Australia's carbon (dioxide) tax

[Hallo Alfie]

So Europe's in poor shape because of the carbon tax? Support it.

Europe or the tax?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Okay, another demonstration you cannot support your contentions.

Hang on. If the point of the carbon tax is not to reduce emissions and mitigate AGW, then what the hell is it for?

She says (see post #8):
"that A one metre rise would see a million people in our region on the move."

"Our country faces very direct threats too: worsebushfire conditions and droughts, more days of extreme heat, increased cyclone intensity, bleaching of coral reefs."

"Climate change is a global issue that threatens us here, so we are doing our bit."

Clearly the tax is to mitigate the change.
If not, what is the point of it?

 

[Francesca R]

Others here seem to infer that the tax isn't actually in place to stop the emissions of co2 and reducing AGW.

You have already accepted that it is (post 86). You have also implicitly accepted that it will (same post) if you believe it will reduce profitability (from resource extraction and downstream production)

So your if is incorrect, according to you.

How much will our tax mitigate climate change?

No clue.

I agree for the most part. But this would mean the loss of jobs and industry in some sectors in exchange for others. Yes?

Not even that, if you were to believe it had no impact on emissions. People would stay gainfully employed in the business of emitting CO2 but some of the revenue that activity generates would be taxed and given to others.

 

[lionking]

The biggest threat to Australia's transition to a less polluting economy (an objective nobody can seriously contest) is Abbott. He has not put forward a alternative policy to achieve the 5% reduction.

 

[DC]

I don't believe I have been dishonest and am saddened by your hostility. I actually thought I had answered the question.

Simply put, if the carbon tax does not mitigate climate change it is useless. If it reduces our economic viability for a zero end game, it is essentially useless. If we implement it to our own detriment while the rest of the world happily continues increasing theirs, it is useless.

I can agree that we should do something about mitigating climate change effects, but not something useless or stupid.

you clearly claimed the tax is useless. i asked for evidence of your claim. you never provided anything.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

you clearly claimed the tax is useless. i asked for evidence of your claim. you never provided anything.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Explanations have been given as to why I believe what I do, it seems you missed them. But tell me, why do you think it is useful? How? Is Gillard right (see post #8)? Why is she?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The biggest threat to Australia's transition to a less polluting economy (an objective nobody can seriously contest) is Abbott. He has not put forward a alternative policy to achieve the 5% reduction.

How do you know he is a threat if you don't know what he wants to do? This seems illogical at best. Just angry or stupid at worst.

What would be the point anyway?
You seem to have inferred that Gillard's is not to stop or mitigate global warming so why would Abbott have a policy? What is the end game here if not to stop or mitigate the warming?

 

[Captain_Snort]

This part is true. We sure are doing our bit - we are doing more than our bit - we are ahead of the rest of the world with a tax that that is triple some other falling markets.

But per capita, Australia is in the top 3 (was way out ahead but recently a couple of small gulf states have caught up and way way ahead of the USA) in production of greenhouse gasses. You are doing something now, but maybe too late. If this is your thinking, then the rest of your arguements on this matter are most likely not really worth reading.

I Find the Australian attitude to the environment very funny, as an example there was a visiting Australian professor in my department a few months ago. Gave a lecture on grass root attitudes and political attitudes to the environment in aus, but did not mention the levels of consumption at all. She was even a wee bit embarrassed when i brought it up as a question.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But per capita, Australia is in the top 3 (was way out ahead but recently a couple of small gulf states have caught up and way way ahead of the USA) in production of greenhouse gasses. You are doing something now, but maybe too late.

We may be in the top three per capita - I will take your word for it - that does not mean the tax will achieve anything though now does it?

 

[DC]

Explanations have been given as to why I believe what I do, it seems you missed them. But tell me, why do you think it is useful? How? Is Gillard right (see post #8)? Why is she?

you made the claim, and you fail to provide evidence for the claim, if i missed your evidence, in wich post have you posted it?

 

[lionking]

We may be in the top three per capita - I will take your word for it

You started this debate and you didn't know that? Amazing.

 

[lionking]

How do you know he is a threat if you don't know what he wants to do? This seems illogical at best. Just angry or stupid at worst.

What would be the point anyway?
You seem to have inferred that Gillard's is not to stop or mitigate global warming so why would Abbott have a policy? What is the end game here if not to stop or mitigate the warming?

Another trolling post. Show me some cite by anyone, anywhere where it is claimed that Australia will stop global warming?

