Should we be  embarrassed to carry on the way we do
( well SOME of us) Abbott springs to mind....?


Australia's climate policies, such as the national renewable energy target, were found to be equivalent to forcing the power industry to pay $US1.70 ($A1.71) per tonne of carbon dioxide.

By contrast, China has an underlying carbon price on its power sector of $US14.20 - eight times higher. China's policies include the forced shutdown of its worst-performing coal-fired power stations, and the world's largest renewable energy program - $US35 billion invested last year, compared with $US18 billion in the US. It is considering a carbon trading scheme.

Britain ($US29.30 a tonne), the US ($US5.10) and Japan ($US3.10) were each found to be ahead of Australia in encouraging a shift to cleaner power.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-lags-far-behind-on-climate-policies-20101018-16qu4.html

Economist and government adviser Ross Garnaut recently said convincing Australians how much other countries - particularly China - were doing to tackle climate change was one of the most important challenges facing the government.
''I am frankly shocked at how persistent the ignorance in Australia is of that,'' Professor Garnaut said. ''It is as if a lead veil had been inserted around the brains of most Australians and made them impervious to information that is not secret, about what is going on in other countries.''

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 6:38am:

Should we be  embarrassed to carry on the way we do ( well SOME of us) Abbott springs to mind....? Australia's climate policies, such as the national renewable energy target, were found to be equivalent to forcing the power industry to pay $US1.70 ($A1.71) per tonne of carbon dioxide. By contrast, China has an underlying carbon price on its power sector of $US14.20 - eight times higher. China's policies include the forced shutdown of its worst-performing coal-fired power stations, and the world's largest renewable energy program - $US35 billion invested last year, compared with $US18 billion in the US. It is considering a carbon trading scheme. Britain ($US29.30 a tonne), the US ($US5.10) and Japan ($US3.10) were each found to be ahead of Australia in encouraging a shift to cleaner power. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-lags-far-behind-on-climate-policies-20101018-16qu4.html Economist and government adviser Ross Garnaut recently said convincing Australians how much other countries - particularly China - were doing to tackle climate change was one of the most important challenges facing the government. ''I am frankly shocked at how persistent the ignorance in Australia is of that,'' Professor Garnaut said. ''It is as if a lead veil had been inserted around the brains of most Australians and made them impervious to information that is not secret, about what is going on in other countries.''

veg I dont TRUST one word that comes from this govt...or any Labor govt for that matter..Garnaut can say what he likes... he is after all paid to do that..however that aside..

its not the actual cost that really bothers me... its all the PANIC one minute and then its filed under the two hard banner and they want 150 souls to sort it out for them..

this is the mystery to this whole thing..as for Garnaut saying we are ignorant of this... not according to your man Booby Brown he gets a small increase in his primary vote and he thinks the whole country agrees with him...we are all in favour of a climate tax.. didnt you know?.. big or small[lol]bring it on

btw just because these countries claim a carbon tax doesnt mean it will change anything!!!!!. if all this is true.. then the aussie pittance wont make the slightest difference.

it would be like us donating a cup full of water to the worlds water tank of the future.

"I dont TRUST one word that comes from this govt...or any Labor govt for that matter.." - Codswal

If your mind wasn't so obviously closed you would have READ THE ARTICLE and realised that the report has NOTHING TO DO WITH LABOR.

FFS codswal. At least TRY to demonstrate some intellectual rigour.

"The report by British consultant Vivid Economics backs studies that have found a direct carbon price through a trading scheme or tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, and warns that Australia risks losing competitiveness if it is late in embracing clean technology."

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:02am:

"I dont TRUST one word that comes from this govt...or any Labor govt for that matter.." - Codswal If your mind wasn't so obviously closed you would have READ THE ARTICLE and realised that the report has NOTHING TO DO WITH LABOR. FFS codswal. At least TRY to demonstrate some intellectual rigour. "The report by British consultant Vivid Economics backs studies that have found a direct carbon price through a trading scheme or tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, and warns that Australia risks losing competitiveness if it is late in embracing clean technology."

