Author Topic: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading  (Read 22918 times)

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5561
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2009, 04:34:12 PM »
All the talk about Global warning is just a spin so the goverments of the world can suck money from everyone so they can live up life & everyone is paying for it

its all rubbish
Finally someone has entered the discussion who can see this whole crap for what it really is.  :clapping

I couldn't agree more Monk!  :thumbsup

did anyone see Al Gore's recent comment that we have to all become vegetarian because livestock consume too much water and expend too much methane into the atmosphere. What a putz!!  :wallywink

It has also been revealed that due to methane emissions generated by cows, under an ETS, cattle would be taxed at an average of $75 per head. Farmers would not be able to sustain that. An ETS will rape primary industry till the point we will have no industry at all.

Good one Rudd you Ego manic.  :chuck You are going to hell in a handbasket and taking us all along for the ride! But at least everyone at Copenhagen will think you are a star while you are systematically stuffing up your own country's livelihood!! But that doesn't affect them at all does it...

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12930
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2009, 05:36:24 PM »
did anyone see Al Gore's recent comment that we have to all become vegetarian because livestock consume too much water and expend too much methane into the atmosphere. What a putz!!  :wallywink
Yeah, for sure, the political (and economical) debate is a hindrance, as is those that want to hijack it for their own means. Seen the adds on TV by some vege fruitcake mob telling us we can save the world by eating less meat? They must think it great that the massive herds of bison have been all but eradicated from the american plains, as well as the vast reduction of herbavores from the african plains  :whistle.
::)

Quote
It has also been revealed that due to methane emissions generated by cows, under an ETS, cattle would be taxed at an average of $75 per head. Farmers would not be able to sustain that. An ETS will rape primary industry till the point we will have no industry at all.
A while back, i think it was the CSIRO published a report saying that grain fed cattle produce less methane than grass fed cattle, so now the grain industry and feedlot industry use this to say that grain fed cattle are better for the environment. What they don't take into account is the emissions involved in preparing, planting, harvesting, processing and transporting the grains before they are even fed to the cattle.

tiga i get the impression that you are more concerned with either political idealism or political tribalism than the scientific truth.
As i have stated, I am not convinced by either side in the debate as i dont think the evidence can be produced. Happy to be proven wrong if someone can produce evidence to back up either side of the debate.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5561
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2009, 06:28:33 PM »
No need to roll your eyes al, I did read your reply, I was discussing comments made by your namesake, Al Gore. Maybe you too have more in common than you think.

You can throw all the labels you want at my comments and pidgeon hole me if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I am just being realistic in stating that there is a whole lot more to this than just the global warming issue. If I were to categorise you, I would call you a fence sitter but I guess its a hell of a lot easier removing the odd splinter from your bottom and dissecting other peoples comments when you do not have to defend any real opinion upon which you can be challenged. I guess you are just waiting for Jesus to turn up so you can stick your finger in his palm. But if that's the way you roll then so be it.

al, I'm not prepared to debate this issue anymore with you until you pick your comfy little banana lounge up off the median strip you are on and choose which side of the road you want to sit on. When debating, there is a for and an against, there is no non-committal until I get all the facts position...oh yes wait.. there is...Its called the audience. 

Maybe one day you will come to some realisation of what an ETS will do to this country, but by then it will probably be all too late.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12930
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2009, 06:57:12 PM »
The reason I sit on the fence on this issue, is i have not seen any evidence that enables me to make an informed decision, one way or the other.
What I wont do is follow the lead of others, just because they have the same ideology as me. Even one of the slides i was able to view from your mates presentation mentioned about the folly of blind faith.

On this subject my opinion is this. There is no evidence that holds up to scrutiny to make an informed decision, either way. I am happy to have this opinion scrutionised, challenged, exploded or proven wrong or right. To make decisions and then defend them to the death without any evidence as a foundation... well I'll leave that to those you seem to be accusing me of being with your comments about JC.

On the ETS. I believe it is rushed and based on political mileage rather than any sound science. I think most people who are not in the "I believe that global warming will kill us all and nothing you say will change my mind" or "Im a labour supporter and nothing they do will ever be wrong" camps would recognise that. I thought this debate was on climate change and whether it is influenced by humans, a scientific subject best discussed with facts rather than ruled by emotion.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5561
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2009, 11:03:46 PM »
 :sleep

al, the purpose of this thread was to create a debate. Anything we say here will count for nothing anyway, so there is really no need for you to be so cautious. step out on a limb and have a crack at being the king of spin. I guess the thrill is gone now anyway.

