Conservation Foundation was only last year shown on TV stating that the half-life of nuclear waste is still "hundreds of thousands of years", a statement at deviance with easily accessible data, without there being any public criticism of his inaccuracy..


Another advantage of nuclear energy use is that it may make possible sufficient affordable energy supply to make economically possible the extraction of Hydrogen from sea water to use as fuel. Existing petrol engines can be converted easily to run on Hydrogen and all that comes out of the exhaust is water vapour - no C02, no particulates, and no poisonous by-products. I am not convinced renewable energy sources can do that cheaply enough, soon enough.

Diesels engines are another matter and add the complication of putting out incompletely oxidised complex hydrocarbons that the W.H.O. has confirmed are as carcinogenic as Asbestos. I'm always astounded that the same scientists who are so concerned about CO2 levels seem to be ignoring this one - as are governments, and even the trade unions who should be acting to protect workers from dangerous diesel exhaust components.

Then, there was convincing evidence that smoking contributed significantly to the incidence of heart disease published in the Lancet in the early 20th century that convinced the majority of medical experts, but it was disregarded by governments, the media, and the population for decades.

The danger is not from debating aspects of the science, or from the dissenting minorities in the science debate, but from commercial interests who want to suppress the debate entirely, or from governments that want to avoid being forced to take action that may be unpopular and cause them to lose power.

Their needs may be served by narrowing the focus into one aspect of the issue while suppressing debate about the broader issues.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12212
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:25 pm

Well said, I tend to agree on the matter of nuclear power generation although I do not profess to know a great deal about it. Self interest is what is holding back significant action to mitigate and adapt to the changing climate and you are very correct in stating Governments inaction due to not wanting to be unpopular. Labor had a shot with the carbon tax and it got them belted at the election (although labor was belted over more than just the carbon tax), but it was significant in the oppositions attack. This is when economists the world over are saying that a market based initiative is the best means of reducing CO2 emissions. Self interest in the politics, self interest in business, and as you correctly state, self interest from the environmental sector.

I take your point that we need to remain vigilant to increasing our understanding of climatic influences and the interrelationships however I still think the time for debate on anthropogenic influences is now over and we need to get on with emissions reductions, and adaptation. The continuance of this debate is merely another stalling tactic by groups with self interests that do not benefit from such actions.
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Mon May 19, 2014 2:47 pm

The Federal Government is proposing to cut the Carbon tax which applied a financial penalty to the highest CO2 emitting companies and yielded $4.1 Bn in 2012/2013. This funded the labor Government's Clean Energy Futures program which was used to reduce and offset CO2 emissions through a range of initiatives.

In contrast the current Federal Government is proposing to hit taxpayers directly to the tune of $2.55 Bn to fund its Direct Action Policy which will be used to reduce and offset CO2 emissions through a range of initiatives including paying the highest CO2 emitting companies to reduce their emissions.

This has not been adequately highlighted in the budget or the media as it has been overshadowed by the cuts to Welfare, Health and Education.
It is however another significant hit to the taxpayer that the Government is not coming clean about.
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby bennymacca » Wed May 21, 2014 12:33 pm

Seems ridiculous when they are penny pinching from the old and disabled just to fund the budget, whilst foregoing a huge pile of money here.

Guess they know who writes their cheques...
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Jimmy_041 » Wed May 21, 2014 2:07 pm

**** me, I got a quarter way down the page and I-) I-)
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Wed May 21, 2014 11:35 pm

You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby gossipgirl » Thu May 22, 2014 1:54 pm

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.



I didnt think Liberal Stoogies had to pay tax ? :lol:
Adelaide Crows World champions 2017 - Crows 4.11 to Lions 4.5
gossipgirl
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Looking for all the Boats
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 57 times
Grassroots Team: Boston

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Psyber » Sat May 24, 2014 11:54 am

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.

I lean towards a genuine and effective direct action policy backed up by support to change technology.

My reasons? Both a Carbon Tax and a Emissions Trading Scheme simply give governments and those who generate pollution an easy out.
You pay money and go on doing things the same old way while passing on the extra cost to the public via increased charges for energy.
Or you get things made for you overseas and move the pollution output from your factory to theirs...

The only reduction of pollution then comes from the public using less energy due to cost, but using less energy is not that easy, especially if you don't live in the inner city and, therefore, can't avoid running a car, and can't use cheaper natural gas (available only in cities or close suburbs) for heating instead of electricity. The less well off thus suffer more than the rich from these approaches.

I'd have had more sympathy for both a tax or a trading scheme if the money raised had been isolated from general revenue and used to subsidise changing technology, as both the Greens and the Aussie Democrats had originally advocated, and the polluters had been motivated more by not being allowed to just pass the costs on to the end user.

