Australia is responsible only for its own emissions. However, once we do something we will have a standing point to pressure other countries. The "nobody else is doing enough so why should we do anything" argument is meaningless. It does not shed us from our own responsibilities. Other countries are taking measures against climate change and only the ones that aren't are used in this defence. Appalling selectiveness to prop up a failed argument.

Carbon Tax. Polluters pay for their CO2 emissions. Will work to reduce Australia's emissions from a business as usual position using economic leverage.  If habits by households are completely unchanged they will incur a 0.7% increase in the cost of living. If they change their habits their cost of living may decrease with added compensation. The price on carbon will be passed onto the consumer, nobody is denying this. The flaw of the coal lobby groups is saying business will drop and the carbon tax will have no effect. Yes we will be using less coal, that is the whole point. Less coal burned means less CO2 so the carbon tax will work. The coal lobby groups represent **BUSINESSES** and only care about making money, they don't care about jobs or the environment or our society (they are made up of foreigners).

"Direct Action". Two components. One component consists of giving tax payers money to multimillion or multibillion dollar corporations for each tonne of CO2 they don't produce. We will pay them to be clean. Polluters are not penalized for polluting more, so the scheme is optional. The second component consists of using new and unproven technology to lock up carbon in soils. Australian scientists say the scheme is unlikely to work in Australian soils due to the conditions here and may release more CO2 then it aims to sequester. Also, for the scheme to work it has to measure how much carbon has been locked up into the soil so the carbon can be paid for. There is no practical way of measuring carbon content in soils over large areas and there aren't even theoretical ways of doing such a thing on the horizon. The price offered for locking up carbon in soil is $15 per tonne but farmers say it would have to be at least $25 per tonne to make it economical. The carbon in soil technology proposal has been rejected by all stakeholders as either impractical or uneconomical.

"Direct Action", apart from being at the best, optional, at the worst, impractical, is going to be at least 50% more expensive and more likely 100% more expensive than the carbon tax. It appears that Tony Abbott has read some sci-fi articles about carbon capture and has rejected all advice from the people who would be responsible for working the policy. Offering more tax payer money to rich corporations always goes down well with the lobby groups, that's what they are there for.

It is hard to say what effect this will have on voters once they understand Abbott's alternative to the carbon tax.

Yeahhhh a real topic worthy of a debate cause I'm waiting to hear from those that support the Liberals on this very issue. an issue that  they always seem to avoid and think will be swept under the carpet.

So its been confirmed that the Direct action plan will cost  us 2  & 1/2 times MORE than Gillards price on carbon, so , will the No to carbon tax protestors  support Abbotts Direct action tax which has less effect?

Alan Jones reckons carbon pollution is a con and I see no reason to doubt a man of his expansive knowledge and good character   ;D ;D

Like I said, the Direct Action plan is a throwaway policy made by a skeptic, for skeptics.

Abbott has publicly endoresed a carbon tax on at least two occasions. Recently he said the coalition would have their own carbon tax if elected.

Then again, he has also made some pretty silly criticisms of the tax:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html

Economists almost universally oppose his direct action plans.

Not one Liberal supporter. These non speaking, closed eye  liberals will blindly vote in someone that will be worse than Gillard in more ways than one . which will cause our hip pockets MORE  damage whilst taking away our  wage/job  security ,again. And they also have the hide to call Gillard names...pffttt

suppose they, Liberals, can always blame labor......

"I oppose a carbon tax for a very simple reason: I do not believe its benefits justify its costs. More specifically, I do not believe that that the incremental reduction in risk that it would provide over-and-above a much cheaper technology-focused policy would nearly offset its incremental costs over-and-above such a technology-focused policy for the foreseeable future......" :D

I've read so much about both sides of the argument..and like most Australians i'm not an expert by any means. But the blindingly obvious conclusion is we have to start taxing the polluters!! What crunched it for me 100% was when David Attenborough finally came out and agreed on the enormous NEED to address climate change..reducing carbon was paramount for the survival of our natural world. The only people against this for an obvious reason is the big corporate mining world and it's share holders. Why on earth our young people are running around calling our PM all sorts of sexist names because of this important policy that addresses the future of their planet and their very lives defies all logic.  :( :( :(

News for you.  The so called big polluters are already taxed... :o

NOT enough.

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 9:25pm:

. Why on earth our young people are running around calling our PM all sorts of sexist names because of this important policy that addresses the future of their planet and their very lives defies all logic.  :( :( :(

.......maybe because she lied.  :o

If CO2 concentrations were such a danger we'd be building nuclear power plants by the dozen. :(

Swagman wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 10:30pm:

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:25pm: . Why on earth our young people are running around calling our PM all sorts of sexist names because of this important policy that addresses the future of their planet and their very lives defies all logic.  :( :( :( .......maybe because she lied.  :o If CO2 concentrations were such a danger we'd be building nuclear power plants by the dozen. :(

Perhaps we would be, if the risks of Nuclear power didn't right this moment have Japan on its knees.

azulene wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 6:13pm:

Australia is responsible only for its own emissions. However, once we do something we will have a standing point to pressure other countries.

How and why would they even care that we have a "standing point"???

There is no pressure.

So if I bought a Ferrari just that mean I get to pressure you into buying the EXACT same Ferrari?

So this so-called "STANDING POINT" is at best a self-bestowed moral high ground that no one cares about!!

Not a high ground. We would have caught up to the rest of the developed world.

