Carbon Tax versus Emissions Trading (1 Viewer)

[prime-factor]

Firstly: I am not a climate change denier.

In case you aren't aware. Summer does NOT equal global warming, and Winter does NOT equal climate change. These are called seasons. They are normal. The climate is changing, but its not bad. It's normal. It's a cycle. And carbon is not the problem, nor any problem actually.

'Carbon' Tax.

A tax on Carbon?. That is ridiculous. Probably the most ridiculous bull**** ever pulled. And to think people actually support this nonsense.

We are CARBON-BASED organisms, living in a CARBON-BASED world, where plants GROW BETTER IN THE PRESENCE OF CARBON dioxide. If anything, the possibility of an ice-age is more plausible than the nonsense/crap/ridiculous global warming scenarios.

If you're enough of a brain-washed idiot that you think 'carbon dioxide' causes global warming, kill yourself, now, because your flatulence and breathing are causing problems for the planet, right?.

This isn't about saving the planet. It's about controlling every facet of our lives. Controlling how much we breathe, fart, and the energy we use. Like it's a crime to be human, to breathe and to live your life.

You have to pay a tax to be human! What next!

Carbon Trading

How much more stupid can it get?.

CONclusion

Both are ridiculous ideas based on non-science garbage.

 

[CIV1501]

Firstly: I am not a climate change denier.

In case you aren't aware. Summer does NOT equal global warming, and Winter does NOT equal climate change. These are called seasons. They are normal. The climate is changing, but its not bad. It's normal. It's a cycle. And carbon is not the problem, nor any problem actually.

'Carbon' Tax.

A tax on Carbon?. That is ridiculous. Probably the most ridiculous bull**** ever pulled. And to think people actually support this nonsense.

We are CARBON-BASED organisms, living in a CARBON-BASED world, where plants GROW BETTER IN THE PRESENCE OF CARBON dioxide. If anything, the possibility of an ice-age is more plausible than the nonsense/crap/ridiculous global warming scenarios.

If you're enough of a brain-washed idiot that you think 'carbon dioxide' causes global warming, kill yourself, now, because your flatulence and breathing are causing problems for the planet, right?.

This isn't about saving the planet. It's about controlling every facet of our lives. Controlling how much we breathe, fart, and the energy we use. Like it's a crime to be human, to breathe and to live your life.

You have to pay a tax to be human! What next!

Carbon Trading

How much more stupid can it get?.

CONclusion

Both are ridiculous ideas based on non-science garbage.

lol what


why didnt someone tell me this earlier?

 

[Kwayera]

The climate is changing, but its not bad. It's normal. It's a cycle. And carbon is not the problem, nor any problem actually.

[citation needed]

We are CARBON-BASED organisms, living in a CARBON-BASED world, where plants GROW BETTER IN THE PRESENCE OF CARBON dioxide.

Relevance?

If anything, the possibility of an ice-age is more plausible than the nonsense/crap/ridiculous global warming scenarios.

We are already in an interglacial period of an ice age, moron.

If you're enough of a brain-washed idiot that you think 'carbon dioxide' causes global warming, kill yourself, now, because your flatulence and breathing are causing problems for the planet, right?.

[citation needed]

 

[CIV1501]

Um i think he was serious lol i dunno

 

[spence]

Wonder how long it'll take for him to get a second red box

 

[moll.]

Wonder how long it'll take for him to get a second red box

Challenge accepted.

 

[prime-factor]

Two red boxes. Congratulations. Rather than call this a 'discussion board', why not just specify that you can only possess one opinion that must fit in with the forum sheep. This is a 'forum', so obviously people have opinions, not all of which are like yours. But hey,thanks for taking the time to rep me.

'Do you actually do any science, or understand science in any way?'

Yes. But I am not a famous world-renown Engineer like you.

Quote:
We are CARBON-BASED organisms, living in a CARBON-BASED world, where plants GROW BETTER IN THE PRESENCE OF CARBON dioxide.
Relevance?

Carbon Dioxide is not a problem. In fact, it supports plant growth. People have been scared by the apocalyptic global warming scenarios that they see in the movies, and that is consistently pushed by the politicians.

Lol some might be good so heaps of it must be okay. Sweet then brah, I'm going to go breathe pure oxygen for the rest of the day and eat iron filings because if some must be good, more must be the best outcome.

Okay 'Brah'. I am not claiming that if some is good then more is the best outcome. I am stating a widely known scientific fact that plants are more productive in the presence of higher levels of carbon dioxide. That's science.

 

[prime-factor]

I would like to understand what your position is regarding the carbon tax and carbons emission schemes ideas. Could you please explain why you hold these positions, what they are based on, and why you think these schemes are good/bad ideas.

Lets start here. I don't want an argument with you. You're a smart guy, so I'm interested to discover what you think.

 

[prime-factor]

Okay. Thank you.

Now, you mentioned anthropogenic climate change. I am not saying that humans have no impact on the climate, but what strong supporting evidence is there which indicates major impacts on the climate by humans. I am aware of the graphs of temperature vs carbon dioxide. But the dependent variable on that graph is not necessarily temperature.

