Author Topic: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading  (Read 23767 times)

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45450
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2009, 10:08:08 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.
There will be a lot of talk about setting a global ETS up but yeah I wouldn't be surprised if nothing concrete is put forward at Copenhagen. I don't think they need to either as there was some agreement at Kyoto IIRC that 2012/2013 was the deadline for an agreement of some kind. I can't remember but I think it was something like that.

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
An Emissions/Carbon Tax would be very regularatory though. The reason it was rejected in the Garnaut report IIRC was because a Carbon tax would have to be continually adjusted to meet current and future global conditions/markets. It would be a haphazard way of dealing with emissions and could add extra business costs simply due to its inefficiency. Companies need to plan for (say hedging against financially negative) future scenarioes. Regularatory schemes would make that difficult as companies may plan for a X% Carbon Tax and then 1,2,..5 years later it ends up being adjusted to Y% in one jump. The ETS was favoured because it is a market-forces based scheme. Yep sure there'll be carbon trading brokers who will make $$$ out of it but that happens now on the stock market with virtually every traded security. There are credit derivatives for instance that are traded so companies can hedge and diversify their exposure to risk. I think there's even weather derivatives. Investment firms can come up with all sorts of derivatives to meet client needs. It's the nature of the modern free market economy. Anything can be virtually traded nowdays Comrade tiga  ;D.

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.
I mentioned the NIMBY factor in a previous post but another factor to consider is the timeframe in which Australia could set up a fully running Nuclear power industry (say 25 power stations as Howard mentioned prior to the last election). I remember going to a talk about the timeframe for the development of fusion reactors rather than the fission reactors we have now. The speaker mentioned the timeframe for a practical commerical fusion reactor to be up and running had dropped from 50 years to about 30 years. I'm not sure where that's at now but if it's going to take 25 years to set up and construct today's fission reactors then we could be potentially building infrastructure that will be superceded by better technology by the time it is built. All these things need to be considered.

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.
But what's our debt as a percentage of our GDP? The Australian economy is $1.1 trillion and growing and we just avoided the worst downturn in a long time. Most other OCED nations are still in the pooh and some (Japan?) have debt around 100% GDP  :o. When you have deflation, following Keynesian economic principles (borrowing more inflation via stimulus measures to counter rising unemployment) isn't something unheard of.

Not excusing hospital waiting lists tiga but those issues have been going on for decades and never seem to get fixed  :scream no matter who is in power and what promises they make while in opposition. Moreso the result of heartless incompetence anyhow by bureaucrats. Australia already donates money overseas to poorer countries as part of our international obligations. I don't see the argument against an ETS on that front when we hand over millions already. It hasn't hampered our growing prosperity in general.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline tiger101

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2009, 11:19:01 PM »
We are not goin to cut Emissions by not going nuclear. that is a proven and safe energy source available right now.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45450
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2009, 03:36:21 PM »
Yep the technology is available right now and has been up and running safely for years in other western countries but even if we went down that track it would take 20-25 years to set up from what I've heard :-\. We would still need to reduce our CO2 emissions by alternative means in the near future.

Fusion reactors would be a better option to fission ones given they have nowhere near the nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of and those against nuclear power stations wouldn't be able to use the Chernobyl fear factor. Of course fusion reactors don't exist but they may in 30 years time. I'm just putting it out there as a possible reliable base-load future energy source when all we hear mentioned as alternatives are non base-load options such as solar, wind and thermal.



Just read Turnbull's spray at Abbott. The division in the Libs' ranks won't go away on this issue.

http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/702/Time-for-some-straight-talking-on-climate-change.aspx


And finally a great vid showing how stupid those ultra-conservative conspiracy believers are over those hacked East Anglia emails. Too much logic and commonsense for the loopy far-right to handle  :lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline tiger101

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2009, 11:43:01 PM »
I think people need to be more educated about nuclear power. Chernobyl wonte happen again its reactors was out dated technology even at the time of the disaster plus no western country uses RBMK reactors.

Nuclear experts say the changes have substantially reduced the technical likelihood of a repeat of the Chernobyl blast.
“Very significant changes have been made in the technology,”  International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director Tomihiro Taniguchi told The Associated Press. “The IAEA is firmly committed that such an accident not happen again.”

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45450
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2009, 12:16:46 AM »
I think people need to be more educated about nuclear power. Chernobyl wonte happen again its reactors was out dated technology even at the time of the disaster plus no western country uses RBMK reactors.

Nuclear experts say the changes have substantially reduced the technical likelihood of a repeat of the Chernobyl blast.
“Very significant changes have been made in the technology,”  International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director Tomihiro Taniguchi told The Associated Press. “The IAEA is firmly committed that such an accident not happen again.”

Another thing about Chernobyl was the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing and as a result even basic standards and maintenance were neglected.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Ox

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2009, 01:18:17 AM »
Nuke the middle east,USA,China,Japan and Russia.