Socialism failed because it couldn't tell the economic truth; capitalism may fail because it couldn't tell the ecological truth.
Lester Brown, Fortune Brainstorm Conference, 2006

Doing nothing is not a solution.....Regardless of what people think, fossil fuels are dwindling fast.....as all political parties are proposing cutting emissions so we should embrace the policy that is going to provide the best framework for the massive investment required for reneweable or nuclear power!!!

::)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:02am:

Socialism failed because it couldn't tell the economic truth; capitalism may fail because it couldn't tell the ecological truth. Lester Brown, Fortune Brainstorm Conference, 2006 Doing nothing is not a solution.....Regardless of what people think, fossil fuels are dwindling fast.....as all political parties are proposing cutting emissions so we should embrace the policy that is going to provide the best framework for the massive investment required for reneweable or nuclear power!!! ::)

Quoting someone does not mean what they said holds any truths

This is not about a SOLUTION - because there are no solutions

Why are there no solution?

Because we don't even understand the problem!!

The one question that no one on the left can answer is - how much do humans contribute (in percentage terms) to total carbon emissions

I said to freediver yesterday that the focus on carbon tax and the likes are about focusing on a single tree in the forest

ie we can't see the forest for the trees

so if we use total carbon emissions on Earth as a forest of 100 trees - how many belongs to humans?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 9:02am: Socialism failed because it couldn't tell the economic truth; capitalism may fail because it couldn't tell the ecological truth. Lester Brown, Fortune Brainstorm Conference, 2006 Doing nothing is not a solution.....Regardless of what people think, fossil fuels are dwindling fast.....as all political parties are proposing cutting emissions so we should embrace the policy that is going to provide the best framework for the massive investment required for reneweable or nuclear power!!! ::) Quoting someone does not mean what they said holds any truths This is not about a SOLUTION - because there are no solutions Why are there no solution? Because we don't even understand the problem!! The one question that no one on the left can answer is - how much do humans contribute (in percentage terms) to total carbon emissions I said to freediver yesterday that the focus on carbon tax and the likes are about focusing on a single tree in the forest ie we can't see the forest for the trees so if we use total carbon emissions on Earth as a forest of 100 trees - how many belongs to humans?

Showing that we are responsible for a twig on a tree in a forest, is unrealistic. Just like the AGW debate.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 9:32am: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 9:02am: Socialism failed because it couldn't tell the economic truth; capitalism may fail because it couldn't tell the ecological truth. Lester Brown, Fortune Brainstorm Conference, 2006 Doing nothing is not a solution.....Regardless of what people think, fossil fuels are dwindling fast.....as all political parties are proposing cutting emissions so we should embrace the policy that is going to provide the best framework for the massive investment required for reneweable or nuclear power!!! ::) Quoting someone does not mean what they said holds any truths This is not about a SOLUTION - because there are no solutions Why are there no solution? Because we don't even understand the problem!! The one question that no one on the left can answer is - how much do humans contribute (in percentage terms) to total carbon emissions I said to freediver yesterday that the focus on carbon tax and the likes are about focusing on a single tree in the forest ie we can't see the forest for the trees so if we use total carbon emissions on Earth as a forest of 100 trees - how many belongs to humans? Showing that we are responsible for a twig on a tree in a forest, is unrealistic. Just like the AGW debate.

this is why the likes of freediver and others who support this AGW position will never answer my question

they know that in doing so will unwind and discredit ALL of their assertions

they mistake conviction/passion for "head in the sand"

too afraid to ask the hard questions

even worse - too afraid to answer the hard questions

So, no one upset at Abbotts Direct Action plan costings that is not seen as a lie because he is just not telling you  ?

No wonder we  all get ripped off.






http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-02/opposition-climate-plan-costs-twice-carbon-tax/2868852

Quote:

I said to freediver yesterday that the focus on carbon tax and the likes are about focusing on a single tree in the forest ie we can't see the forest for the trees

Maqqa came up with that after he tried debating the economics and failed miserably, so he went back to asking silly questions about the science and tried to pretend it was the same thing.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

Quote: I said to freediver yesterday that the focus on carbon tax and the likes are about focusing on a single tree in the forest ie we can't see the forest for the trees Maqqa came up with that after he tried debating the economics and failed miserably, so he went back to asking silly questions about the science and tried to pretend it was the same thing.

I am happy to debate you at any level

I am simply making a point that your debate is at a twig level of a tree which is part of a bigger forest

Debating whether one twig is better than another (direct action vs carbon tax) is fun but at the end of the day it's still a twig on a tree part of a bigger forest

Also keep in mind that we are the micro-organisms that live on that twig and we will pay a heavy price even though our action would at best impact the twig and not the tree and certainly not the forest

I think there are three other active threads where you very recently made an abrupt change from debating economics to asking your silly questions about the science once it became obvious what sort of hole you were digging.

Do you need me to point them out for you?

Given that both major parties now support action on climate change it is a pretty big decision - not one you can put off by pretending the science isn't in.

I support action on climate change - however I do not support tax which makes cost of living for an everyday family rise by over $1,000 per year.

All it does is make Aussie families poorer - it does nothing to resolve the environmental issues.

Meanwhile China is building more coal-fired power plants and readily admits their emissions are planned to increase.....

See the folly?

Quote:

All it does is make Aussie families poorer - it does nothing to resolve the environmental issues.

It will reduce our emissions.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:24pm:

Quote: All it does is make Aussie families poorer - it does nothing to resolve the environmental issues. It will reduce our emissions.

Which will do nothing for the global climate.

So we're making our families poorer and allowing the Chinks to just keep polluting more?