I have a deep and abiding distrust of people and govts that think a tax is a way to make societal change. taxes have one purpose: raise funds. my distrust in a carbon tax is not som much the inteded goal but rather the fact that is is a tax and will teherefore be used by govts to raise money as the primary object.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 6:38am:

Should we be  embarrassed to carry on the way we do ( well SOME of us) Abbott springs to mind....? Australia's climate policies, such as the national renewable energy target, were found to be equivalent to forcing the power industry to pay $US1.70 ($A1.71) per tonne of carbon dioxide. By contrast, China has an underlying carbon price on its power sector of $US14.20 - eight times higher. China's policies include the forced shutdown of its worst-performing coal-fired power stations, and the world's largest renewable energy program - $US35 billion invested last year, compared with $US18 billion in the US. It is considering a carbon trading scheme. Britain ($US29.30 a tonne), the US ($US5.10) and Japan ($US3.10) were each found to be ahead of Australia in encouraging a shift to cleaner power. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-lags-far-behind-on-climate-policies-20101018-16qu4.html Economist and government adviser Ross Garnaut recently said convincing Australians how much other countries - particularly China - were doing to tackle climate change was one of the most important challenges facing the government. ''I am frankly shocked at how persistent the ignorance in Australia is of that,'' Professor Garnaut said. ''It is as if a lead veil had been inserted around the brains of most Australians and made them impervious to information that is not secret, about what is going on in other countries.''

[i]And this would be the same Ross Garnaut, the great saver of the environment and Economist that puts his own money making schemes ahead of the welfare of the environment:[/i]

Climate change expert Ross Garnaut behind controversial PNG mines
From: AAP
September 09, 2010 10:46PM

CLIMATE-change expert Ross Garnaut is linked with two companies accused of using a controversial method of releasing mine waste into rivers and the ocean in Papua New Guinea.
Professor Garnaut conducted the Rudd government's 2008 climate-change review which urged action on the issue, including an emissions trading scheme.

But the economist also chairs Lihir Gold, a mining company which has merged with Newcrest Gold, and he is a director of OK Tedi Mining Limited.Lihir was the subject of a takeover bid by Newcrest Mining and Prof Garnaut will relinquish his $US300,000 ($A327,225) role as a result of the merger.

The Lihir group is set to produce one million ounces of gold a year on Lihir Island, 900km north of Port Moresby.

OK Tedi extracts copper, gold and silver from its remote Star Mountains operation in PNG's Western Province where it reportedly discharges 56 million tonnes of metalliferous waste into local river systems each year.
Tiffany Nonggorr, a lawyer representing indigenous PNG landowners, says the practice by Lihir of dumping billions of tonnes of mine waste and metalliferous tailings, including cyanide and heavy metals, is a great concern.The practice is banned in China, Canada and the US."This sort of technology is frontier technology," Ms Nonggorr told ABC Television tonight.

OK Tedi's operation is already having a far-reaching impact, she said, quoting "a couple of studies" by the CSIRO.

"They quite clearly show that this deep-sea tailings placement has severely impacted the ecology of the area," Ms Nonggorr said.

The river where the tailings are dumped has been left a "moonscape" and she estimated that the copper levels 800km from the mine in the river's silt are 3000 times the safe level.

Garnaut remains the Chair of Lihir Gold, which is now in the top 100 companies by market capitalisation on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Garnaut’s experience and connections at the intersection of government, trade and mining have proved lucrative beyond the wildest dreams of other academics. By 2000 he was advising global oil giant Exxon on "fiscal arrangements in the petroleum industry" and sitting on the PNG Sustainable Development Program - the PNG Government body that ended up owning the Ok Tedi mine after BHP washed its hands of it.

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:02am:

"I dont TRUST one word that comes from this govt...or any Labor govt for that matter.." - Codswal If your mind wasn't so obviously closed you would have READ THE ARTICLE and realised that the report has NOTHING TO DO WITH LABOR. FFS codswal. At least TRY to demonstrate some intellectual rigour. "The report by British consultant Vivid Economics backs studies that have found a direct carbon price through a trading scheme or tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, and warns that Australia risks losing competitiveness if it is late in embracing clean technology."

btw I was reading  Gaunaut an employee of this govt I understand... sorry your worship!!!.

nichy wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:17am:

Garnaut remains the Chair of Lihir Gold, which is now in the top 100 companies by market capitalisation on the Australian Stock Exchange. Garnaut’s experience and connections at the intersection of government, trade and mining have proved lucrative beyond the wildest dreams of other academics. By 2000 he was advising global oil giant Exxon on "fiscal arrangements in the petroleum industry" and sitting on the PNG Sustainable Development Program - the PNG Government body that ended up owning the Ok Tedi mine after BHP washed its hands of it.

