Carbon Tax.Its a BIG Con!!!

[Dazza XLT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Just wondering, have you ever actually met or talked to him?

Or do you just believe the media hype.......

I have. It was an experience, that's for sure.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Dazza XL

I have. It was an experience, that's for sure.

And which other politicians have you actually met and had conversations with?

Just for comparison purposes.....

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by csv8

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

Really is a problem when all the denialists have to do is send some emails to simple people and their mission is accomplished in the blink of an eye.

Unfortunately you have been fed a pack of lies, dont you know how to check info?

Why not research co2 emitted yourself and not rely on spam for info....http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html.

[FGII-XR6]

It must be true the greenies said so
but seriously now here is something I saw a while ago that puts it all in perspective. an if you want this thread to last cut the political arguements and just argue the issue on its merits

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.




97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.




Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.




And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!




As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what is called Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

[Adamz Ghia]

Climate change is real, however, man made climate change is, in my opinion from what I have read on the subject, made up. The time scales the pro team are using are simply too small to be deemed accurate, where as the time scales to disprove the theory are over thousands and millions of years. Even through the industrial revolution the planet cooled and we were in a mini ice age. 25,000 years ago we were hotter than today. There is evidence that shows sea levels were in fact higher than they are now, some say Australia had an inland sea, no pro man made warmists acknowlege these examples or offer explanations for them.

I see no prblem in trying to encourage our population to move towards a more sustainable future, the words rescources aren't going to last forever, we can use this as an opportunity to make us energy independent, lead the world in renewable energy. But the way this tax is structured is wrong, and so is the Coalitions, and will cripple this country which already is facing competition from lower cost countries.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by csv8

Other reviewers criticised the book as unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent. Ideas in it have been described as "so wrong as to be laughable".[5]]

Best find out why, or dont you want to know?

Perhaps read what he says about volcanoes and how that contradicts the data held by the US Geological survey, then you will understand that its just a book of lies, and perhaps more about his motivations which have nothing to do with being a board member and substantial share holder of three mining companies involved with coal.

[Dazza XLT]

Originally Posted by flappist

And which other politicians have you actually met and had conversations with?

Just for comparison purposes.....

Met plenty, but Bob was the only one where we were "one on one". Over a beer actually in a pub up north.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

It must be true the greenies said so
but seriously now here is something I saw a while ago that puts it all in perspective. an if you want this thread to last cut the political arguements and just argue the issue on its merits

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.




97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.




Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.




And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!




As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what is called Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Another one just passing on some denialist spam, of course the scientists are all dills and the co2 being only 390ppm of the atmosphere couldnt possibly have any effect, yes the email had some firm proof that it doesnt redirect IR, must have missed it.

Just like chlorine in a swimming pool at 1ppm has been tested to have no effect either......wonder why people keep putting chlorine in pools at such low concentrations?

[cheap]

The Carbon Tax Ad campaign should be removed on the grounds of being an out-right lie.

The power station they show billowing "dirty smoke" is an old UK power station which was shutdown over 30 years ago. Australia's power stations pump out mostly water vapor (steam) and the CO2 which is also emitted is INVISIBLE.

Lets see CO2 - One part Carbon and Two parts Oxygen - there you have it, Boys, Girls, Women and Men ----> Two thirds of this tax is a tax on Air

Also the level of CO2 is around 380 parts per million which is 0.000385%, and how much of this 0.000385% is man made?

The CO2 thing is a scam, it is nothing more than a toxic tax, which is worthless as a benefit for the environment and harmful for Australia.

[Road_Warrior]

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

Also the level of CO2 is around 380 parts per million which is 0.000385%, and how much of this 0.000385% is man made?

The CO2 thing is a scam, it is nothing more than a toxic tax, which is worthless as a benefit for the environment and harmful for Australia.

Hope your job doesnt have anything to do with numbers....380ppm = 0.038%, you are only out by a factor of 100.

How much is man made? (from releasing fossiled carbon into the biosphere?), 40%.

[Road Games]

Far Too much signature material .. DAMN !!

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Another one just passing on some denialist spam, of course the scientists are all dills and the co2 being only 390ppm of the atmosphere couldnt possibly have any effect, yes the email had some firm proof that it doesnt redirect IR, must have missed it.

Just like chlorine in a swimming pool at 1ppm has been tested to have no effect either......wonder why people keep putting chlorine in pools at such low concentrations?

Nice how the climate mob call us all denialists to try to make us seem like our view is irrational. maybe a good tag would be" paranoid climate alarmists" obviously the product of a psychotic mind? or maybe pron out of a drug induced psychosis? the sky is falling the sky is falling, there is a time when paranoid calls of global destruction would result in institutionalisation in a psych hospital today we throw money at these clearly self serving deranged alarmists. the most credible proof they had was later found to be fabricated by scientific frauds in a climate think tank. after something like that how do you expect any sane person to belive anything about climate change

[Road Games]

Carbon tax ...



Whatever !!!