Great.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

azulene wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 6:13pm: Australia is responsible only for its own emissions. However, once we do something we will have a standing point to pressure other countries. How and why would they even care that we have a "standing point"??? There is no pressure. So if I bought a Ferrari just that mean I get to pressure you into buying the EXACT same Ferrari? So this so-called "STANDING POINT" is at best a self-bestowed moral high ground that no one cares about!!

You wouldn't pressure another person into buying the exact same Ferrari, more like they would feel pressure because everybody else is getting Ferrari's while they still have a Toyota.

If everybody else is taking steps forward then it reflects badly on those staying behind and possibly they will fear being left behind. It is not about an individual country putting pressure on others. The pressure stems from a group of countries taking steps toward the same goal.

Developing countries accounted for two thirds of renewable growth.

Look  China's key pillar of  economic growth in the inland regions is the development of renewable and green industries- yes their economy is industrializing rapidly (and therefore emissions are increasing), but this doesn’t mean they are shying away from the huge growth potential of new green industries. People so readily forget the incredible economic prospects of green industry.

And when their renewable industry can be substaining they will change over , but until then,we are being left behind with comments like andrei about what china is doing or not doing.  

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

Developing countries accounted for two thirds of renewable growth. Look  China's key pillar of  economic growth in the inland regions is the development of renewable and green industries- yes their economy is industrializing rapidly (and therefore emissions are increasing), but this doesn’t mean they are shying away from the huge growth potential of new green industries. People so readily forget the incredible economic prospects of green industry. And when their renewable industry can be substaining they will change over , but until then,we are being left behind with comments like andrei about what china is doing or not doing.

CRAPP

Lest not forget the increase in renewables is to also HELP take pressure off dwindling resources, so maybe our kids can have some. However, lets do the nothing approach and just leave your kids big houses....

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

Lest not forget the increase in renewables is to also HELP take pressure off dwindling resources, so maybe our kids can have some. However, lets do the nothing approach and just leave your kids big houses....

They all ready own big houses   ;D

O))) wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 7:56am: azulene wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 6:13pm: Australia is responsible only for its own emissions. However, once we do something we will have a standing point to pressure other countries. How and why would they even care that we have a "standing point"??? There is no pressure. So if I bought a Ferrari just that mean I get to pressure you into buying the EXACT same Ferrari? So this so-called "STANDING POINT" is at best a self-bestowed moral high ground that no one cares about!! You wouldn't pressure another person into buying the exact same Ferrari, more like they would feel pressure because everybody else is getting Ferrari's while they still have a Toyota. If everybody else is taking steps forward then it reflects badly on those staying behind and possibly they will fear being left behind. It is not about an individual country putting pressure on others. The pressure stems from a group of countries taking steps toward the same goal.

This is why Rudd's beloved Kyoto Protocol was a farce

191 signed up and only 35 had any real financial penalty

So what can 35 countries as a group do to "pressure" the 156 countries?

If they have then why did Copenhagen was such a disaster?

This is why Wong was sacked

This is why Garrett was sacked

Both are scapegoats for Rudd's incompetence

Let start to  discuss one  of Abbotts  Direct action options,  giving money to farmers to give up some of their land for Carbon Storage in the ground.

Positives and negatives anyone?



come on libs, you  all seem to know so much about Gillards 'failed price on carbon'  that you must be experts?

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:41pm:

Let start to  discuss one  of Abbotts  Direct action options,  giving money to farmers to give up some of their land for Carbon Storage in the ground. Positives and negatives anyone?

Dont you have your own opinion

FRED. wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:41pm: Let start to  discuss one  of Abbotts  Direct action options,  giving money to farmers to give up some of their land for Carbon Storage in the ground. Positives and negatives anyone? Dont you have your own opinion

No, you sell Abbotts policy to me after all your voting for it?

Gillard's carbon tax on a family of 4 -

Increase cost of living groceries - $996

Tax cut benefits - ($3)

Overall - $993 worse off.

Source - Australian Treasury.


Great idea isn't it????

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

FRED. wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:43pm: wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:41pm: Let start to  discuss one  of Abbotts  Direct action options,  giving money to farmers to give up some of their land for Carbon Storage in the ground. Positives and negatives anyone? Dont you have your own opinion No, you sell Abbotts policy to me after all your voting for it?

OK   so you dont have an opinon  so dont comment

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:41pm:

Let start to  discuss one  of Abbotts  Direct action options,  giving money to farmers to give up some of their land for Carbon Storage in the ground. Positives and negatives anyone?

Lets start with:

(1) The fact that we can't see the forest for the trees in the AGW debate

(2) If we use the analogy of a forest of 100 trees representing all carbon emissions in the world - how many trees belongs to humans

(3) Discussing Australia's carbon tax vs direct action plan is like discussing how action of a small twig on a branch on a tree will impact the whole forest

(4) In saying that - Australians live on that twig and any action on that twig may kill the twig but does nothing to the branch or tree or to the forest

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

Gillard's carbon tax on a family of 4 - Increase cost of living groceries - $996 Tax cut benefits - ($3) Overall - $993 worse off. Source - Australian Treasury. Great idea isn't it????

That only affects a very small amount of people that can afford it anyway. The great majority will be better off. Abbott's plan on the other hand will make EVERYONE worse off,but really who cares about your opinion? you don't even live here.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:24pm: Quote: All it does is make Aussie families poorer - it does nothing to resolve the environmental issues. It will reduce our emissions. Which will do nothing for the global climate. So we're making our families poorer and allowing the Chinks to just keep polluting more? Great.