So why don't you choose a topic you feel strongly about, I will argue for the negative whether I agree or not and let the games begin.  ;D

You probably haven't been of this forum long enough to know that I don't take things too seriously. For me it was just a bit of fun to pass the time.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12930
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2009, 04:56:24 PM »
OK, I get the point. Sorry to put you to sleep - hope you weren't doing anything important. I'll see if i can can up with something I wont get so anal about :D
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45410
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2009, 01:12:02 AM »

As for emissions trading I agree price of fossil fuel dependent products will rise but that's the point as far as I'm aware. Coal and gas is cheap especially in Australia. Rightly or wrongly an ETS is an attempt to make non-fossil fuel energy sources financially competitive over time via market forces (making fossil fuels more expensive). Hoping businesses and consumers more and more switch at least in part to these alternative energy sources over time (you still need a base load = fossil fuel or nuclear power plant). Whether an ETS is the most realistic and effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions long-term to a sustainable level is something I can't answer. All I know is even without an ETS, utility bills go up now whether I use more or less thanks to those ever increasing service charges. Now that's a rip off :scream.

Mt, its the flow on effect from the ETS that bothers me. Sure it may start with the use of fossil fuels but as we are so dependent on them at present, from the Coal burning Power company, to the farmer who uses a tractor to plow his crop, it will adversely affect every individual in this country. There are no real geniune large scale alternatives in this country. Nuclear power of which I am a supporter of, should be an option but the scare mongering greenie left have well and truly jammed a doorstop on that. I visited ANSTO recently and got a much better perspective on nuclear energy.

Australia will be affected adversly by an ETS more than many other countries in the developed world and the big question is...How immediate is the need for an ETS??? Even if I did believe in the rhetoric of the "global warming crisis", I feel the world needs to focus its energy on more immediate needs, world poverty and famine. But I guess, there's no easy to make a quick buck on that is there....
World poverty and famine is by far a more complex and difficult problem though tiga. If not the most difficult of all  :help. The study of climate via satelites, weather instruments, etc on one hand is by and large globally accepted and trivial in comparision. On the other hand there is no common political system worldwide (quite the opposite) and politically we still function at a national(ist) level despite the trend towards increased globalisation. The UN has no real power as it's the norm not to interfere with domestic political issues of any country no matter how much of a basketcase a nation has become (eg: Zimbabwe). What was Sir Humphrey Appleby's name for these countries - T.P.L.A.C. lol. Most impoverished nations lack the political stability (civil war and strife), resources and climate for development, and are usually too riddled with corruption to give a stuff about reducing poverty and raise the standard of living of the general population. Most wars these days are internal civil wars rather than nation vs nation. I'd presume economists see globalisation as the long-term solution but that may take centuries long after we've gone. That's another debate topic altogether.

As far as nuclear energy goes there is the greenie-far left opposition but I reckon the main opposition comes from the NIMBY factor and people thinking they'll have the next Chernobyl or 3-mile island built next door to their place or local town (there's also the factor of how to manage the waste products which presumably would be buried and sealed deep underground). The idea of say France having the majority of its electricity needs coming from state of the art well-managed nuclear power plants is a foreign concept. Victoria is having a desalinisation plant built down in Wonthaggi and the locals have opposed it being built down there from day one. Likewise the Goulburn water pipeline. No one wants the Government using its powers to dictate the use of a local resource no matter how much it may benefit the population as a whole. We all loved 'The Castle' because the little guy got to shove it up the corporations and Government.   Coincidently if Nuclear power did get the go ahead in Australia, locations that have a desalinisation plant would also become favoured locations for a Nuclear power plant as the electricity needed to run the desalinsation plant would come from the Nuclear plant and the Nuclear plant could use the water from the desalinisation plant to cool the towers. As far as alternative energy sources, the CSIRO site seems to be focussed on a transition from fossil fuels to hybrids and possibly Hydrogen fuel cells as well as more efficient and "cleaner" coal use and low environmental impact CO2 disposal.

http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change-Mitigation.html

As for the consequences of an ETS, I'd gather it'll be no different to any other significant change to the way the economy is run. Australia has undergone significant change from the early 80s onwards (a move to an open more flexible free-trade economy) and that had adverse effects in the short-term (the 1990-91 recession hit Australia harder than most as old formerly protected sectors shrunk or even died off). However it is that open flexible economy that has seen us through the current GFC better than most. Progress has its casualities sadly (horse and cart and steam engines say hello) but new industries and technologies develop as people and companies adapt to the new economic environment to more than compensate the losses usually. To do nothing and ignore and resist the evidence for change usually has far worse consequences. Ask Ford and GM who didn't move with the times and ignored the fact consumers were moving away from the traditional big petrol gusslers. The West is slowly trying to ween itself off its high dependence on fossil fuels long-term and not just because of Greenhouse gas emissions. The current proposed form of the ETS needs refining and bipartisan support (they won't be deciding if agriculture will be included until 2013 AFAIK and if we copy the USA like most things it probably won't be) but it'll eventually get through in some form. Even John Howard has come out claiming his ETS proposal was no different to what Rudd is proposing implying Rudd has just copied him. I agree with you tiga that there needs to be a practical balance when it comes to the ETS otherwise it'll fail but I guess that's where the debate is now rather than debating old ground over the validity of global warming/climate change itself.

