Australian Politics Forum - "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20542
Perth
Gender: male

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #15 - 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!!!

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #16 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:32am

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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?

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #17 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:36am

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #18 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 9:47am

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

vegitamite Ex Member	Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax Reply #19 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 10:05am 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
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #20 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #21 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 11:48am

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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax
Reply #22 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:11pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #23 - 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?

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49458 At my desk.	Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax" Reply #24 - 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.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #25 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:28pm

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.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

O)))

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 153
Gender: male

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax
Reply #26 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:31pm

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

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!!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

vegitamite

Ex Member

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #27 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

FRED.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3698

Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax"
Reply #28 - Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:34pm

Quote:

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

Back to top

IP Logged

vegitamite Ex Member	Re: "Direct Action" vs "Carbon Tax" Reply #29 - 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....
Back to top	IP Logged