Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading

[tony_montana]

Do the yanks have a carbon tax or ets?

[dwaino]

They're looking at capping so will be ETS.

[tony_montana]

sweet, when they actually implement it, I'll respect their opinions a bit more, until then they are just a bunch of hypocrites on the issue.

[dwaino]

I'm more concerned some will buy more permits than they need then sell them off or just use it as a strategy to make it hard for their competitors. In principle I agree and think it's great they want to cap it, but it's those who will be buying the permits I'm worried about.

[tony_montana]

I have no doubt your concerns will be realised. Greed will play a major role as the world eventually evolves to incorporate new laws on climate change.

[dwaino]

Sure that Tony asked India to join his merry band of climate change deniers and they're not keen on taxing or capping carbon yet, at least they're doing something constructive instead

http://m.thehindubusinessline.com/government-and-policy/now-gujarat-to-cover-narmada-canals-with-solar-panels/article3346191.ece/?maneref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehindubusinessline.com%2Findustry-and-economy%2Fgovernment-and-policy%2Farticle3346191.ece

[dwaino]

Germany power production is now 50% solar. Chuck that on top of their considerable generation from wind turbines and this industrial powerhouse is the cleanest in the world.

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar

[Judge Roughneck]

Lefty limp

[tony_montana]

Further to the Germans, some interesting reading below. Their renewable energy is leading the way and good on them for working towards their goals but with that territory come problems, now they are reliant on lignite which emits a lot more co2 and as a result emmissions in Germany are up for the first time in 20 years.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25411-german-energy-crisis-points-towards-climate-solution.html?full=true#.U6o25RvlodU

[dwaino]

They spent a lot of money on rebates and investments on clean so you will find they start selling coal and power to neighbours.  That article is also based off old stats when they were only generating a quarter of their power from renewables. Their reliance on coal has dropped by 25% but you can be certain they will keep producing it anyway because they can sell it. Australia could massively stimulate the economy by fitting every single house with solar (rebates, compulsory for new buildings, anyway you care to think of) but never will because we can't sell our surplus being isolated by sea. Not to mention our governments hang off the t@s of the mining pigs.

[1965]

Read the last line. That is the Libs real agenda.

$13.4 billion in savings but the cost born by the nations poorest.

 

Families lose up to $3500 a year in end of mine, carbon taxes
 
July 5, 2014

Mark Kenny 

Chief political correspondent

EXCLUSIVE

Projected annual savings in electricity costs of $550 per household from scrapping the carbon tax may be dwarfed by the withdrawal of up to $3500 per household in other government payments linked to it and the mining tax, according to new research.

The Australian Institute modelling, based on a low-income family with two working adults and three school-age children, has concluded the withdrawal of several payments and offsets associated with the clean energy package and others notionally funded by the Minerals Resource Rent Tax will take away more money than will be saved after the carbon tax is repealed.

The government has convened a two-week session of the Senate from Monday with the prime purpose of repealing Labor's two most unpopular and politically costly taxes, the carbon and mining taxes.

Both repeals were clear Coalition promises before the election but have been blocked in the Labor-Greens dominated Senate.

But with the new Senate, the government believes it has the numbers to dump both taxes and a raft of measures associated with them.

The original version of the mining tax was projected at one point to have been capable of raising up to $12 billion before a series of changes negotiated under extreme political duress resulted in a truncated version, which has raised almost nothing.

So poorly has the tax performed in revenue terms that the Coalition has claimed its repeal, along with the spending programs supposedly funded by it, such as the School Kids Bonus, would actually save the country $13.4 billion.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/families-lose-up-to-3500-a-year-in-end-of-mine-carbon-taxes-20140704-3bdvu.html#ixzz36WuWPHQQ

[Judge Roughneck]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28898223

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

[dwaino]

The vents in the Gulf of Mexico and off the east coast of the USA have been under observation for a while, the latest threat is the gasses trapped under ice in Greenland and Iceland. The recent sinkholes appearing in the Arctic circle in Russia have been due to retreating permafrost, releasing tons of potent greenhouse gasses.

Of course the skeptics/christians will blame these events as the cause for global warming, but not what has caused their exposure.

[Judge Roughneck]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000).

bstract
December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models. Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.

[Judge Roughneck]

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/dont-trust-bureau-of-meteorology-says-abbotts-business-advisor-54948

Waiting for the ISIS analogy