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Hope your job doesnt have anything to do with numbers....380ppm = 0.038%, you are only out by a factor of 100.

How much is man made? (from releasing fossiled carbon into the biosphere?), 40%.

So what is the correct level of CO2 ppm?

[steve.zissou]

How can you not be cynical.

the government’s solution to carbon dioxide pollution just happens to involve paying the government a s&%t load of money.

What they are saying is that you can continue to pollute, but you just have to pay us money to do so. They try an justify this by saying this cost will drive people and companies to implement carbon reducing technologies. - That’s a cop out for two main reasons.
1) They could simply legislate for improvements in the polluting segments (mainly power and transport). Like a Co2 per KWh ratio or god forbid the govt actually implement a clean technology (nuclear power any one)
2)These are the industries that will get compensation under the Carbon Tax therefor resulting in no need to improve + the initial price will be too small to drive change so why do it .

Look at the pollution beak down below:
http://ectec.com.au/cmsa/index.php?o...ience&Itemid=4

Australia's net Greenhouse emissions totalled 576 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 1.5 precent of world emissions.
Emissions in 2006 were 4.2 percent higher than 1990 levels, despite a 47 precent increase from stationary energy.
Australia emits 28.1 tonnes of carbon per person, the highest per capita level in the developed world and five times more per person than China, due to use of coal for electricity.
Transport and Energy account for 69.6 percent of Australian emissions, or 400.9 million tonnes.
Stationary energy, which includes electricity generation, petroleum refining and gas processing, accounts for 49.9 percent of emissions, or 287.4 million tonnes.
Transport accounts for 14 percent of emissions, or 79.1 million tonnes. Road transport and passenger cars accounted for 12 percent of national emissions.
Agriculture created 15.6 percent of emissions, or 90.1 million tonnes.
10.9 percent of Australian emissions, or 62.8 million tonnes, come from sheep and cattle, due to gases produced when they digest food.
Land use and forestry account for 6.9 percent of emissions, or 40 million tonnes, down more than 70 percent from 96.5 million tonnes in 1990.
Carbon dioxide represents 74 percent of Australian emissions (427.8 million tonnes), methane 20.5 percent (118 million tonnes), and nitrous oxide 4 percent (24.2 million tonnes).
The energy sector is the main source of carbon dioxide (86 percent), while agriculture is the main source of methane (59 percent).
Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, with coal used to generate about 77 percent of Australia's electricity. Poland, China and South Africa also rely on coal for more than 75 percent of electricity generation.

--------
Basically you have electricity generation and transport - two easy things to legislate.

I guarantee in 7 years the govt will increase the bejesus out of this tax (and they'll say they are saving the planet at the same time - sort of like speed camera fines)

And don’t forget we as consumers will pay for every single increase (businesses wont absorb the cost, they’ll pase it on). Which might be hard as more businesses move off shore to countries that don’t have a carbon tax.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what is the correct level of CO2 ppm?

There is no correct level, but if we want the planet to not warm then the best option would be to return it to levels that were enjoyed before industralisation, 280ppm, a level which had not been exceeded for 15 million years prior.

Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm.

[irish2]

Says it all really.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

It must be true the greenies said so..............

................Big cut to save page space............

............There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.[/font][/color]

I'm not sure if this pic fits into the actual thread topic, but it does show what a major polluter Australia is, and how reducing our emissions would make a huge difference Globally!! ................. Yeah right!

Copyright: NASA Copyright Free Policy
Date Released: 23 April 2000

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

There is no correct level, but if we want the planet to not warm then the best option would be to return it to levels that were enjoyed before industralisation, 280ppm, a level which had not been exceeded for 15 million years prior.

Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm.

So by when (roughly which decade) will Gillard's carbon tax reduce the CO2 level from 392ppm back to 280ppm?

[GASWAGON]

Bloody hell MC news.... He nearly converted me! Though I do beleive we (AUS) are only a drop in the ocean compared to the other much bigger polluters especially like the next worlds biggest economy....CHINA.
Apperently there Carbon print will DOUBLE in the next 10 yrs!!!

[ebxr8240]

No wander ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Look at all the lights left on !!!Lol...

[Bossxr8]

I hate how last week a government funded climate change research centre declared that climate change is a fact and the earth is warming. Based on what? The amount of dollars the government payed them to come to that conclusion. I'm sure if the government threw enough money at anything they could get people to claim it as fact.

Statistics can be used to prove anything kent, 14% of people know that.