WOW and double WOW... veg will be upset she is always quoting Turnbulls dubious connections..thanks for that

"btw I was reading  Gaunaut an employee of this govt I understand"

Of course you were. You didn't read the article before rushing to judgment.

And Garnaut is not part of government, no more than Ken Henry is. But don't let that stop you.

I love the greens.. a BIG NEW TAX will automatically fix everythinggggg..does anyone like what they do with the money they receive NOW?.. I know I dont.

One has to wonder how much this entrepeneur and Economist will stand to make from a carbon tax.

He sounds like an opportunist and a fraud to me


Economist and government adviser Ross Garnaut recently said convincing Australians how much other countries - particularly China - were doing to tackle climate change was one of the most important challenges facing the government.

''I am frankly shocked at how persistent the ignorance in Australia is of that,'' Professor Garnaut said. ''It is as if a lead veil had been inserted around the brains of most Australians and made them impervious to information that is not secret, about what is going on in other countries.''

The Vivid analysis found Britain's high implied carbon price was due to the European emissions trading scheme, the British tax on fossil fuel power generation and its renewable energy target.

In the US, the implied carbon price has been driven mainly by tax credits to encourage investment in renewable energy. The US Senate has rejected emissions trading.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-lags-far-behind-on-climate-policies-20101018-16qu4.html

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:41am:

"btw I was reading  Gaunaut an employee of this govt I understand" Of course you were. You didn't read the article before rushing to judgment. And Garnaut is not part of government, no more than Ken Henry is. But don't let that stop you.

oh dear and of course you are not twisting things to suit.. it goes with the left I am afraid twist every word..

he was commissioned by rudd and Co to do a report on climate change to my memory he was asked to go back and rectify several times the bits  they didnt like..lol.. makes it all v ery honest doesnt it.. anyway this man is repeating what this report said... in fact he is calling us IGNORANT or was that in this british report??

no I didnt read the full artical it says things that are never ever verified.. like the sc ientist reports years later it comes out that were wrong..that some even cheated..so why would I believe this..like I say I dont condemn you for believeing it.. so kindly dont condemn me.

Ok point taken about Garnaut, so lets forget him as he only commented on it. The real issue here is we will pay a pitance compared to most other countries and still we whinge.
Are we the new poms (thanks to Opposition) and how must other countries be viewing us (again ,due to the opposition)...?

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

Ok point taken about Garnaut, so lets forget him as he only commented on it. The real issue here is we will pay a pitance compared to most other countries and still we whinge. Are we the new poms (thanks to Opposition) and how must other countries be viewing us (again ,due to the opposition)...?

You're a fking idiot!

You're a fking idiot!

-------------------

IM the  fking idiot!  Ha, why because Im concerned  that Australian's are complaining  about paying over a a dollar for something other countries are paying $29, for???

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 6:38am:

By contrast, China has an underlying carbon price on its power sector of $US14.20 - eight times higher. China's policies include the forced shutdown of its worst-performing coal-fired power stations, and the world's largest renewable energy program - $US35 billion invested last year, compared with $US18 billion in the US. It is considering a carbon trading scheme.

So much for the cop-out ...

"Why should WE have to act on climate change, while China goes on polluting - un-restricted ?"

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 6:38am: By contrast, China has an underlying carbon price on its power sector of $US14.20 - eight times higher. China's policies include the forced shutdown of its worst-performing coal-fired power stations, and the world's largest renewable energy program - $US35 billion invested last year, compared with $US18 billion in the US. It is considering a carbon trading scheme.   So much for the cop-out ... "Why should WE have to act on climate change, while China goes on polluting - un-restricted ?"

if you can see past your rhetoric for just a moment you wil discover that while china charges its power companies for pollution the nation of China is now the worlds BIGGEST emitter. so yes they are pollutting and the 'restrictions' you obliquley refer to (a carbon tax) is having nil effect on their emmissions. You even refer to the USA who effectively have some form of a carbon tax and they are the SECOND biggest emitter.

ALL this shows is that some countries have a pseudo carbon tax which appears to have zero effect on their emissions. rather than support your case for a carbon tax it significantly weakens it.

tax which appears to have zero effect on their emissions.

--------------------------------------------


where is the claim that it has appeared to have zero effect ?

Meaning- its not something that will stop over night.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

Ok point taken about Garnaut, so lets forget him as he only commented on it. The real issue here is we will pay a pitance compared to most other countries and still we whinge. Are we the new poms (thanks to Opposition) and how must other countries be viewing us (again ,due to the opposition)...?