Offline cub

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6707
  • "Tigertime!"
    • bantigertrade
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2009, 09:01:44 AM »
Nuke the middle east,USA,China,Japan and Russia.

Chuck in India

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3518
  • The busier you get, the slower you walk
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2013, 09:18:36 PM »


Climate report heralds grave fears for state of the planet

Climate change has been argued about for years, but the latest findings suggest relaxed attitudes towards the phenomenom will result in dangerous consequences for our planet in the very near future

Early next week, hundreds of scientists will meet in Stockholm's Brewery Conference Centre to put the finishing touches on the world's most important climate change document. It is unlikely the beer will be flowing.

By Friday the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will have released the results of its labour - the first part of its fifth major assessment of climate science.

Its last report, released six years ago, delivered a stark message: the climate is warming mostly because of human activity and poses a major threat - especially if global temperatures increase by more than two degrees.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-report-heralds-grave-fears-for-state-of-the-planet-20130921-2u6fk.html#ixzz2fc2ekgIb

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3518
  • The busier you get, the slower you walk
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2013, 12:50:56 PM »
I hope Labor and the Greens have got the guts to stand up over this issue.

Debunking the persistent myth that global warming stopped in 1998


The latest climate change denial claim ahead of the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report is that global warming stopped in 1998. A slowing in the observed rate of global warming has prompted dubious suggestions that temperatures have not increased significantly in the past 15 years.

It's true that after rising rapidly in the 1990s, global average temperature increases at the earth's surface have slowed since 1998. But warming hasn't stopped.

The last decade was the hottest on record globally. Each year from 2000 to 2010, except 2008, was in the 10 warmest recorded globally.

What's most concerning is that it should be considerably cooler than average, not hotter. Since 1997, several natural climate factors have aligned that should have produced a discernible cooling effect on global temperatures.


A lull in solar activity from 2005 to 2010, combined with two very strong La Niña episodes from 2010 to 2012, would be expected to produce a strong decrease in global temperatures.

Yet the world hasn't cooled. On the contrary, global surface temperatures are moving in the opposite direction to natural climate variations, due to greenhouse gas warming.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html#ixzz2g3d6WHCG

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8768
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2013, 12:59:14 PM »
Someone tell me, do I need to buy air conditioner for my new garage

Offline dwaino

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8360
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2013, 01:06:36 PM »
Tony is a man of faith and is therefore incapable of reason. I'm no fan of Tony either 65, but for probably reasons much different than yourself. Alot of this article is just a cheap pot at Tony but the message is still the same

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-religion-and-the-dumb-country/
Kick a crow.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12930
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2013, 02:54:31 PM »
the funny thing about these religious right wing, tea party, fruit cakes, is that their capitalist ideals are against some of the laws that Yahweh spelled out and JC's socialist teachings.
“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

Rampstar

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2013, 04:19:48 PM »
Someone tell me, do I need to buy air conditioner for my new garage

nah but its better to have for the convenience of it. stick a tv and a fridge full of beers in the garage and your away.  :thumbsup

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3518
  • The busier you get, the slower you walk
Re: Controversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2013, 03:39:41 PM »
A double dissolution still threatened.

Coalition stands firm on carbon tax double dissolution threat
   
October 14, 2013 - 2:05PM

Judith Ireland 

Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the option of a double dissolution election remains on the table as the Coalition stares down Labor over the repeal of the carbon tax.
 
We will not stop until the carbon tax is repealed.

As Labor MPs returned to Canberra for a caucus meeting to determine its new frontbench, Mr Hunt called on the opposition to back the government's long-held plan to scrap the carbon tax.

Mr Hunt said the Coalition did not not want to wait and negotiate the repeal of the tax under the new-look Senate come July 1, 2014, again stating it would be the new government's first legislative act.

''The Australian public voted to terminate the carbon tax,'' Mr Hunt told reporters.

''The test for the ALP caucus today is whether or not they will listen to the Australian people or whether they will just continue to thumb their nose at the people of Australia who voted [to scrap the tax].

''We will not stop until the carbon tax is repealed.''

Mr Hunt told reporters that when it came to repealing the tax, ''all options are on the table''.

When pressed specifically on whether this included a double dissolution election, Mr Hunt repeated: ''All options are on the table.''

The Environment Minister added that the Coalition did not want to ''invoke other mechanisms'' to get rid of carbon pricing, explaining ''we want to get this done now''.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has previously said that the Coalition would do what was necessary to get rid of the tax, including using ''constitutional options''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-stands-firm-on-carbon-tax-double-dissolution-threat-20131014-2vhtw.html#ixzz2hfS2PPef

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2013, 08:54:29 PM »
Tony must be a magician standing firm and on his knees sucking the sausage of mining companies simultaneously