Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new tax (1 Viewer)

[Planck]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

PS carbon dioxide is NOT POLLUTION!! sorry but that really frustrates me.

It is above certain levels.

Heard of subtlety or PPM you fucking idiot?

Something can be not pollution in small amounts and HEAVY POLLUTION in larger amounts, my god why do I have to explain this to you

STOP WITH THE CANARDS

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

OZONE IS NOT POLLUTION! If Ozone comprised 1% of the air due to an industrial accident we would all die and that would be completely natural, NOT POLLUTION!

 

[Vce121]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

It is above certain levels.

Heard of subtlety or PPM you fucking idiot?

Something can be not pollution in small amounts and HEAVY POLLUTION in larger amounts, my god why do I have to explain this to you

STOP WITH THE CANARDS

Define: Pollution - undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities.

Carbon dioxide is in no way harmful to the environment, in fact an increase of carbon dioxide helps the environment grow and flourish, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise needs to go back to 10th grade biology.

In addition, the earth's atmosphere acts to create equilibrium between its components. For example, it is now known that as more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, less water vapour is emitted. Moreover, as more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, more is offset by trees, the ocean and other natural sequestration devices.

I don't see how this is relevant to what i said but anyway, PPM or parts per million, simply refers to the concentration of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Might I add that the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global temperatures is logarithmic, not linear, so therefore as more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere there is less change in temperature.

You should also note that we are now according to arguably inaccurate data, sitting at 370/1000000=0.00037, very little of which is anthropogenic.

 

[Lentern]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Probably the best strategy if we are being honest.... after all even if there was global action then stopping climate change would be very very hard.... and a certain level of change is now inevitable....

If there was a sense of a communal effort to deal with the consequences perhaps I would as well. But I can imagine Sri Lanka's shore is swept away, five hundred climate refugees come here and are told in many uncertain terms that we just don't care.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Some salient facts:

-97% of CO2 emissions are from non-human sources
-Australia emits about 1.5% of human induced CO2 emissions
-We are planning to cut our emissions by 5%

3%*1.5%*5*= a 0.00225% reduction in global emissions

Now clearly this percentage is tiny, and such a 'cut' will have little impact on atmospheric dynamics.
-cetiris paribus, the average global temperature will be virtually uneffective.

But, as expected, you rightwing bible-thumping proles fail to grasp the fundemental question, i.e. are the benifits greater than the costs?

Lets consider the benifits,
Some include: an increased probability the world will act, a comparitive advatage in the production of carbon-neutral technologies, decreased reliance on middle eastern oil, superior air quality, investment certainty..etc

Now (assuming the rest of the world acts*) the costs:
Transition costs.

*I think this assumption is valid when we consider the targets already set by the EU, USA, China, etc. Allthough they may not act within the next 5 years, the question is whether they act eventually, something that most people consider highly probable. Now when these major countries 'put a price on carbon', we know they are going to begin to impose tarifs on imports from 'carbon-dirty' countries, this will lead to smaller, developing, exporter economies to adopt a 'carbon price'..
Soon all countries will have some kind of carbon-reduction policy in place, and inevitablly some global carbon trading framework will emerge.

So lets weight up our two choices.
-Act now= Good
-Act when big countries act=neutral
-Do not act at all=forced to act in the future=bad


Key points for TAFE rednecks to take away:
-We are going to have to 'put a price on carbon' at some stage in the future (due to global tarifs on developed 'dirty-carbon' countries)
-The longer we delay, the higher the costs of such a transition

 

[ekoolish]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

ANYTHING Australia does will do absolutely nothing in terms of saving the planet. Yeah, I'm a skeptic. I'm a skeptic in believing that we should put a big nice dent in our economy for the sake of implementing a green policy which will have absolutely no effect on "climate change".
All the Greens and climate change believers can throw all the evidence and scientific studies at everyone as much as they please, but it doesn't change the fact that Australia contributes to less then 1% of carbon emissions produced in total by the world.
Therefore, by logic, it is absolutely pointless to even think about taxing the whole country in the name of a policy which will do nothing for the reason it was implemented.
It is simply another big fat tax that do-gooder Rudd can say to the world stage is helping the environment.