Forget Garnaut ????

He is advising the government !

Now perhaps you can tell me just what a Carbon Tax will do for the environment.      NOTHING.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

Ok point taken about Garnaut, so lets forget him as he only commented on it. The real issue here is we will pay a pitance compared to most other countries and still we whinge. Are we the new poms (thanks to Opposition) and how must other countries be viewing us (again ,due to the opposition)...?

veg would you like my power bills.?? as far as I know we havent got a carbon tax as yet...at least I havent seen any headlines saying the miners are only paying a pittance compared to China and USA.. both huge countries compared to this one..some tend to believe every word that so called experts tell them.. look at Al.Gore for instance..thats a joke.

I dont want to forget Garnout he was advising the last govt wasnt he???.. at great time and expense, when the world was about to end if I am not mistaken you guys were all for what ever he said.. and us so called sceptics should be ashamed of ourselves..well nothing that I have SEEN.. has changed my mind at all..lets look at it from a different point of view... has any of this Big New Tax..caused any jobs to be lost or business to close??....or maybe the tax hasnt been implimented yet, somehow I think when it is we shall all hear about it and feel it.

So what did Garnaut say that was wrong, cods? What's your analysis?

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:02am:

"I dont TRUST one word that comes from this govt...or any Labor govt for that matter.." - Codswal If your mind wasn't so obviously closed you would have READ THE ARTICLE and realised that the report has NOTHING TO DO WITH LABOR. FFS codswal. At least TRY to demonstrate some intellectual rigour. "The report by British consultant Vivid Economics backs studies that have found a direct carbon price through a trading scheme or tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, and warns that Australia risks losing competitiveness if it is late in embracing clean technology."

Damn you, ernie....

You beat me to it.
Highlighting and all...
;)

Don't let me stop you, froggie - go for it.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 8:33am:

You're a fking idiot! ------------------- IM the  fking idiot!  Ha, why because Im concerned  that Australian's are complaining  about paying over a a dollar for something other countries are paying $29, for???

Ignore it, vegi....

When it was born mum asked the father what they should call it.

The old man said, "Don't call it anything and it might go away."

;)

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:

So what did Garnaut say that was wrong, cods? What's your analysis?

Now there's an analysis I eagerly await.

:D

Garnaut didn`t analyse his New Guinea opperations very well did he.
?

Lobo wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Please delete wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:39pm: So what did Garnaut say that was wrong, cods? What's your analysis? Now there's an analysis I eagerly await. :D

he was predicting that the sky woudl fall on - and it didnt. instead, the drought he claimed was caused by GW ended and not just in a trickly but the biggest downpour in 100 years.

Thanks for that summation mr weekend.

Now, cods?

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 3:08pm:

Thanks for that summation mr weekend. Now, cods?

so why not answer mine then?

What? I asked cods a simple question, since she got all upset about a tangential issue, and you've answered, without raising a point which requires a response.

Cods doesn't like Garnaut's report, she might tell us all why.

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

What? I asked cods a simple question, since she got all upset about a tangential issue, and you've answered, without raising a point which requires a response. Cods doesn't like Garnaut's report, she might tell us all why.

nobody likes garnaut's report. it reads like a sky-is-falling report which always sounds a little silly and even more so in the time since it was delivered. the only voices that get heard in the climate debate are the extreme ones. if you believe that climate change is in the range of normal variability you are ignored. if you believe that humans are altering the climate but you dont think the world is ending as a result - you are ignored. it doesnt matter what you believe - as long as you are extreme.

Why would we like a report written by a hypocrite like Garnaut, the chairman of a company responsible for dumping mine tailings into the river.  The river where the tailings are dumped has been left a "moonscape" and it's  estimated that the copper levels 800km from the mine in the river's silt are 3000 times the safe level.

And that's just from one of his very lucrative endeavours.

Lobo wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Please delete wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:39pm: So what did Garnaut say that was wrong, cods? What's your analysis? Now there's an analysis I eagerly await. :D

what a laugh and you tell me to read the artical...he called you IGNORANT... now you might not mind that in fact I agree with him on that point as its the ones in favour of all this tommy rot.. that thinks a GREAT BIG NEW TAX is the answer..LOL..a good laugh.oh its good to see we have back up as well. why dont you guys have the balls to come clean and admit who you really are...nup didnt think you had any.

