No we should not have a carbon tax.
Yes we should have a carbon tax now.
We should give it some more time.
Just for Ving.... Gravy.
Tax everything except photographic equipment.
But it will.
If products that are more inefficiently produced are taxed so that they are more expensive than more efficiently produced products - then we switch.
Electricity the classic eg. If highly polluting brown coal electricity is priced so highly that solar panels become a good investment (and worthwhile for R&D) then the tax is very effective. Yes, solar doesn't work at night but, there are such things as batteries. Even if it can't free you from grid power - you will need far, far less of it.
Yes, I understand you don't want to pay more: You are very comfortable and few people want to go from X disposable income to X-Y disposable income.
That is the point. Most want others - not us - to pay for it.
But, if we do nothing - we will all end up paying far more (or we will just say to the grand-kids - sucked in, your problem).
Scotty
Canon 7D : Canon EF 70-200mm f:2.8 L IS II USM - Canon EF 24-105 f:4 L IS USM - Canon EF 50mm f:1.8 - Canon EF-s 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6
Sigma APO 150-500mm f:5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Sigma 10-20mm f:3.5 EX DC HSM
Speedlite 580 EX II - Nissin Di866 II - Yongnuo 460-II x2 - Kenko extension tube set - Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
Manfroto monopod - SILK 700DX Pro tripod - Remote release - Cokin Z-Pro filter box + Various filters
Current Social Experiment: CAPRIL - Wearing a cape for the month of April to support Beyond Blue
Visit me on Flickr
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
My Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/
Well we do our little bit starting today. Our Solar energy panels are being installed today. We already have solar hot water. Will let you know down the track what our saving is.
Cheers, Paul.
Canon 50D w BG l Nifty Fifty l Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 l Sigma 24-70 f2.8 l EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro l EF 300 f4L IS USM l EF 1.4X ll TC l 430EXII l Vanguard Alto Pro 263 w BH100 l Manfrotto 680B w 234RC l Lowepro Bags.l Sigma EM-140 Ring Flash.
Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical.Electricity the classic eg. If highly polluting brown coal electricity is priced so highly that solar panels become a good investment (and worthwhile for R&D) then the tax is very effective. Yes, solar doesn't work at night but, there are such things as batteries. Even if it can't free you from grid power - you will need far, far less of it.
Geoff
Honesty is best policy.
CC is always welcome
Nikon D3000 ... Nikon D90... Nikon D700 Various lenses, Home studio equipment and all the associated stuff
Flickr
Waz
Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who matter don't mind don't matter and those who mind don't matter - Dr. Seuss...
D700 x 2 | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Nikkor AF 85 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
The most hysterical thing I've read in ages. A poll can be made to reflect whatever you want it to. This thread, for instance, only reflects the views of people who own cameras and/or are interested in photography and is, therefore, hardly indicative of a wider community opinion.
OK. I'll play. Show me what you think is credible poll showing where people have voted for a carbon tax. Every poll I have seen, which has been many and including basically every on-line poll, has been against a carbon tax to the tune of at least 60%+. Your belief that these polls are somewhat skewed simply because you believe someone has an "agenda", and doesn't conform to your thought process, is quite amusing as these polling companies need to have accuracy or they would not get repeat business.
And one would have thought that most have a green leaning due to their photography and wanting to keep the earth as pristine as possible. Yet here on this forum we have, wait for it, a 60%+ against a carbon tax, like the rest of the community. Quite interesting.This thread, for instance, only reflects the views of people who own cameras and/or are interested in photography and is, therefore, hardly indicative of a wider community opinion.
Taking an interest in the welfare of the planet is hardly a "new religion" as you put it. While the focus of the debate is about a carbon tax on carbon pollution, you are forgetting the other elements at play that threaten the future existence of life on the planet, the pollution of the oceans and the overall de-forestation that is going on around the globe. Nowhere in my posts have I ever said that "I am right and everybody else is wrong" so I will kindly ask you to either go back and read what I have already posted or stop making assertions that were never there in the first place. The idea of this thread is for everybody to express an opinion which is all that I've been doing. I don't live in an idealised world because there is no such thing.
As for wars in 3rd world countries, you will find that they have some common causes: differences in religion; the removal from power of either an individual or group of individuals and the list goes on. Cheap power . Hmmm, I guess the real cause behind the events in Libya is that everybody wants computers, air-conditioning and the right to watch rubbish programs on TV.
I think you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%. Animals in the wild and those that live on farms don't drive cars as well as fart and have you ever seen pictures of the daily smog in L.A? Did not the authorities in Beijing have to clean up their factory emissions prior to the Olympics because of health concerns? And what about all of the carbon released via logging industries around the world when they burn off after clear - felling and hazard reduction? Just think of how many cars, trucks, motorbikes etc there are on the roads at any one time all over the world as well as the fact that there are more and more new cars hitting the road each day (plus a lot of house holds in Australia have more than 1 car) and when you add up all of those emissions including the ones from factories, power stations etc, you will find it is MORE than 3%, a figure which is purely the result of anti-green propaganda.
