longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 4:53pm:




well all right longy but you didnt see the show...the person they were documenting was high up... and he said what the west doesnt see is.. for instance cutting off a hand..nasty I know he said in all his years he hadnt seen it enacted... first of the the person has to steal 3 times..then it goes through a long court process. and as he said it hasnt happened in his lifetime..

women he said would of course be driving cars... but like most things.. it isnt high up on their list of wants..its sounds shocking to us but its the way they are..the burqa is another thing its their choice..things do change over there albeit slowly.

but they dont wish to live like Westerners..its their choice..

as for all the no education for women well thats all wrong as well..

I am not sticking up for them but really lets give them their due, they are changing...and if woman rattle their chains hard enough then they will get change..its up to them..

cods wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:


the point is that you said about how good it is that they can go to the king. Firstly, it isnt anywhere near as simple as you suggest and it isnt possible at all if you are a woman and virtually impossible unless you ahve the right connections and of course you arent allowed to say what you want - only what you are allowed to say. So this 'right of appeal' is worthless. Our rights of appeal to the courts however is not. our rights are not hindered by gender, religion (non-muslims have lesser rights than muslims) or wealth.

and the cutting off of the hand IS done same as floggings and stonings as has been reported many times. TV shows now wouldnt know investgative journalism if they saw it. I remember Jan Wendt intervieing Idi Amin at the hieght of his power. Do you see that any more? no we have interviews with nobodies or people 5 steps removed from an event or person. It is rubbish. and the same applies to people who think Saudis have 'rights' and try and say so on TV.

Which method is the better at reducing greenhouse gases Freedriver?

And which would be easier to link in with a world effort.


Wouldn't an ETS be better for both aims?

Quote:


Carbon taxes - see the links I posted.

Quote:


Again carbon taxes. They avoid the need for governments to cede economic soveriegnty to an international regulatory body. We do not have to set up a trading scheme. We merely have to agree on a minimum price (tax) on CO2 emissions. Countries can then do what they want with the proceeds. With taxes, the entire scheme does not fall apart just because one country undermines it, as could happen with a trading scheme. We have seen over the last 20 years how it is virtually impossible to set up an international trading scheme.

Quote:


No. I creates enourmous uncertainty in the price and hence the return on investments in reducing GHG emissions. This favours investments with quick returns over more fundamental changes that are cheaper in the long run. They also miss the opportunity to lower other taxes.

Quote:


But it is not a problem. If you take the train to work and the car for the family trip, you have almost completely eliminated your transport emissions. A tax encourages such rational outcomes by maximising choice.

Quote:


News flash - most things that are taxed are essential. It is actually a well established economic principle that taxes do less economic harm if applied to essential commodoties.

CO2 emissions however are not essential. I bet you have never bought CO2 emissions in your life. What you have bought are goods and services that can be derived from CO2 emissions, in hugely varying quantities.

Are you happy with reducing CO2 emissions, just no taxing them? Or are you trying to walk backwards towards the point you are making?

Quote:


Did you get the 'revenue neutral' bit?

Quote:


Who here has suggested that? Do you have any idea how much difference it would make to the price at the bowser?

Quote:


If they really are that important then the tax will not put them out of business. It will only put out of business those companies that were not so important after all.

Quote:


Perhaps you should start with what I did say then. No need to make up statements to argue against.

Quote:


This table gives approximately 3c/L for a carbon tax of $43 per ton of carbon (I think ours is about $23).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

Quote:


You'll have to figure this one out yourself.

Quote:


Not if I was in charge. This would effectively be another subsidy for rural communities.

Quote:


It only disadvantages people with higher GHG emissions. It disadvantages them because they are harming the rest of society, not because of where they live. It does not make sense to subsidise harmful lifestyles at the same time as trying to reduce the harm.

I suspect you have it backwards anyway. People in the major cities tend to spend far more time commuting to work every day than those in rural areas. All those hours add up. Wherever you choose to live, there are many simple choices you can make to reduce your emissions.

Quote:


There are plenty of options.

Quote:


If their role really is important then it will not stop because of the tax.

Their options include:

paying the tax
passing on the cost
driving less
getting a more fuel efficient vehicle
switching to gas
riding a bike
living closer to work
public transport
carpooling
shopping around

etc

Still not sure why you are playing the class politics on this one. The choices faced by rural people are the same choices faced by everyone else, except that they tend to have much shorter commutes and spend far less on fuel. 2c a litre is hardly a lifechanging event. It happens every day.