It works like this Andrei. You have domestic policy for domestic issues, and foreign policy for the international issues. It helps if you don't confuse them. Both major parties have sensible and almost identical policies for handling the global context. It is nothing more than a waste of space to criticise the tax for not solving the entire global problem while ignoring the policies that do address them.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

Gillard's carbon tax on a family of 4 - Increase cost of living groceries - $996 Tax cut benefits - ($3) Overall - $993 worse off. Source - Australian Treasury. Great idea isn't it????

Double and add another half through the direct action plan of the Coalitions.


Gillard Carbon pricing. $9.90 extra weekly household cost average family
$10.10 average weekly assistance to households,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2791624/data/key-figures-promo-image-data.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2788516/data/emissions-grapha-image-data.png

I can see why those that support Abbott, do so? :-[

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:44pm: Gillard's carbon tax on a family of 4 - Increase cost of living groceries - $996 Tax cut benefits - ($3) Overall - $993 worse off. Source - Australian Treasury. Great idea isn't it???? Double and add another half through the direct action plan of the Coalitions. Gillard Carbon pricing. $9.90 extra weekly household cost average family $10.10 average weekly assistance to households, http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2791624/data/key-figures-promo-image-data.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2788516/data/emissions-grapha-image-data.png

because there are are pretty pictures therefore it must be true

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:40pm:

This is why Rudd's beloved Kyoto Protocol was a farce 191 signed up and only 35 had any real financial penalty So what can 35 countries as a group do to "pressure" the 156 countries? If they have then why did Copenhagen was such a disaster? This is why Wong was sacked This is why Garrett was sacked Both are scapegoats for Rudd's incompetence

The point I was making wasn't about Rudd or Kyoto. Just making it clear that I don't want my post affiliated with an attack on any political party. That wasn't what I was trying to get across.

[quote author=vegitamite link=1315037615/30#41 date=1315112179]I can see why those that support Abbott, do so? :-[/quote]

ISthat an opinion  NNS

O))) wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:40pm: This is why Rudd's beloved Kyoto Protocol was a farce 191 signed up and only 35 had any real financial penalty So what can 35 countries as a group do to "pressure" the 156 countries? If they have then why did Copenhagen was such a disaster? This is why Wong was sacked This is why Garrett was sacked Both are scapegoats for Rudd's incompetence Ok sure, but the point I was making wasn't about Rudd's incompetence or Kyoto.

But that's where it starts

That was Rudd's justification for ratifying Kyoto

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:54pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:44pm: Gillard's carbon tax on a family of 4 - Increase cost of living groceries - $996 Tax cut benefits - ($3) Overall - $993 worse off. Source - Australian Treasury. Great idea isn't it???? Double and add another half through the direct action plan of the Coalitions. Gillard Carbon pricing. $9.90 extra weekly household cost average family $10.10 average weekly assistance to households, http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2791624/data/key-figures-promo-image-data.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2788516/data/emissions-grapha-image-data.png because there are are pretty pictures therefore it must be true

I have pointed out to you several times Maqqa that it is more than this. It is what the vast majority of economists are also saying. It is basic economics. But you keep running from that discussion don't you?

Quote:

I have pointed out to you several times Maqqa that it is more than this. It is what the vast majority of economists are also saying. It is basic economics. But you keep running from that discussion don't you?

By freediver


Oh freediver is at it again, TRUST THE ECONOMISTS, Even though the majority of them didnt SEE THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT CAME IN LATE 2008, but then again freediver will look past that and trust THERE FUTURE PROJECTIONS ON THIS.

They did predict it. It was on the front page over and over again. You just didn't understand what they were saying.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

They did predict it. It was on the front page over and over again. You just didn't understand what they were saying.

They sure did. In fact I remember Liberal supporters on the Cracker forum back in 2007 saying they hoped the coalition would lose that election as the biggest financial crisis in our life times was about to hit.

In the last term of the Howard govt Costello was saying there is a severe downturn about to hit the global markets and many economists had been warning of a worldwide financial collapse for a few yrs.
I can only assume the neo con fan club were doing what they are now doing with carbon pollution...heads in the sand and hope it never happens   ;D ;D
Guess what..you reap what you sow  :)

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

Quote: I have pointed out to you several times Maqqa that it is more than this. It is what the vast majority of economists are also saying. It is basic economics. But you keep running from that discussion don't you? By freediver Oh freediver is at it again, TRUST THE ECONOMISTS, Even though the majority of them didnt SEE THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT CAME IN LATE 2008, but then again freediver will look past that and trust THERE FUTURE PROJECTIONS ON THIS.

There are a great many economists in this world - unfortunately, however, most of them have been co-opted into the corporate world, very few of them are truly independent and even fewer have a broad public reach...

That said, one of the greatest ironies about economics, is that it often turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy...

Right now, there is a great deal of vested interest, in economic predictions of maintaining the status quo of the global economic ponzi scheme - and a great deal of denial about the flawed worship of the inherently insatiable and destructive 'Growth Fairy' and his evil twin, the 'Good Greedy Witch of the West'...

There is a growing consensus amongst independent economists, that the world needs to make some dramatic socio-economic and environmental shifts - but there must be a paradigm shift at a political level before these changes can be implemented - and the stranglehold of a few self-serving and corrupt billionaires and warmongers needs to be exposed and broken first...