You claim that my understanding of climate change is grotesque. What makes my understanding 'grotesque'. I am aware of the evidence, climate change theories and of climate cycles.

 

[prime-factor]

I see where you are coming from. But, you refer to levels of over 90% which are indeed ridiculously fatally high. I do not deny that. Obviously that is extremely detrimental.

The levels of CO2 increase that we are currently experiencing are no where near to increasing CO2 levels to 90% of atmospheric compositions. Since CO2 is measured in PPM the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have to be detrimental.

I am not saying that the planet is any better or worse. I agree that bringing the fact that plants grow better in higher concentrations of CO2 is not fully relevant to the thread, but I was just trying to show that CO2 can have positive impacts, and is required for life after all. More is not any better, but the 'more' that we are experiencing is not necessarily bad either.

 

[prime-factor]

The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as as a percentage have increased in the 100 years. That is true. I am not denying that. What is your point.

 

[Graney]

When I was considering the administrative cost of an ETS, I only thought of government bureaucracy, which would be a department of a few dozen people at most. Small stuff.

I've read the details of the governments carbon reporting scheme, which was implemented a few years ago, with reports starting to be filed. It's really complex. With the additional paperwork, accounting and investment required when the actual ETS is introduced, this is going to be a significant imposition on every major business in Australia. Many hours of additional employment, thousands invested on pointless bureaucracy, extra staff, contractors, possibly teams and departments in some organisations.

Therefore, carbon tax.

 

[boris]

Might be best to dump ETS, says Garnaut | National News | News.com.au

Might be best to dump ETS, says Garnaut


-Professor Ross Garnaut hands his final climate change report to Kevin Rudd / Kym Smith
-Questions quality of current scheme
-Urges senators to make substantial changes
-Recession "not good time for good policy"
-THE Government's own climate adviser says it might be best to dump the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and "have another crack at it" later.

Professor Ross Garnaut says it's lineball whether the scheme in its current form is worth doing.

He urged senators to make substantial changes during a committee hearing today.

Prof Garnaut, an economist, was hired by the federal and state governments to advise them on what to do about climate change.

"If there were no changes at all it would be a lineball call whether it was better to push ahead or say ... we'll have another crack at it and do a better one when time is right,'' Prof Garnaut said.

He set out the three major changes he wants to the scheme, which is the main way to tackle climate change and is due to start next year.

Prof Garnaut wants a deeper cut to greenhouse gas emissions.

The scheme will cut emissions by five to 15 per cent by 2020; Prof Garnaut wants the upper limit increased to 25 per cent, conditional on other countries taking similar steps.



Bluey of Sydney Sponsored feature:
He wants the Government to commit more money for new, green technologies.

And he's worried the ETS gives too many free permits to industry. He wants an escape clause which would make it easier to stop the free permits.

Prof Garnaut said he was agonising over whether it was better to bring in an imperfect scheme or hold off and try for a better one later.

The global recession meant "it is not a good time for good policy''.

hahah fuck

 

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

I don't know much about either, but I'm going to have to go with carbon tax. It just seems to make more intuitive and logical sense (assuming it IS reviewed periodically and based on evidence-based policy, not political agendas).

 

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

Ok, so now I'm really up for supporting a carbon tax, not an emmissions scheme:



Emission impossible: the sad truth

Thank God for Ross Gittins. Where would we be without his witty, informative and understandable commentary?

That's a really good point. Fuck the ETS.

I have no idea why I'm on the side of Liberals here (I'll give them a break: they do often come up with good ideas when they're not being deliberately contrary), but the more I hear about an ETS, the stupider it sounds. Bring on a carbon tax.

In fact, they should tax carbon in such a way that things which pollute above a certain level are taxed while below a certain level are given tax relief. So things like ethanol would end up neutral (no tax or relief) because they are "carbon neutral".

 

[Riet]

Why subsidise fucking coal power? NUCLEAR YOU CUNTS WE HAVE LIKE ALL OF THE WORLDS URANIUMZ

 

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

Yeah, gotta say we should be running on like at least 25% nuclear. We're currently like 90% coal.

 

[LordPc]

this poll is essentially pointless.

last year we had an indepth look at this debate in economics and either method would work perfectly fine. its not like one would work and the other one would just fail after 2 years, both would reduce emissions. just 2 routes to the same location

the real problem isnt deciding which one is better, its getting one, any one, of these methods actually working and being enforced

 

[Graney]

Why not subsidise fucking coal power (if you're going to have subsidies for any form of power)? Except for the carbon emissions, it's pretty sweet.

No new nuclear plants were built in the US for 30 years or so, because it's marginally economical at best, no one wants to invest in it.

 

[Riet]

Why not subsidise fucking coal power (if you're going to have subsidies for any form of power)? Except for the carbon emissions, it's pretty sweet.

No new nuclear plants were built in the US for 30 years or so, because it's marginally economical at best, no one wants to invest in it.

Well no shit economically coal is the best by far. The whole idea of either an ETS or Carbon tax is that we are putting a value on emissions.