Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:


except of course, it isn't - unless you measure only one half of Antarctica.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:


actual scientists doing actual measurement but with the integrity to report ALL the facts and not just the ones that support an orthodoxy.

Sorry just laughing at the crap on the previous page  replying to my post.

 

So no-one can actually argue with facts and someone thinks they have a debating style, yet can't recognize the form of argument used even? 

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 9:34am:


Is this a serious comment? Or Trivial Pursuit?

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2013 at 1:45am:


Independent modelling shows that direct action cost about 10 X more to achieve the same outcome. Abbott's direct action plan is capped at 25% of the fixed carbon price which is 1 - 40Th or what is required to get the same result.

There are currently no economists or climate scientists willing to support the direct action model.

60% of direct action is based on the unproven soil seqestration.

Quote:


Quote:


The opposition are claiming about $8 per ton and the farmers are saying to start talking at about $25 per ton.

energy efficiency and green building standards. The Direct Action policy promises a total of "20-30 million tonnes" of carbon emissions reductions by 2020 through this mechanism.

This below is the policy wording - all of it???? This is the detail ????

Quote:


This is going to account for the second largest reduction in Carbon abatment - up to 30 million tons.

You may note that it does not tell us what it will do how by who what the cost is or anything else. The magic pudding again. It appears that they are going to give a bucket full of money to developers and hope they do something.

Then there is the solar grants in which a Million panels installed would work out at about $133 per ton of carbon abated.

The whole concept is based on political expediency.

If you look at the dynamics of direct action it is basically the cash for clunkers policy used in carbon reduction.

With direct action we have well over $10 Billion with not one cent actually funded but the negative of still paying an additional $5 Billion for the carbon fixed price compensation package also not funded.

Direct action is a politically expedient pretence.

In case you haven't noticed.
I reject the modeling.
I have no faith whatsoever in Treasury who have proven to be incredibly inaccurate in all things.

I don't care about the cost so much as you do apparently if the solution is better targeted than a Carbon Tax, and deals DIRECTLY with the problem.

I note once more that technological change is the solution...  not a tax.

If they set standards that will GREEN-UP my country, limit pollution and rejuvenate damaged environments...  more power to them

Dnarever wrote on Jun 15^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:



I don't trust the CSIRO much these days either since it and it's leadership have been politicised.

We are not talking about CCS below an impermeable geological layer.

We have had terrestrial sequestration for eons.  BTW...  it works.

I don't expect the current Liberal/Coalition policy to be a stagnant non-changing one size fits all arrangement like the Carbon Tax.  I expect it will change with the times and as technology developments become available.  I do expect that looking after the environment and improving it is a much more Green solution to our problems.

If the problem is the method of power supply then the method needs to be changed and that will occur over time (we could change it now).  That being the problem then it is a problem for the energy producers to fix.  Not for a government to whack everyone over the head and send us back to the stone-age; huddled 'round fireplaces, using candles, eating uncooked food.  that is happening in today's Australia. 

Nor should it send many of us on a spiral into poverty and eventual homelessness.  In today's world we all have a basic need for power/electricity that is the way the world has evolved, it is up to the government to see that need provided for.