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

O))) wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:57pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:40pm: This is why Rudd's beloved Kyoto Protocol was a farce 191 signed up and only 35 had any real financial penalty So what can 35 countries as a group do to "pressure" the 156 countries? If they have then why did Copenhagen was such a disaster? This is why Wong was sacked This is why Garrett was sacked Both are scapegoats for Rudd's incompetence Ok sure, but the point I was making wasn't about Rudd's incompetence or Kyoto. But that's where it starts That was Rudd's justification for ratifying Kyoto

But it is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. All you are doing is seizing an opportunity to criticize Rudd.

Equitist wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 4:25pm:

stryder wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 4:05pm: Quote: I have pointed out to you several times Maqqa that it is more than this. It is what the vast majority of economists are also saying. It is basic economics. But you keep running from that discussion don't you? By freediver Oh freediver is at it again, TRUST THE ECONOMISTS, Even though the majority of them didnt SEE THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT CAME IN LATE 2008, but then again freediver will look past that and trust THERE FUTURE PROJECTIONS ON THIS. There are a great many economists in this world - unfortunately, however, most of them have been co-opted into the corporate world, very few of them are truly independent and even fewer have a broad public reach... That said, one of the greatest ironies about economics, is that it often turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy... Right now, there is a great deal of vested interest, in economic predictions of maintaining the status quo of the global economic ponzi scheme - and a great deal of denial about the flawed worship of the inherently insatiable and destructive 'Growth Fairy' and his evil twin, the 'Good Greedy Witch of the West'... There is a growing consensus amongst independent economists, that the world needs to make some dramatic socio-economic and environmental shifts - but there must be a paradigm shift at a political level before these changes can be implemented - and the stranglehold of a few self-serving and corrupt billionaires and warmongers needs to be exposed and broken first...

The predictions of the GFC were the opposite of a self fulfilling prophecy. Extraordinary (and politically unpalatable) measures were taken for several years in the leadup to the GFC that significantly reduced the extent of the crisis.

It remains to be seen, whether those measures have simply delayed and/or exacerbated the impacts of the inevitable crises of corporatism which are yet to fully unfold...

I suspect you are thinking of the actions taken after the GFC hit. You would have trouble arguing that those taken beforehand, in anticipation of what was to come made it worse.

Quote:

The predictions of the GFC were the opposite of a self fulfilling prophecy. Extraordinary (and politically unpalatable) measures were taken for several years in the leadup to the GFC that significantly reduced the extent of the crisis.

by freediver


That doesnt excuse the fact freediver that the majority of economists didnt see the global financial crisis in the later half of 2008

And YOU are pushing an argument that these economists who are giving favour to the economic based carbon policies SHOULD BE BELIEVED IN THERE FUTURE PROJECTIONS OF IT, THAT THEY CAN SEE THE FUTURE OF THIS CARBON POLICY WHEN THEY COULDNT SEE THE GFC COMING IN LATE 2008, YOU ARE CONTENDING THIS FREEDIVER, NOT ME !!

But they did see it coming. Like I said it was mainstream economics and front page news for years.

Not that anyone needs and excuse for not predicting the future, but I'm just pointing out the facts.

Quote:

but I'm just pointing out the facts.

By freediver

Me too, freediver

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Quote: The predictions of the GFC were the opposite of a self fulfilling prophecy. Extraordinary (and politically unpalatable) measures were taken for several years in the leadup to the GFC that significantly reduced the extent of the crisis.       by freediver That doesnt excuse the fact freediver that the majority of economists didnt see the global financial crisis in the later half of 2008 And YOU are pushing an argument that these economists who are giving favour to the economic based carbon policies SHOULD BE BELIEVED, YOU ARE FREEDIVER, NOT ME !!

Stryder, can you please tell us how you know what the majority of economists were seeing around that time - much less what they were thinking!?

For example, can you please point to the plethora of articles written by that majority which predicted an alternative scenario!?

Whilst you are at it, perhaps you could explain how the numerous articles containing competing scenarios came to your attention at that time...and since...

Maqqa wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

The one question that no one on the left can answer is - how much do humans contribute (in percentage terms) to total carbon emissions I said to freediver yesterday that the focus on carbon tax and the likes are about focusing on a single tree in the forest ie we can't see the forest for the trees so if we use total carbon emissions on Earth as a forest of 100 trees - how many belongs to humans?

This question keeps getting answered Maqqa, humans are responsible for 40 of those trees (more accurately 40% but if "trees" is easier for you to understand....)

Don't answer Maqqa'a questions for him. It spoils his day. Then he has to think up another one that he can pretend is unanswerable.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

I support action on climate change - however I do not support tax which makes cost of living for an everyday family rise by over $1,000 per year. All it does is make Aussie families poorer - it does nothing to resolve the environmental issues. Meanwhile China is building more coal-fired power plants and readily admits their emissions are planned to increase..... See the folly?

Yes. China announced that it's emissions will only go up 25% instead of 500% in the next 10 years and you are dumb enough to keep using an excuse which is no longer applicable. Actually it is applicable but it argues against you, so keep going...

And the carbon tax will reduce emissions, as inadvertently admitted by the coal lobby, and "direct action" will make Australian families even poorer, so none of your arguments hold.

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

Quote: but I'm just pointing out the facts. By freediver Me too, freediver

No stryder. All you are pointing out is that you did not see it coming because you did not understand the bombardment of messages telling you that it was coming, nor can you appreciate the very real changes that were made to stop you getting yourself in too deep. So you seek to blame others.

You still have not even bothered to ask me what these loud and clear messages were. What does that say?