Cue a post, "but waaaa, I said stop or mitigate"

Pathetic.

 

[Dan O.]

I did not do a chemistry degree or any degree, I did not even finish high school.
But if you burn fossil fuels, is not carbon a biproduct?
And does it not mix with O2 in the atmosphere to form CO2?
I am waiting a reply from someone much, much more knowledgable than me.

Carbon is not created by chemical reactions. All the carbon in the world was created many billions of years ago by nuclear fusion of hellium in giant stars that exploded in supernovas scattering the carbon as dust into the interstellar void. The carbon was here long before the solar system itself condensed from that dust.

Carbon just happens to be a particularly handy atom for building structural molecules. All life on this planet is based on these carbon structures. The human body for instance when you exclude the 70% that is just water, is mostly carbon in various molecular structures. When thes carbon based life forms get burried deep underground. The water gets squeezed out and the large molecules break down releasing hydrocarbon gasses like methane. The remaining carbon packs together layer after layer and we get coal.

 

[Akhenaten]

Carbon is not created by chemical reactions. All the carbon in the world was created many billions of years ago by nuclear fusion of hellium in giant stars that exploded in supernovas scattering the carbon as dust into the interstellar void. The carbon was here long before the solar system itself condensed from that dust.

I believe I'm guilty of expessing myself poorly in this matter too, having referred to carbon 'emissions' when I ought to have been referring to releasing carbon fom the forms in which it's locked up (which is to say, incapable of forming carbon dioxide) by, for instance, burning coal.

Notwithstanding this error in terminology, the idea underlying the carbon tax remains the same - the more carbon you release the more you pay.

 

[Dan O.]

Though I am generally for the carbon tax concept, specifically, using government controls to create a shift in the economics and get everybody to move in the direction that they need to go where pure market forces driven by personal greed is pushing them in the oposite direction, I'm not sure that a tax on the carbon emissions themselves is the most efficient or effective control point. The problem is that there are too many short carbon cycles such as carbon dioxide is pulled from the air and stored as hydrocarbons in food which is eaten and metabolized and exhaled as carbon dioxide. It makes deciding who gets taxed and where to give additional credits a nightmare.

I think that a much better control point would be the import and extraction of fossil fuels. This of course has the immediate problem that people can see how the tax on the oil is passed directly down the chain to the consumer pumping gas into their car. People being the remarkable stupid bunch that they are won't accept such a tax even though it gives them the most direct ability to change their behavior to use less fossil fuel and therefore come out ahead after the government tax credits.

 

[wombatwal]

Carbon is not created by chemical reactions. All the carbon in the world was created many billions of years ago by nuclear fusion of hellium in giant stars that exploded in supernovas scattering the carbon as dust into the interstellar void. The carbon was here long before the solar system itself condensed from that dust.

Carbon just happens to be a particularly handy atom for building structural molecules. All life on this planet is based on these carbon structures. The human body for instance when you exclude the 70% that is just water, is mostly carbon in various molecular structures. When thes carbon based life forms get burried deep underground. The water gets squeezed out and the large molecules break down releasing hydrocarbon gasses like methane. The remaining carbon packs together layer after layer and we get coal.

Thanks for that Dan O.
But I am still unsure how carbon mixes with oxygen to become carbon dioxide. In what form is the carbon in to mix with O2.
A hydrocarbon?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Show me some cite by anyone, anywhere where it is claimed that Australia will stop global warming?

Then what is the point of the tax?
By the way, post #8 does actually relate directly to your concerns. You seem to be about the only one who thinks the tax is not about stopping or mitigating global warming.

 

[lionking]

Then what is the point of the tax?
By the way, post #8 does actually relate directly to your concerns. You seem to be about the only one who thinks the tax is not about stopping or mitigating global warming.

Pathetic. Just admit that you can't find anyone who has stated that Australia's carbon price will stop global warming.

I know you are making stuff up as an exercise in trolling, so I expect you will keep repeating this rubbish.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Right back at you.

Let's say that you are right (which you aren't as already evidenced) and no one anywhere has ever said the tax will not (help) save the globe from global warming, what is the purpose of the tax?

 

[lionking]

Awkward dodge noted. You said repeatedly that the aim was to stop or mitigate global warming.

I take it you have withdrawn this nonsense. Good.

Now how about answering Bit Pattern's question about how Abbott will achieve the 5% reduction.