[dogwatch2]

Originally Posted by robjh80

"Carbon Tax.Its a BIG Con!!! "

Bravo csv8 .. Bravo .. .. perfect post, couldn't agree more

This will be the start of the Financial Armaggedon the general population of this Country simply cannot yet see .. so many people will suffer from this

We did not dodge the GFC, we simply delayed it ... the Worlds economies are still in a state of collapse .. Ireland, Greece, France, NZ, Italy, Belgium, USA, Great Britain, Japan are all sitting dangerously close to the edge of the abyss, some of these Countries have debt levels "that will never be paid off, ever!" ... Australia will follow

With most households already at record personal debt levels and struggling to make ends meet .... I see a future where people won't be able to feed their families, electricity will be a luxury only for the wealthy, petrol will be out of the reach of everyday lower to middle class Australians, many thousands of businesses will close down, unemployment will reach never before dreamed of levels, the retail sector will effectively come to a stand-still, tourism will cease to exist, I see mass mortgagee repossions by the banks, I see soup kitchens in the streets with many hundreds of hungry people lining up at each one

My fellow Australians .. brace yourselves .. we are heading towards the biggest Depression the World has ever seen!

I agree, the level of debt in many countries is too high to repay, so something has to give. A lot of the misery in the USA is hidden by the media - tent cities, towns where police won't respond to non-violent crime like car theft, break ins etc due to cutbacks. Juiilar is a tool of the Chinese. Why should we take action as every 4 months China's increases carbon dioxide output equal to ALL of our output. So, even if we reduce ours by 50%, 2 months later China will have replaced it.

[zorba289]

hi all,

i was sent this via email...make what you want from it



It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change:
Andrew Bolt --

THEY SHOULD RECOUP THE WASTED SALARY, AND LOCK HIM UP FOR FALSE PRETENCES, TOGETHER WITH GILLARD RE HER POLICIES ON THE BOAT PEOPLE !



Tim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew Bolt.



TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can't think of a better man for the job.
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission.

His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.
This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.
He's had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.
Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery's predictions, we're now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.
And we're also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.
So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record.



Ready?



In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney 's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".




Check Sydney 's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."



Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.




In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".




Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane 's dam levels: 100 per cent full.



All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound. So let's check on them, too.



In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming .



"In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."



One premier, Queensland 's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".




But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned. (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarm-ism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.)



Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam. "There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.



"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."



Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin , the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.



Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.
The technology Flannery said was "relatively straightforward" wasn't.
One of Geodynamics' five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.



The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further "delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region".
The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it's no surprise the company's share price has almost halved in four months.



Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.

His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to "provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community" and "build the consensus about reducing Australia 's carbon pollution".

That, translated, means selling us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery's hot-rocks investment.



See why I say Flannery is the right man for this job? Who better to teach us how little we really know about global warming and how much it may cost to panic?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Incidentally he [Tim Flannery] is on $3,600 a week of our taxpayers money for working just three days a week making up more ********.



Please send this on and tell all Australians about these global warming imbeciles and in particular this number one idiot “Tim Flannery”.






--

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

So by when (roughly which decade) will Gillard's carbon tax reduce the CO2 level from 392ppm back to 280ppm?

Seems you come from the Andrew Bolt school of uninformed questions, here's what I wrote before:

Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm.,

Perhaps you believe scientists have been saying that we can drop atmospheric co2 levels, no they havent, just that if we reduce co2 emissions atmospheric co2 levels should stop increasing.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

I'd rather pay a "Tree Tax" than a "Carbon Tax"... plant me a few million trees with my money and then we'll talk. Trees eat carbon for breakfast, logging industry has a renewable resource, trees grow themselves for the most part and don't require a lot of maintenance.

My 2c.

[mcnews]

I read Bolt for entertainment, he has done well from pandering to the moronic :-) It's his job, but he is good entertainment, and very occasionally he makes some sense.

The best thing about this new Galileo movement is their patron, is who, nah, you won't guess, you never could, Alan Jones, ROFLMAO Soooo funny

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_au

I'd rather pay a "Tree Tax" than a "Carbon Tax"... plant me a few million trees with my money and then we'll talk. Trees eat carbon for breakfast, logging industry has a renewable resource, trees grow themselves for the most part and don't require a lot of maintenance.

My 2c.

Tony Abbott would have you believe that the co2 problem could be stopped if we planted more trees, (anything he comes up with will incorporate business as usual for the big polluters). Sure a difference can be made by replanting cleared areas,however, deforestation isnt the major reason we have a problem with co2, its burning fossil fuels that is the big problem and needs to be tackled.

Even if we restore the earth back to times before when man hadnt felled large areas of trees, the amount of carbon returned will be finite(trees can only survive in areas where they were naturally, cant cover the sahara with them). Trees can only really take back the same amount of co2 that was released when they were burnt(if they have decomposed the carbon is already back in the soil) it cant keep soaking up the extra amount that man has put into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels for the last 200 years.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Seems you come from the Andrew Bolt school of uninformed questions, here's what I wrote before:

Best that we can do now if we stop co2 emissions today is to keep levels at the present 392ppm.,

Perhaps you believe scientists have been saying that we can drop atmospheric co2 levels, no they havent, just that if we reduce co2 emissions atmospheric co2 levels should stop increasing.

So maybe you could answer the question, how much will Gillard's CO2 tax lower CO2 levels (ppm) by and by when. Surely you know?