Now, having broken my word that I was never going to return to this subject, mainly because your comments deserved a reply (moral high ground indeed!), I'm off to do something more constructive than participate in an overly politicised debate (part of the opposition to a carbon tax being based on the dislike of "Juliar" and the desire to be rid of her and have "Tony Rabbit" take over.) such as take photographs and look at other stuff.
That's the lie. It won't do anything useful. The outcome will be a weaker Australia.
The things that would make a difference are not being done, as said before transport reform.
And if the Govt were anywhere near serious they would simply stop coal exports (23% of all our export revenue).
NB: That is around 270million tonnes of carbon (black coal) per year.
The CT is a pure band-aid and actually does more harm than good.
As for wars in 3rd world countries, you will find that they have some common causes: differences in religion; the removal from power of either an individual or group of individuals and the list goes on. Cheap power . Hmmm, I guess the real cause behind the events in Libya is that everybody wants computers, air-conditioning and the right to watch rubbish programs on TV.[/quote]
Religion is an avenue for the preachers of hate to get into the minds of disenfranchised youth and the general populous and breed contempt fo those that do no have what they want. It is merely a tool for control. Why do you think Libya is in turmoil? Simply because they have been oppressed and want the goodies that the west has and that begins with cheap power in order to get what they want. Cheap power returns cheap transport, cheap manufacture, cheap cooling, cheap heating etc. You can't disconnect one without the other. And why try to bolster your flawed argument by making a silly statement like "rubbish TV programs"? They are all rubbish? You have the moral right to make that judgement? Hmm.
What do you mean, "I think" you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%? You are making a statement without facts or reading up on the matter? That is the most frightening aspect of your argument!I think you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%.
See page 5 here:
http://omsriram.com/No%20Evidence%20...%20Warming.pdf
See page 4 here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Yes, but I fail to see what this has to do with it. It is a minor issue and one I agree with. We should all emit less pollution in every form. Never have disputed that.Animals in the wild and those that live on farms don't drive cars as well as fart and have you ever seen pictures of the daily smog in L.A? Did not the authorities in Beijing have to clean up their factory emissions prior to the Olympics because of health concerns?
Again, you make a statement without fact. You are making suppositions and statements which have no basis in fact other than you "think" it is bad. And why does it have to be "anti green propaganda" just because it doesn't suit your argument?And what about all of the carbon released via logging industries around the world when they burn off after clear - felling and hazard reduction? Just think of how many cars, trucks, motorbikes etc there are on the roads at any one time all over the world as well as the fact that there are more and more new cars hitting the road each day (plus a lot of house holds in Australia have more than 1 car) and when you add up all of those emissions including the ones from factories, power stations etc, you will find it is MORE than 3%, a figure which is purely the result of anti-green propaganda.
Why the name calling of the politicians? Another attempt to bolster your flawed argument by trying to denegrate? Overly politicised? Politics has hardly had a mention here.Now, having broken my word that I was never going to return to this subject, mainly because your comments deserved a reply (moral high ground indeed!), I'm off to do something more constructive than participate in an overly politicised debate (part of the opposition to a carbon tax being based on the dislike of "Juliar" and the desire to be rid of her and have "Tony Rabbit" take over.) such as take photographs and look at other stuff.
I will also attempt to leave this debate.
Thus the absolute need for a CT to stimulate R&D into battery technology.
Yes, I know! That will cost you - and why should you pay when future generations can pay for your indulgence. How selfish of them to expect you to not continue to live large so that you might leave some resources for them.
They should beg your forgiveness :P
Scotty
As for polling. Even the big polling companies know how to position responders to obtain the answers they want.
That is sociology 101.
EG. A poll about gun control.
Depending on the answer you want, you prime the responders with material about: a) maniacs and massacres roaming the streets with guns waiting to attack your daughter or; b) unarmed, innocent victims of brutal home invaders pleading for the right to defend themselves.
So, please.... 'Credible polling companies' LOL
I'm with Lance. Scotty, I believe you have misinterpreted what we are saying. So to make it simple in point form I'll explain for the last time.
1. Those of us against the carbon tax believe that something needs to be done to save the world for future generations.
2. Those of us that are against the carbon tax believe that there is a better way to achieve what needs to be done without the tax.
3. Those of us that are against the tax know that the carbon tax is only a replacement for the failed mining tax.
4. Those of us against the tax are not thinking of ourselves, but more for the aging population of rural Australia that simply does not have the means to afford anymore taxes.
5. Those of us that are against the tax proberly has a better grasp on reality than those who are for the tax.
Thats it from me.... Yibbiter Yibbiter "Thats all Folks"
Thanks muchly for summarising my very points, Geoff.
That being against a Carbon Tax means you don't care is just PHOOEY!
(And the corollary: That being for the Carbon Tax means you do care is too.)
Am.
Hah! The swear filter didn't work! I saidCarbon Tax.
Oh! Now it did!
CC, Image editing OK.
Go Geoffsta, a clear thought from a clear head. I am disappointed that 25% of the peeps here think it is a good idea. Amazing
No Carbon. Just steam from the ears.
I printed it all out and then burnt it as a stand against the carbon tax.