+1 man +1

 

[runoutofsleep]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

nobody believes that cutting australia's emissions will save the planet you idiots

 

[Planck]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

OZONE IS NOT POLLUTION! If Ozone comprised 1% of the air due to an industrial accident we would all die and that would be completely natural, NOT POLLUTION!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND

WHAT WORDS MEAN

I just *DON'T*

OKAUY GOAAASHSHHHHH

 

[ekoolish]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

True, cutting emissions will make things much worse

 

[Vce121]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Firstly to 'coming up for air',

remember emission cuts are on 1990 levels not current levels, so it is inaccurate to suggest that "3%*1.5%*5*= a 0.00225% reduction in global emissions"

Secondly,

Lets consider the benifits,
Some include: an increased probability the world will act, a comparitive advatage in the production of carbon-neutral technologies, decreased reliance on middle eastern oil, superior air quality, investment certainty..etc

I find this quite delusional and you certainly didn't consider what i had said earlier in this thread. One must look at this in terms of a cost benefit analysis. Do you really believe that an ETS will effect the benefits you cite. One has to be mindful, your argument rests upon the assumption that their is another far superior technology which will magically solve the world's energy needs.

I would agree that we need strong investment in renewable energy by Government, as an industry development device however, without a viable option available now there exists no smooth transitional arrangement for Australia to move to a more 'environmental' energy source. Without such an arrangement all this ETS would do is destroy our economy and unnecessarily burden both Australians and third world countries.

Thirdly,

"Soon all countries will have some kind of carbon-reduction policy in place, and inevitablly some global carbon trading framework will emerge."

This is not true Copenhagen is already set to be a failure, as new affirmation of the 'unsettled' science make their way past the walls of media censorship. None of the developed countries are likely to engage in legally binding targets.


Fourthly,

-Act now= Good
-Act when big countries act=neutral
-Do not act at all=forced to act in the future=bad

I agree entirely we should act now as a matter of prudent risk management however, one must therefore ask the question what is the most efficient mechanism with which we can reduce our environmental footprint. You do not have to accept the science to agree with that.

One must employ a sense of gravity here, even if the entire world were to adopt a similar scheme to that which is proposed in Australia, even with a higher target say 80% reductions in emissions, this would maybe effect a 0.0001- 0.001°c reduction in temperature. (Professor R. Carter, Professor J. Christy)

It is senseless and reckless to employ a Labor money go round ETS, which serves only to benefit financial advisors and consultants and would devastate our economy in the process.

 

[John McCain]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Carbon dioxide is in no way harmful to the environment, in fact an increase of carbon dioxide helps the environment grow and flourish, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise needs to go back to 10th grade biology.

http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/Coral.html

Far out you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Vce121]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/Coral.html

Far out you couldn't be more wrong.

1. You have completely misinterpreted the essence of the article, however, i still challenge the vague way in which it is written. Observe the actual article - degradation of the world's coral reefs has been caused by a host of human-related (anthropogenic) factors, including urban coastline development and habitat modification, pollution, nutrient and sediment overloading, direct destruction, and over-fishing. This does not claim that CO2 is a primary factor, in fact it is one of the smallest factor.

The Royal Society of the UK report concluded, "the increase of CO2 in the surface oceans expected by 2100 is unlikely to have any significant direct effect on photosynthesis or growth of most micro-organisms in the oceans."

2. Most of the carbon dioxide emissions are natural

3. Carbon dioxide levels have been significantly higher in the past and also been far more concentrated in areas around coral reefs before, but coral is still here.

4. You underestimate the capacity of our environment to adapt and over-estimate 'climate sensitivity'.

 

[John McCain]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

lol how can you say I've misinterpreted it, when I didn't post any interpretation, beyond simply highlighting that "Carbon dioxide is in no way harmful to the environment" is a complete fallacy. You must concede that it may be harmful to some species in some environments.