Quote:

can you please tell us how you know what the majority of economists were seeing around that time - much less what they were thinking!?

by Equitists

Well Equitist, can you tell us of any newspaper that had anything close to a warning that some level of global economic calaymity would hit us by late 2007, 2008, 2009 even if the timing was off, but the event itself, the majority of these economists didnt see it coming in the the late 2008 economic crisis in the way it did and the way it came, and freediver is basing his arguments on such people HAS LEFT HIS ARGUMENT FLAWED, SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO, if economists get it wrong more often than not in projections, especially concerning mixing economics and science over a carbon tax !  

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:41pm:

Let start to  discuss one  of Abbotts  Direct action options,  giving money to farmers to give up some of their land for Carbon Storage in the ground. Positives and negatives anyone? come on libs, you  all seem to know so much about Gillards 'failed price on carbon'  that you must be experts?

Australian scientists from the CSIRO say the plan is unlikely to work due to the quality of soil in Australia and more CO2 may get produced than get stored. Also there is no practical way of measuring carbon in soil over large areas so no way of reimbursing the farmers.

If CSIRO were corrupt like the right whingers say, then wouldn't they be saying "great plan, we can make loads of money off this"? It's a massive opportunity for scientists to make huge of money off this carbon in soil plan, but they are saying no, the plan is crap. Why is this so?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

Gillard's carbon tax on a family of 4 - Increase cost of living groceries - $996 Tax cut benefits - ($3) Overall - $993 worse off. Source - Australian Treasury. Great idea isn't it????

Isn't this for families that make over the compensation threshold? These families are in a minority and making over $200k per year, maybe they can afford it?

Abbott's plan has no compensation to any tax payers and will cost close to $2000 for EVERY family even those on less than $100k. Great idea isn't it?

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 5:56pm:

Quote: can you please tell us how you know what the majority of economists were seeing around that time - much less what they were thinking!? by Equitists Well Equitist, can you tell us of any newspaper that had anything close to a warning that some level of global economic calaymity would hit us by late 2007, 2008, 2009 even if the timing was off, but the event itself, the majority of these economists didnt see it coming in the the late 2008 economic crisis in the way it did and the way it came, and freediver is basing his arguments on such people HAS LEFT HIS ARGUMENT FLAWED, SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO, if economists get it wrong more often than not in projections, especially concerning mixing economics and science over a carbon tax !

Just as I suspected, Stryder: you are claiming that there were no warnings from economists, when you can't really recall!

I can recall debating it back on Yahoo - in the months leading up to the 2007 Federal Election - and posting a range of articles at the time...

I was one of those who were being dismissed at the time as one of the 'prophets of doom'!

The simple fact, Stryder, was that the entire Western World had been riding a debt-fuelled stock bubble - and much of it had also been riding a debt-fuelled housing bubble - at a time when the shareholders share of national production was going up exponentially and the wages share of national production was going down!

With the lower real wages, increased consumerism and rising house prices, there was increasing debt - both consumer credit and mortgages - and much of that debt was being written under dodgy contracts which were being repeatedly-onsold for a premium at each stage!

Only a fool could think that such trends were sustainable!

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 5:56pm:

Quote: can you please tell us how you know what the majority of economists were seeing around that time - much less what they were thinking!? by Equitists Well Equitist, can you tell us of any newspaper that had anything close to a warning that some level of global economic calaymity would hit us by late 2007, 2008, 2009 even if the timing was off, but the event itself, the majority of these economists didnt see it coming in the the late 2008 economic crisis in the way it did and the way it came, and freediver is basing his arguments on such people HAS LEFT HIS ARGUMENT FLAWED, SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO, if economists get it wrong more often than not in projections, especially concerning mixing economics and science over a carbon tax !

It was mainstream economics and front page news Longy. If the reserve bank actions were not wanring enough then what is?

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 5:56pm:

Well Equitist, can you tell us of any newspaper that had anything close to a warning that some level of global economic calaymity would hit us by late 2007, 2008, 2009 even if the timing was off, but the event itself, the majority of these economists didnt see it coming in the the late 2008 economic crisis in the way it did and the way it came, and freediver is basing his arguments on such people HAS LEFT HIS ARGUMENT FLAWED, SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO, if economists get it wrong more often than not in projections, especially concerning mixing economics and science over a carbon tax !

Boo hoo.

Economists get it right when talking about factors controlling the market. They can effectively predict on how to make less coal be sold. That's what they can say about the carbon tax and that bit works just fine.

Scientists can say that burning less coal results in less CO2. That bit is just fine.

If this adds up to insurmountable mind boggling voodoo magic to you, tough luck, you have disqualified yourself from rational argument.

As a matter of interest, Stryder, have you noticed that there have been similar warnings of impending global economic calamity in recent months!?

If you haven't noticed, then, you haven't been paying attention this time around either - and will doubtless be expressing more surprise and shock in the near future!

Quote:

As a matter of interest, Stryder, have you noticed that there have been similar warnings of impending global economic calamity in recent months!?

As a matter of interest Equitist the past five years has seen market jitters to the extreme, so its obvious in the 3 years since the GFC that negativity and jittery is rampant in the market


But prior to the GFC there was a global economic boom so amongst that the majority of economists didnt see the GFC coming in late 2008, and now people like you and freediver want us to believe the same people in CARBON POLICY WHICH INVOLVES FUTURE PROJECTIONS  ???

