Carbon Tax Poll

[Kym]

So, in other words. Fix the planet but, as long as I don't have to make a sacrifice.

If the CT was going to do something useful, nobody would complain; but its a very hollow poli-"look at me, i'm doing something" knee jerk useless impost.

[Scotty72]

If the CT was going to do something useful, nobody would complain; but its a very hollow poli-"look at me, i'm doing something" knee jerk useless impost.

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

[Lance B]

I guess the credibility of a poll depends directly on the desirability of it's findings

Actually, no. I am talking about correct polling companies like Roy Morgan and Gallaxy Poll etc who do statsitically accurate polls. Their findings do reflect the community's desires and have been proven to be correct.

[PH005]

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.

[geoffsta]

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.

Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical.

[WhoDo]

Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical.

... and the materials that make batteries work usually have to be smelted from raw ore ... using coal or electricity or a combination of both.

[ApolloLXII]

Actually, no. I am talking about correct polling companies like Roy Morgan and Gallaxy Poll etc who do statsitically accurate polls. Their findings do reflect the community's desires and have been proven to be correct.

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.

[Lance B]

The most hysterical thing I've read in ages. A poll can be made to reflect whatever you want it to.

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.

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.

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.

[ApolloLXII]

Judging from your posts, your mind seems closed and already made up, the very same thing you are accusing the "non believers" of. As I have said previously, the CO2 debate has turned into the new religion and those that do not believe are labelled heretics and non-believers and therefore don't care about their world. That's just plain rubbish designed to shut up opposition views and to garner support by brow beating detractors and taking the moral high ground. And just like religion, there is no proof and never will be, so it is the perfect platform to justify their cause, "you won't go to heaven if ou don't believe in God so, repent, repent", slightly altered to, "you will destroy the earth if you don't believe in CO2 so, repent, repent". Just because you believe in a carbon tax or that there is man made global warming due to our output of CO2 doesn't mean that you are right. There is no proof, just speculation and there is just as much science saying that there isn't man caused global warming, but just because you choose not to believe an alternate view doesn't give you the right to any thoughts of a moral superiority by espousing that you want to "save the world".

As for the belief that somehow we are now living in a world of "hooray for me but screw everybody else", I think you need to do a bit more research on history and stop living in your idealised, antiseptic world, rather than come up with these little platitudes designed to try to backhandedly insult those that don't think the way you'd like them to. We have been fighting wars for all of our existence simply because man has always had this very "hooray for me but screw everybody else" mentality, and if anything, it is better now that it has ever been. Why? Simply because the western world has plenty of cheap power and therefore our standard of living is good and we therefore don't need to fight wars anymore. You will notice that the places that are fighting wars are generally the 3rd world countires that are aspiring to have cheap power and all the mod cons but do not yet have it. Start putting brakes on their right to have this cheap power and you'll really see some wars being fought.

Did you realise that man contributes to only 3% of the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere yearly, 97% being of natural causes. Of that 3%, Australia contributes 1.5% or .045% of the total of all man made CO2 in the world. If we were to reduce that by 10%, that would still only be a .0045% reduction, in other words, less than peeing into the ocean. Also, Australia's CO2 output includes our exported raw materials when used for overseas consumption and not our own consumption. So when we export coal for overseas consumption, the CO2 produced by it's burning is attributed to us!!! How incredulous!!

http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/climat...-us-credit-for

If we introduce a carbon tax, industry will go offshore to China and/or India where their inefficient and polluting factories will produce more caron dioxide than if it stayed here and therefore any reduction in CO2 will be more than offset by it being worse in China and/or India, so we will actually be going backwards with CO2 production!! Did you know that 15% of our power supply in Australia goes into making aluminium and if this industry decided to go to China that would be a huge backward step in CO2 emissions.

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.

[ApolloLXII]

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.

See, you never read my post properly. I never said anything about a poll about Carbon Tax. The results of ALL polls, no matter what the subject, can be twisted to support whatever argument, for or against.


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.

[Kym]

But it will.

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.

[Lance B]

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.[/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.

I think you will find that the amount of the CO2 contribution by mankind is way over 3%.

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!

See page 5 here:
http://omsriram.com/No%20Evidence%20...%20Warming.pdf

See page 4 here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I will also attempt to leave this debate.

[Scotty72]

Just like the Toyota Prius. The batteries have to be replaced every 5 years at a cost of $3 - $5 thousand. Very economical.

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

[Scotty72]

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

[geoffsta]

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"

[ameerat42]

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 said Carbon Tax.
Oh! Now it did!

[Bally]

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

[I @ M]

I wonder how much carbon is produced from people contributing to this thread and then reading and re reading it?

[geoffsta]

No Carbon. Just steam from the ears.

[Art Vandelay]

I printed it all out and then burnt it as a stand against the carbon tax.