All the points your posted are straw man arguments. Neither I, nor the article, asserted anything contrary to the points you've raised.

You're reading into it only what you want to see.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not arguing for a particular agenda or response to this phenomenon. I'm only interested in truth, which is that the acidification of the worlds oceans has the potential to severely stress coral, especially when combined with other environmental pressures from the modern industrial world. This is a abominable situation.

 

[Vce121]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

lol how can you say I've misinterpreted it, when I didn't post any interpretation, beyond simply highlighting that "Carbon dioxide is in no way harmful to the environment" is a complete fallacy. You must concede that it may be harmful to some species in some environments.

All the points your posted are straw man arguments. Neither I, nor the article, asserted anything contrary to the points you've raised.

You're reading into it only what you want to see.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not arguing for a particular agenda or response to this phenomenon. I'm only interested in truth, which is that the acidification of the worlds oceans has the potential to severely stress coral, especially when combined with other environmental pressures from the modern industrial world. This is a abominable situation.

I am not proffering any opinion i'm simply providing facts.

You did obviously misinterpret the article as you asserted that this article refuted my claim that 'Carbon dioxide is in no way harmful to the environment'.

Straw man argument. Pffft. I'm not the one citing wikipedia as a credible source of information.

 

[SylviaB]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

nobody believes that cutting australia's emissions will save the planet you idiots

They believe it will help stop global warming.

Which it won't.

 

[John McCain]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

You did obviously misinterpret the article as you asserted that this article refuted my claim that 'Carbon dioxide is in no way harmful to the environment'.

I don't even know what to say.

Increasing ocean acidity threatens coral reefs worldwide

Is the title of the article.

The first photo in the article is captioned "Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing the acidity of the world's oceans to increase and threatening the future of our coral reef ecosystems"

You could argue about the validity of the article (though you'd be wrong), but the article is about how CO2 emissions threaten coral reefs, there is no two ways about it.

Regarding the validity of wikipedia articles, while articles on some controversial subjects may be unreliable, they tend to be quite good for scientific articles, there is no reason for anyone to have a political agenda in editing it. It's extensively referenced, and quite readable. Can you point out anything wrong with that article?

To quote this article from the encyclopedia brittanica entitled "Ocean Acidification: The Biggest Threat to Our Oceans?", it reads "Unlike the situation with other aspects of climate change, there is no controversy over ocean acidification. "

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/27623020/Ocean-Acidification-The-Biggest-Threat-to-Our-Oceans

So a massive increase in CO2 would be fairly undesirable hey?

 

[Vce121]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

I don't even know what to say.

Increasing ocean acidity threatens coral reefs worldwide

Is the title of the article.

The first photo in the article is captioned "Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing the acidity of the world's oceans to increase and threatening the future of our coral reef ecosystems"

You could argue about the validity of the article (though you'd be wrong), but the article is about how CO2 emissions threaten coral reefs, there is no two ways about it.

Regarding the validity of wikipedia articles, while articles on some controversial subjects may be unreliable, they tend to be quite good for scientific articles, there is no reason for anyone to have a political agenda in editing it. It's extensively referenced, and quite readable. Can you point out anything wrong with that article?

To quote this article from the encyclopedia brittanica entitled "Ocean Acidification: The Biggest Threat to Our Oceans?", it reads "Unlike the situation with other aspects of climate change, there is no controversy over ocean acidification. "

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/27623020/Ocean-Acidification-The-Biggest-Threat-to-Our-Oceans

So a massive increase in CO2 would be fairly undesirable hey?

Rising CO2 emissions is generally beneficial to the ocean life. Ocean acidification can be problematic, but there are two issues which are important.

1 - To what extent is man the cause of the increased carbon dioxide. Humans only produce about 3% of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions, approximately 1.1% of which is sequestered in the ocean.