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 6:49pm:

Quote: As a matter of interest, Stryder, have you noticed that there have been similar warnings of impending global economic calamity in recent months!? As a matter of interest Equitist the past five years has seen market jitters to the extreme, so its obvious in the 3 years since the GFC that negativity and jittery is rampant in the market But prior to the GFC there was a global economic boom so amongst that the majority of economists didnt see the GFC coming in late 2008, and now people like you and freediver want us to believe the same people in CARBON POLICY WHICH INVOLVES FUTURE PROJECTIONS  ???

Stryder, again you only reveal your inability to understand or even hear what economists are telling you. The fact that there was a boom does not mean that economists were not predicting a bust. Simply repating that they didn't see it coming, despite everyone explaing to you the warnings that were given, only shows that you are unable or unwill to see what is front of you. You need to understand what economists are saying before you are in any position to make claims about what they said.

Quote:

The fact that there was a boom does not mean that economists were not predicting a bust. Simply repating that they didn't see it coming, despite everyone explaing to you the warnings that were given, only shows that you are unable or unwill to see what is front of you. You need to understand what economists are saying before you are in any position to make claims about what they said.

By freediver

Dont you crap me, freediver, THERE WASNT A MAJORITY OF ECONOMISTS THAT WAS PRESSING THAT AN ECONOMIC CALAMITY WAS AROUND THE CORNER IN 2008 I said a majority not a few economists or a minority, BUT THE MAJORITY AND YET YOU CANT PROVE THAT TO ME THAT IT WASNT SO !,

Yes there was stryder. As I keep telling you, it was middle of the road economics and was repeatedly on the front page.

Do you have any argument besides repeating yourself?

Quote:

Do you have any argument besides repeating yourself?

b

Quote:

Do you have any argument besides repeating yourself?

by freediver


Of course I will keep repeating myself, because freediver you have repeated and failed to logically refute it, WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY ???

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 7:23pm:

Quote: Do you have any argument besides repeating yourself? by freediver Of course I will keep repeating myself, because freediver you have repeated and failed to logically refute it, WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY ???

So, Stryder, since you seem so convinced - perhaps you recall what some of the economics headlines were in the timeframe you mentioned earlier!?

Quote:

As I keep telling you, it was middle of the road economics and was repeatedly on the front page.

By freediver


What the hell are you saying ??


You want to believe in the economists future projections in CARBON POLICY , AM I WRONG FREEDIVER


And yet these economists couldnt see the global finanical crisis coming the way it did, OTHEWISE FREEDIVER WOULD HAVE SPLATTERED HIS POSTS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF ECONOMISTS SAW THE GFC COMING IN LATE 2008, but they didnt

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 7:23pm:

Quote: Do you have any argument besides repeating yourself? by freediver Of course I will keep repeating myself, because freediver you have repeated and failed to logically refute it, WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY ???

Well you could try refuting my claim that the reserve bank actions for example were a warning. Or you could try denying that it made the front page over and over again. Or could try to refute my claim that you simply did not understand these warnings. You could try making any of these arguments.

Or you could just respond to every point people make by repeating your silly claim that economists did not see it coming.

Yo Stryder!

I've done your work for you - I googled on "global recession", then narrowed the timeframe to 1/1/2004 through 1/7/2007 and came up with a whopping 7,690,000 results!

Happy reading: -

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=global+recession (you will need to narrow the timeframe yourself - cos this link will get you some 28,200,000 results)

Stryder there are plenty of points you could respond that that would move the debate forward rather than just repeating yourself.

I am also interested in what advice we should seek on economic issues if we are to ignore economists? Perhaps you would prefer a tarot card reader? Do you think it looks good for the coalition if you have to reject the field of economics in order to promote their policies?

Unless it can be shown how this tax will address economic alienation and human inequality then it is a complete waste of time.  If this is a tax to subsidize failed capitalism and protectionism for third world neocolonialism, then lets face reality and start tackling the real problems.

direct action = helping the environment

carbon tax = a new tax

Abbotts Direct action does nothing and I can see clearly why the Coalition (Remembing Barnabyj oyce view on mining the artic)  want NO action on climate change  . Get ready, war chest is in need of filling ;


Great news. Global warming will create a brand new polar oil rush in the Arctic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/unlocked-by-melting-icecaps-the-great-polar-oil-rush-has-begun-2349789.html

wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Abbotts Direct action does nothing and I can see clearly why the Coalition (Remembing Barnabyj oyce view on mining the artic)  want NO action on climate change  . Get ready, war chest is in need of filling ; Great news. Global warming will create a brand new polar oil rush in the Arctic. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/unlocked-by-melting-icecaps-the-great-polar-oil-rush-has-begun-2349789.html

BLOODY HELL WHO RATTLED THE CANS   >:(

corporate_whitey wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:53am:

Unless it can be shown how this tax will address economic alienation and human inequality then it is a complete waste of time.  If this is a tax to subsidize failed capitalism and protectionism for third world neocolonialism, then lets face reality and start tackling the real problems.

does that mean anything ?

Another POSITIVE for Labors Price on carbon and a negative to Liberals Directionless action plan;

European Commission president gives carbon plan the thumbs up

Paul Kelly
From:The Australian
September 07, 201112:00AM


EUROPEAN Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned yesterday it was "very important" for Europe that Australia implement its planned carbon pricing policy.

In an interview with The Australian, Mr Barroso said the European experience showed that once Australia acted its gains would be both economic and environmental.

Mr Barroso's message was Australia's new and growing importance to Europe, given the Gillard government's carbon policy. He pushed the case for action while saying he had no wish to interfere in Australia's domestic politics.

On every point he affirmed Labor's stand and rejected that of the Coalition.