[quote author=nichy link=1287434339/30#32 date=1287470943]Why would we like a report written by a hypocrite like Garnaut, the chairman of a company responsible for dumping mine tailings into the river.  The river where the tailings are dumped has been left a "moonscape" and it's  estimated that the copper levels 800km from the mine in the river's silt are 3000 times the safe level.

And that's just from one of his very lucrative endeavours.




thanks nichy.. hey lefties what about a comment on that one..LOL.. I wont hold my breath.. sounds a bit like all those scientists that just happened to be getting paid by the govt they went to all the trouble of faking the science for.. ho hum.. as they said back then.. someone has to pay them..

does anyone pay Garnaut ???or is he really trying to save the world and therefore go down in  history as another saint for Aust..

like I have said in the past when they get the weather forecast right for more than a day I  might take some of what they say on board..

till then they may be able to warn us about an earthquake but I havent heard of them being able to stop one... unless Booby and the green machine are working on that.who would know??

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 3:08pm:

Thanks for that summation mr weekend. Now, cods?

I think I have answered that.. how about you answering me..

tell us why the sky is falling and when.. just for starters.

gosh still looking for your balls then..keep looking..

"I think I have answered that.. how about you answering me.."

You didn't answer anything. What specifically do you disagree with Garnaut about?

I find Garnaut persuasive, as an economist. What did he say that you don't agree with?

And as for my balls, they go wherever I do. Rather personal question though

Its probably time to move on, the only people of any note supporting the skeptics are pretty dodgy when you drill down on their resumes.
Most govts, businesses and all reputable scientists around the world support action on climate change and its pretty much unanimous that a simple across the board carbon tax is the way to go.
The skeptics can be pleased with the news that if they are right the worst that can happen is that we would have developed clean, green alternative energy sources and there will be plenty of fossil fuels left for future generations to use to make plastics etc and if they so wish...burn for energy  :)
If we act and the skeptics are right..we have lost nothing and conserved fossil fuels for the future..if the worlds leaders and scientists are right..then we have saved the planet  :)

codswal wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 4:56pm:

Lobo wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:54pm: Please delete wrote on Oct 19th, 2010 at 12:39pm: So what did Garnaut say that was wrong, cods? What's your analysis? Now there's an analysis I eagerly await. :D what a laugh and you tell me to read the artical...he called you IGNORANT... now you might not mind that in fact I agree with him on that point as its the ones in favour of all this tommy rot.. that thinks a GREAT BIG NEW TAX is the answer..LOL..a good laugh.oh its good to see we have back up as well. why dont you guys have the balls to come clean and admit who you really are...nup didnt think you had any.

Anyone care to translate these ramblings???

Please delete wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 5:27pm:

"I think I have answered that.. how about you answering me.." You didn't answer anything. What specifically do you disagree with Garnaut about? I find Garnaut persuasive, as an economist. What did he say that you don't agree with? And as for my balls, they go wherever I do. Rather personal question though

Mine too!!!

:D

adelcrow wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 5:57pm:

Its probably time to move on, the only people of any note supporting the skeptics are pretty dodgy when you drill down on their resumes. Most govts, businesses and all reputable scientists around the world support action on climate change and its pretty much unanimous that a simple across the board carbon tax is the way to go. The skeptics can be pleased with the news that if they are right the worst that can happen is that we would have developed clean, green alternative energy sources and there will be plenty of fossil fuels left for future generations to use to make plastics etc and if they so wish...burn for energy  :) If we act and the skeptics are right..we have lost nothing and conserved fossil fuels for the future..if the worlds leaders and scientists are right..then we have saved the planet  :)

I think you will find crow that your last sentence answers your questions.... IF.. thats the whole thing its one big IF..yet you believe as long as they TAX the hell out of it... it will SAVE THE PLANET.and if we the scpetics happen to be right.. well nothings lost..lol.. except a lot of money that could have been spent elsewhere..but that of course doesnt matter... what matters is getting ones own way and rubbishing the hell out of anyone that happens to think different

fun ny old world isnt it...

Mother Nature whom I believe in implicitly, and in whom I believe has far more strength than we humans will ever have..will always control the planet..

where Booby Brown got his phd in  metrology I dont know..but he seem to believe that once he gets his way on climate change he will be given the golden key that will switch the rain and sun on and off at his will.. not only does he think he is an authority on this he also thinks he will have the power..and I think thats is the funniest thing..

so if its okay with your guys I will keep believeing in Mother Nature.. and you keep believeing in Al and Booby.. I couldnt careless.