2 - To what extent can we be sure that the levels of carbon dioxide and the resulting acidification of the reefs is damaging to the reefs? As i said before, levels of carbon dioxide have been far higher in the past, primarily due to natural events. The coral reefs have survived haven't they? How therefore do we determine whether it is the acidification which is destroying the reefs? Personally, i believe that it is far more likely as the article suggested that is is due to other human disturbances.

 

[aussie-boy]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

I'm starting to question this ETS thing as well...

I can understand the theory, and think its aim of "internalising the externality" is admirable, however:

The major contributors to greenhouse gases are:
-Transport
-Electricity generation
-Land clearing/agriculture

3 very very simple things, yet we are talking about issuing carbon credits to hundreds of firms and launching markets from which undeserving investors will profit?

The simple solution is to:
-Ban coal power stations
-Dramatically increase the petrol excise

If you did these 2 things gradually (over 10yrs) the problem would be fixed. A whole manner of things would happen in the private sector (R&D/import of electric cars and buses, new clean power stations selling to the grid, huge demand and thus profitability for public transport)

Stuff would go up in price slowly, and then come down as the new technologies were implemented. Much better than the Gov collecting a shitload of cash it doesn't know what to do with and then trying to redistribute it to those it thinks are worthy.

Forestry has undergone drammatic changes to become more sustainable already, and quite frankly stopping people eating meat should be the last thing on the agenda

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

I'm starting to question this ETS thing as well...

I can understand the theory, and think its aim of "internalising the externality" is admirable, however:

The major contributors to greenhouse gases are:
-Transport
-Electricity generation
-Land clearing/agriculture

3 very very simple things, yet we are talking about issuing carbon credits to hundreds of firms and launching markets from which undeserving investors will profit?

The simple solution is to:
-Ban coal power stations
-Dramatically increase the petrol excise

If you did these 2 things gradually (over 10yrs) the problem would be fixed. A whole manner of things would happen in the private sector (R&D/import of electric cars and buses, new clean power stations selling to the grid, huge demand and thus profitability for public transport)

Stuff would go up in price slowly, and then come down as the new technologies were implemented. Much better than the Gov collecting a shitload of cash it doesn't know what to do with and then trying to redistribute it to those it thinks are worthy.

Forestry has undergone drammatic changes to become more sustainable already, and quite frankly stopping people eating meat should be the last thing on the agenda

Quite the non sequitur,
By increasing the petrol excise and banning coal fired generators you are 'internalizing the externality', i.e aligning private costs with social costs, thus allowing resources to be allocated efficiently.

Alas, the idea you propose is horrid, coal fired operations supply 80% of Australia's electricity, the benefits of reducing this to 0% within 10 years don't come close to the costs.

The solution is simple, put a direct tax on all CO2 emitting activities, this will raise the price of electricity. Now consumers of this electricity will be compensated for these higher prices with a equal reduction in their payroll/income tax requirements.
The good thing about this policy is that it raises the price of carbon-intensive consumption relative to less carbon-intensive consumption.

alternatively, an ETS=Carbon tax + corporate welfare=Bad

 

[aussie-boy]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

The solution is simple, put a direct tax on all CO2 emitting activities, this will raise the price of electricity. Now consumers of this electricity will be compensated for these higher prices with a equal reduction in their payroll/income tax requirements.

Um no lol

If carbon tax -> equal income tax deduction, there is no incentive to buy 'green products'

Anyway, this isnt even what's happening... high income earners arent getting any concessions despite the fact they probably use more energy per capita. In essence, its a way for Rudd to secretely increase income redistribution without people noticing

The good thing about this policy is that it raises the price of carbon-intensive consumption relative to less carbon-intensive consumption.

alternatively, an ETS=Carbon tax + corporate welfare=Bad

All good in theory (except for the first part of your argument), but:
-How will CO2 emissions be accurately measured (to the nearest tonne)
-How will you make sure that companies do not overstate emissions to get more free permits
-Why should all products have an additional margin for permit traders' profits?

At the end of the day, all we are looking to achieve through this system is what I set out earlier (i.e. no more coal, no more fossil fuelled transport)... it'd be so much more efficient to target these areas directly