Dnarever wrote on Nov 16
th, 2011 at 8:14pm:
olive wrote on Nov 16
th, 2011 at 7:50pm:
No answers then, to the question of how much (or how LITTLE) the CT will reduce emissions. Typical non-answer as usual...typical mixing up of id's ....typical slinging off because there is a feeling of inadequacy due to not being able to answer the most important question. HOW MUCH will it reduce emissions....because the answer is that the amount is......."negligible".
Exactly what I have come to expect. Nothing new here.
If we reduce it by 50% we will then only be producing about 100% more than our fair share.
As John Howard said:
Quote:"Australia will continue to lead internationally on climate change, globally and in the Asia-Pacific region," he told a Liberal Party federal council meeting two days after unveiling his ETS blueprint.
"This will be a world-class emissions trading system more comprehensive, more rigorously grounded in economics, and with better governance than anything in Europe."
In an address to the Melbourne Press Club a month later, Howard said: "In the years to come it will provide a model for other nations to follow.
"Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them."
And there was this exchange at a news conference in the run-up to the election that saw him defeated by Kevin Rudd.
Journalist: "Haven't you locked Australia into an emissions trading scheme in the next term?"
Howard: "Yes, I have."
Journalist: "Regardless of what our trading competitors do?"
Howard: "Yes, but that is precisely the sort of contribution we should make."
being able to answer the most important questionIn my view the least important question.
In my view the argument that us reducing our emission levels will not have a huge impact is not an good excuse to just keep increasing our output - that is not going to help at all - we can't fix it so therefore we should just see how much worse we can make it?
Sorry but that is just not part of any solution.
......
DNA, I agree, as do most other people against the Carbon Tax, that we must alter our bad habits and our denigration of Mother Earth. We simply do not believe that a Carbon Tax will, in any way at all, do anything to curb these excesses. That is the whole point. That is why most Australians are angry that they didn't get the chance to vote on this CT. That is why other countries have gone cold on this so-called "solution". With intelligence and far more consultation with those who supply our needs, there must be other ways. This is just a way for the govt to take the cream off the top of the pie. It has no hope of achieving what, I believe, most people want...certainly China is negating any contribution we, as a nation may make. That makes a mockery of the whole issue...especially as JG is willing to mine our coal to sell it to people who are stockpiling it for their future use. JG, if she was a woman of conviction....would not be mining it at all...especially to sell to such high polluters. Now she finds it ok to sell our uranium to India....."because it is clean energy"....Well done, Julia....Finally you see the light.
.