I was amazed to find out that on the money I earn, (Which is not large by any means) I am in the top 5% of wage earners in the world and anyone else here who earns the Australian average wage would also be in the top 5%.
tiga it's your shout then  :cheers ;D
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45410
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45410
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2009, 05:30:15 PM »
Probably belongs in a different thread but what were the Libs thinking making Tony Abbott their leader  :help and by just only one vote. They've most likely stalled the ETS for the time being if no one crosses the floor in the Senate but talk about committing political suicide!
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12930
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2009, 05:37:54 PM »
I'd put money on a double dissolution (disillusion  ;D) election after hearing his speech this morning. Lost count how many times he said he was not afraid to go to an election over this.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45410
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2009, 06:22:45 PM »
I'd put money on a double dissolution (disillusion  ;D) election after hearing his speech this morning. Lost count how many times he said he was not afraid to go to an election over this.
If Abbott lasts until the next election lol. He can be a loose cannon :help. Yep a double dissolution is looking more and more on the cards.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline the_boy_jake

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2009, 06:50:12 PM »
Once again no room for free thinkers in Australian politics. I'm not a conservative but it was clear that Turnbull had studied the subject well and come to his own conclusions which he knew would contradict many of his followrs but was nonetheless in the country's interests. It is also clear that conservatism in Australia has become much less a political philosophy as it is a state of mind. How does one explain an entire group of people, most of whom were in politics well before climate change was an issue, fall in unison to an increasingly untenable position on climate change. Turnbull was quite courageous I thought trying to progress the Liberal party back into relevance. Cameron has done the same in the UK and the sceptics haven't managed to shout him down. Now we have the likes of Abbott and Fielding, about as far right wing christian conservatives as you get in this country, running the opposition and it really is worse for the country in the long run, we will either have a stagnant legislative process or a double dissolution which Rudd will win with a majority in both houses and be free to do whatever he wants without scrutiny. Howard really buggered the Libs.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45410
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2009, 10:43:22 PM »
It is also clear that conservatism in Australia has become much less a political philosophy as it is a state of mind. How does one explain an entire group of people, most of whom were in politics well before climate change was an issue, fall in unison to an increasingly untenable position on climate change.
The weird thing is under Howard they went to the last election wanting to introduce an ETS and they had majority partyroom support for it under Turnball but now a few days later after kniving Turnball the Libs believe it's all a con  ???.

Read the ultra-conservative blogs on the net and you see why individual thought is a crime  ::). Those at the extreme justify and claim support for their denial of climate change by quoting each other and statements from conservative think-tank organisations yet try to pretend these "sources" are independent and scientific and "proof" that there's a growing swell against climate change. It's just one big group think spouting the same script around the world. It's amusing how they leave out 2009 data from troposphere temperature graphs because it contradicts their "decline" argument  ;). Quite funny when you see through it but scarey at the time reading it because they are deadly serious about it being all one big conspiracy :help. I guess being obliterated at the next election may see those who have been silenced by the ultra-conservatives rise up to grab back their party and move the Libs back towards the centre of politics.

As for the ETS - the rest of the world will go ahead with it without us if need be. I'd rather Australia be a leader than a follower. This stalling "do nothing" tactic waiting to after Copenhagen won't change these denialists' minds.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5561
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2009, 11:33:56 PM »
I think you will find MT that there will be other countries that will not go ahead with an ETS. I guess we will see after Copenhagen.

 I do agree that we need to look at clean energy alternatives but how is putting a tax on everything and then sending money to other countries going to help?? I would only agree to an ETS if the money was reinvested back into technologies and new clean fuel initiatives HERE IN AUSTRALIA. Essentially I am in favour of an Emissions Tax, not an ETS
Is anyone here that is in favour of an ETS aware that brokerage firms and middlemen will make millions of dollars in trading Carbon Credits and that their value will fluctuate based on overseas currencies? MMM that sounds tempting and will do so much good for the environment.  :banghead

Can you imagine if we reinvested the billions of dollars that are generated from an ETS into research here in an effort seek out new clean fuel alternatives and improve on existing ones?? I have no doubt that we would be world leaders in clean fuel technologies if we did this. I still agree that Nuclear energy is the only large scale alternative to fossil fuel energy at present but there are too many dead heads in our political system that refuse to even consider nuclear fuel as a safe and viable energy source. Some of them need to visit Japan and see over 50 nuclear power stations working safely and reliably and have done so for quite some time. But no..they would prefer to dwell on Chernobyl rather than take of their mud coloured glasses to see that nuclear energy has come a long long way since then.
 
On another note, how can we send one cent out of this country with a clear conscience when we have people dying on waiting lists and overcrowded ill equipped hospitals, we have no substantial facilities for people of all ages with mental health issues. FFS we are putting young adults with mental and physical disabilities that cannot look after themselves into aged care facilities because we have no place to put them.
Oh and I'm assuming that everyone here at least has some idea of our current budget deficit?? I'm pretty sure its somewhere around 50 Billion dollars. But hey...lets leave that for our kids to pay off.







Offline tiger101

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2009, 06:59:26 PM »
global warming will happen if we keep going the way we do. But ETS isnt the way to cut emissions and im glad it was voted down we(australia) do 1.5% thats nothing compared to china and america so no point us taxing our selfs to fix 5% of our small 1.5% emissions.