The viable direct action alternative is to legislate a requirement to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so.
(We must avoid political efforts to help the statistics look good by subsidising token actions with little real effect, just to buy votes.)
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12212
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Sat May 24, 2014 4:09 pm

Psyber wrote:
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.

I lean towards a genuine and effective direct action policy backed up by support to change technology.

My reasons? Both a Carbon Tax and a Emissions Trading Scheme simply give governments and those who generate pollution an easy out.
You pay money and go on doing things the same old way while passing on the extra cost to the public via increased charges for energy.
Or you get things made for you overseas and move the pollution output from your factory to theirs...

The only reduction of pollution then comes from the public using less energy due to cost, but using less energy is not that easy, especially if you don't live in the inner city and, therefore, can't avoid running a car, and can't use cheaper natural gas (available only in cities or close suburbs) for heating instead of electricity. The less well off thus suffer more than the rich from these approaches.

I'd have had more sympathy for both a tax or a trading scheme if the money raised had been isolated from general revenue and used to subsidise changing technology, as both the Greens and the Aussie Democrats had originally advocated, and the polluters had been motivated more by not being allowed to just pass the costs on to the end user.

The viable direct action alternative is to legislate a requirement to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so.
(We must avoid political efforts to help the statistics look good by subsidising token actions with little real effect, just to buy votes.)


I agree, however I believe the money required 'to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so' should be generated by taxing those companies who are not undertaking genuine effort, rather than funding it out of general revenue.
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby bennymacca » Sun May 25, 2014 1:26 am

direct action is just a smokescreen for doing fk all.

the fact that they scrapped the climate comission and dont even have a minister for science shows the contempt they have. if it hurts the hip pocket it must be bullshit. makes me so angry that they essentially try and and accuse scientists of being biased when they are on the take from the big mining companies.
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Psyber » Mon May 26, 2014 12:31 pm

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:
Psyber wrote:
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.

I lean towards a genuine and effective direct action policy backed up by support to change technology.

My reasons? Both a Carbon Tax and a Emissions Trading Scheme simply give governments and those who generate pollution an easy out.
You pay money and go on doing things the same old way while passing on the extra cost to the public via increased charges for energy.
Or you get things made for you overseas and move the pollution output from your factory to theirs...

The only reduction of pollution then comes from the public using less energy due to cost, but using less energy is not that easy, especially if you don't live in the inner city and, therefore, can't avoid running a car, and can't use cheaper natural gas (available only in cities or close suburbs) for heating instead of electricity. The less well off thus suffer more than the rich from these approaches.

I'd have had more sympathy for both a tax or a trading scheme if the money raised had been isolated from general revenue and used to subsidise changing technology, as both the Greens and the Aussie Democrats had originally advocated, and the polluters had been motivated more by not being allowed to just pass the costs on to the end user.

The viable direct action alternative is to legislate a requirement to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so.
(We must avoid political efforts to help the statistics look good by subsidising token actions with little real effect, just to buy votes.)


I agree, however I believe the money required 'to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so' should be generated by taxing those companies who are not undertaking genuine effort, rather than funding it out of general revenue.

Agreed - as I said my objection to the Carbon Tax and the proposed ETS was that the money raised was going into general revenue and not being set aside to be used for the purpose of supporting active technology change - thus achieving nothing for the price rises it generated.

(And that letting them pass the costs on to the consumer rendered it totally lacking in any motivational effect.)
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12212
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Booney » Mon May 26, 2014 4:12 pm

Now we know why the Earth is warming :

Joe Barton ( Republican Texas )

In June 2010, Barton questioned the wisdom of deficit spending to fund an extensive national wind turbine energy generation grid. He said,

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about."
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58208
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7466 times
Been liked: 10753 times

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby bennymacca » Mon May 26, 2014 4:47 pm

'murica
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby bulldogproud2 » Mon May 26, 2014 8:44 pm

Booney wrote:Now we know why the Earth is warming :

Joe Barton ( Republican Texas )

In June 2010, Barton questioned the wisdom of deficit spending to fund an extensive national wind turbine energy generation grid. He said,

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about."


Joe Barton is simply just full of wind!
bulldogproud2
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:24 pm
Location: West Beach or Henley Oval
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 51 times
Grassroots Team: Imperials

Re: Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

Postby Roxy the Rat Girl » Tue May 27, 2014 8:49 pm

I can think of something else he's full of!
"cricket is the most important activity in men's lives, the most important thread in the fabric of the cosmos"
User avatar
Roxy the Rat Girl
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm
Has liked: 41 times
Been liked: 34 times
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |