Australian Politics Forum - support coalition = reject economics

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #15 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:39am

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer

So where are your references?

MAQQA AKA THE-TRYHARD-INTERNETS-FASCIST-OF-ALL-FASCISTS GIVES OUT THE HOMEWORK HERE AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO IT!

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #16 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:22am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer

So where are your references?

MAQQA AKA THE-TRYHARD-INTERNETS-FASCIST-OF-ALL-FASCISTS GIVES OUT THE HOMEWORK HERE AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO IT!

Cheesy

You can call me names all you want death

Facts are you can't answer the question either

So back in your hole

Back to top

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

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #17 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:28am

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:22am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer

So where are your references?

MAQQA AKA THE-TRYHARD-INTERNETS-FASCIST-OF-ALL-FASCISTS GIVES OUT THE HOMEWORK HERE AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO IT!

Cheesy

You can call me names all you want death

Facts are you can't answer the question either

So back in your hole

You're a tryhard trying desperately to deflect us all from the mining rort Tony Abbott and the once proud but now shamed Liberal Party is quite happy to lead all Australians down the garden path on!!!

Who attended the anti-mining tax rallies???

Lol,............................ the statistics are what you Libs live and die at parties by so suck it up buttercup!! SMOKED ANY CRACK AND TALKED AOBUT PETER COSTELLO AND JOHN HOWARD LATELY: NUP, DIDN'T THINK SO!

LOL!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #18 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:30am

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

Quote:

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to validate this claim, and you keep failing. Need we go through this yet again?

EVERY SINGLE TIME it seems. I have validated the claims. You pretend it doesn't exist

Quote:

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

There are plenty of those around here. But in those threads you only want to discuss the economics.

Only from my side

Quote:

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty

But you don't even know what that penalty is. Even if Kyoto is the reason, is that a rational argument for Abbott's plans that will harm the economy?

FFS freediver. I have QUOTED the exact penalty MANY TIMES and the references. MANY MANY MANY TIMES

Quote:

strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!

No point making stuff up cods.

Quote:

So where are your references?

Maqqa where are your references about the Kyoto penalties? And no I don't mean a link to an article about Rudd signing it. I mean something a bit beyond your blind insistance that there are penalties and what they are.

lets start with this shall we

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/items/3024.php

In the case of the enforcement branch, each type of non-compliance requires a specific course of action. For instance, where the enforcement branch has determined that the emissions of a Party have exceeded its assigned amount, it must declare that that Party is in non-compliance and require the Party to make up the difference between its emissions and its assigned amount during the second commitment period, plus an additional deduction of 30%. In addition, it shall require the Party to submit a compliance action plan and suspend the eligibility of the Party to make transfers under emissions trading until the Party is reinstated.

As a general rule, decisions taken by the two branches of the Committee cannot be appealed. The exception is a decision of the enforcement branch relating to emissions targets. Even then, a Party can only appeal if it believes it has been denied due process

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #19 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:33am the the really stupid ones from the left the UNFCCC are the people who runs the Kyoto protocol ie any references direct from them is considered to be from the horse's mouth
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: support coalition = reject economics Reply #20 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 8:14am How long ago was the second committment period Maqqa?
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: support coalition = reject economics Reply #21 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 8:37am freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 8:14am: How long ago was the second committment period Maqqa? I believe the 1st Commitment Period ends 2012 So I am not sure what you mean by "was the second commitment period" The fact that Rudd ratified in 2007 means we are also committed to the 1st period as well
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #22 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 8:39am if you prefer not to read the UNFCCC site - wiki gives a decent summary it also gives you a feel of the financial and penalties but you'll have to go back to UNFCCC to find out the exact details
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: support coalition = reject economics Reply #23 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 9:05am So the current legislation won't come into force until after the first committment period ends? Are there any penalties for emissions during the second committment period?
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: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #24 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:01pm

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

So the current legislation won't come into force until after the first committment period ends?

Are there any penalties for emissions during the second committment period?

It's quite clear on the UNFCCC website freediver

You asked for a credible reference and I gave you an undisputed reference

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #25 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:12pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions

Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for?

If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree

I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run

Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

Have a read of my original reply in context of the UNFCCC info

then perhaps we can look at why

(a) Direct Action plan = better for Australia

(b) Carbon Tax = I give up lets start collecting money to pay for the penalty and muddy the water soooo much that everyone think it's the Liberals' fault

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Life_goes_on Gold Member Offline Posts: 4772 400kms south of Yobsville, Qld Gender:	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #26 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:26pm There are no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto.
Back to top	"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013 Num num num num. IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #27 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:30pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

There a no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto.

So how do you make up for the 30% plus meeting your targets?

This is why Gillard is looking at "carbon pricing" or "carbon credits"

She wants to implement the carbon tax then transition to a carbon pricing in 5 years

Back to top

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

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #28 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:30pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions

Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for?

If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree

I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run

Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

Why would anyone bother with your opinion on Economics?

You were still promoting INTEREST RATE INCREASES, only a short while ago, COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what factors were impacting the OZ & Global Economy, as shown by your backing of AUS-terity programs!

You know nothing of current Economics, what the basic causes are or in what directions we are likely to travel!

Of course, perhaps a redeeming feature from your point of view, is that none of the Liberals, Labor or the Greens have any idea either!

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #29 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:36pm

Back in your hole perception

Until you have someone thing intelligent or at least humble about your opinion then I'll discuss things with you

I am pleased and happy at least freediver is willing to look at the UNFCCC website

whereas I've shown you the info before and you dismissed the UNFCCC as propaganda - that sort of stupidity from you is inexcusable

Back to top

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

IP Logged