"There is a business case for fighting climate change," Mr Barroso said. "In Europe we basically have a cross-party consensus from the German Greens to the British Conservatives, to the Christian Democrats, the socialists and the liberals -- all of them support an ambitious agenda in terms of reduction of emissions.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/european-commission-president-gives-carbon-plan-the-thumbs-up/story-fn99tjf2-1226130919947

So What is China doing again.

Today's Age newspaper reports that China will use Australia's planned emissions trading scheme as a model for its pilot schemes to be introduced in 2013. Have a read.

Beijing praises emissions plan
www.theage.com.au
Beijing praises emissions plan


I'm thinking -  Will not  be long now and Abbott will really look like an Idiot  and those that support  him , more so.   :-*

Every country will be adopting a carbon tax or something simliar, its just a matter of who wants to be at the cutting edge of new ideas and technology and who wants to be left behind throwing money at the big polluters and planting a few trees.
Polluters should always pay to pollute not be rewarded with taxpayer handouts

adelcrow wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

Every country will be adopting a carbon tax or something simliar, its just a matter of who wants to be at the cutting edge of new ideas and technology and who wants to be left behind throwing money at the big polluters and planting a few trees. Polluters should always pay to pollute not be rewarded with taxpayer handouts

You mean the people should pay more for everything because of a failed idea, a failed science, a failed ideology.

No thanks.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 9:43am: Every country will be adopting a carbon tax or something simliar, its just a matter of who wants to be at the cutting edge of new ideas and technology and who wants to be left behind throwing money at the big polluters and planting a few trees. Polluters should always pay to pollute not be rewarded with taxpayer handouts You mean the people should pay more for everything because of a failed idea, a failed science, a failed ideology. No thanks.

Its quite simple..polluters should pay the total cost of cleaning up their mess, that includes carbon polluters. It encourages non polluting industries and relieves future generations from paying to clean up pollution they did not produce.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 9:43am: Every country will be adopting a carbon tax or something simliar, its just a matter of who wants to be at the cutting edge of new ideas and technology and who wants to be left behind throwing money at the big polluters and planting a few trees. Polluters should always pay to pollute not be rewarded with taxpayer handouts You mean the people should pay more for everything because of a failed idea, a failed science, a failed ideology. No thanks.

A bit like religion - think of ALL the trouble that that has cost people over the decades. Give me a price on pollution,  over that anyday.

So, to sum up Direct Action v Carbon Tax=
if you do not like a carbon price, you would positively hate the alternative policy Abbott is advocating & in more ways $$$$  [smiley=angry.gif] than one.

Its not rocket science, even if you dont believe climate change is going to be an issue the simple fact of polluters paying to clean up the mess they are spewing into our atmosphere and contributiing to find new energy sources to replace the finite fossil fuels they are burning makes sense.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

Its not rocket science, even if you dont believe climate change is going to be an issue the simple fact of polluters paying to clean up the mess they are spewing into our atmosphere and contributiing to find new energy sources to replace the finite fossil fuels they are burning makes sense.

Ditto re the unsustainability of mass deforestation and wanton over-consumption!

The simple fact is: humans can no longer continue to wantonly rob and shyte in our own nests - nor the nest of others!

The Tea Baggers coming at this issue purely as part of their "whinge against everything" do themesleves no favours.

I repeat -for  those on the right that use the excuse china isnt doing anything;


Beijing praises emissions plan
Adam Morton
September 8, 2011


''Some say what is happening in Australia is even better [scheme design] than in Europe, so in that sense Australia is leading.''
Dr Kejun spoke yesterday at a Victoria University climate change conference, having been brought to Australia by the government's Climate Commission as the first of six international guests to report on steps overseas to reduce emissions. His visit came as miner Rio Tinto intensified its opposition to Australia's carbon pricing scheme, urging Prime Minister Julia Gillard to start again on carbon policy.


AUSTRALIA'S proposed emissions trading scheme has won praise from Beijing, where it will be the model for one of six Chinese pilot schemes to be introduced in 2013.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/beijing-praises-emissions-plan-20110907-1jxql.html#ixzz1XKImyhUc

Read more:http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/beijing-praises-emissions-plan-20110907-1jxql.html#ixzz1XKHgYvBr

wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 1:01pm:

I repeat -for  those on the right that use the excuse china isnt doing anything; Beijing praises emissions plan Adam Morton September 8, 2011 ''Some say what is happening in Australia is even better [scheme design] than in Europe, so in that sense Australia is leading.'' Dr Kejun spoke yesterday at a Victoria University climate change conference, having been brought to Australia by the government's Climate Commission as the first of six international guests to report on steps overseas to reduce emissions. His visit came as miner Rio Tinto intensified its opposition to Australia's carbon pricing scheme, urging Prime Minister Julia Gillard to start again on carbon policy. Read more:http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/beijing-praises-emissions-plan-20110907-1jxql.html#ixzz1XKHgYvBr

having been brought to Australia by the government's Climate Commission as the first of six international guests to report on steps overseas to reduce emissions.

PAYED FOR BUY THE GOVT        LOL LOL   NUM NUTS    ;D

Dramatic shrinking of Greenland glacier
1:24pm A Welsh scientist has taken alarming photos of a Greenland glacier that has melted.



Dr Hubbard said: "Although I knew what to expect in terms of ice loss from satellite imagery, I was still completely unprepared for the gob-smacking scale of the break-up, which rendered me speechless."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/dramatic-shrinking-of-greenland-glacier-20110908-1jyym.html#ixzz1XKRc14Dh

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/09/08/2611388/port-petermanglacier-420x0.jpg