Carbon Tax Poll

[kiwi]

indeed, for this reason i prefer carbon offsets as a mandatory practice.

So, if you (anywhere in the supply chain) create negative carbon footprint or ecological harm then you as a business need to buy or directly create carbon offsets - eg plant trees, create better waterways, greening, etc etc. Most big companies are doing this, at least locally, already

[Lance B]

The carbon tax isn't really about creating a tax to consumers, the intent really us to transfer costs from bad energy users to good energy users via taxing higher say coal users and generators and giving incentives to say solar, it's trading mote than taxing.

Now, should current governments care about climate change, science would say yes in an overwhelming manner. There are of course a vocal
Minority that various skeptics and talkshow jocks grasp to, probably the same minority that say there's no benefit in shooting RAW

I think in general we should take positive (or if you like negative) steps to be more efficient and be more environmentally sustainable as a trend. Can't see why anyone would argue with that

No, it is not a vocal minority at all, in the manner that you seem to be implying, more the opposite, a silent majority and this is exactly why the unchecked belief that global warming has been caused by man. Take Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which has been proven in a court that much of it consisted of lies and half truths, but it has been introduced into school curriculums as if it were the Gospel truth! How many people would go and watch it if it wasn't a sensationalisation of facts? Very few, so distort the truth and you will scare people into thinking it all true. Do some research on the so-called "consensus" that all science agrees that there is global warming caused by man and you will see that it is not a minority but more that it is an equal spread of those who believe and those who don't.

From what I see of most people is that they listen to all the shock of the media with their sensationalism (in order to sell a story as it won't sell if it is something that is not a worry to us), but none actually do any real research into the alternative view about so-called man made global warming (now conveniently called climate change) and once they do, they see that there is an equally divided scientific community on the subject and that there is just as much evidence that global warming (climate change!) is a natural phenomenon, if is actually even happening at all. I wonder how many here, or anywhere else for that matter, have actually read any books or listened to any other contrary views by eminent scientists or read any credible internet info, rather than just relyig on media hype? I guarantee that hardly any at all. The thing is, everything now is blamed on global warming even in jest and has therefore now become a de rigueur belief rather than an proven one and this is the point it has not been proven by anyone that it is actually occuring, yet the masses seem to blindly accept it. Unbelievable!

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corru...corruption.pdf

[kiwi]

I'll stick by the fact that the vast majority of scientific opinion (as opoosed to public or media opinion) is with the fact that there is climate change occurring. Not all agree the cause.

Is the UN, WHO, CSIRO etc etc wrong ? Don't these paek bodies represent science and the majority of global thinking ?

http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil....d/library.html

Ive been to countless business forums etc and although I'm by nature a skeptic, science seems (almost) united on this front.

[Art Vandelay]

Results from climate scientists and the multitude of vested interest groups whose funding depends on there being man made global warming climate change is akin to gathering a group of priests and asking there views on whether there is a God.

Plenty of independants have spoken out.

[kiwi]

to be frank, there would be a lot more money on the circuit for a skeptic

Im not a scientist, dont understand the science, dont intend to....so...in lieau of a personal understanding I will go with the vast majority on these things.

You can believe what you want.

[mudman]

i don't think carbon is the issue.
if you wantv to reduce/control carbon plant something. as it grows it photosynthisises carbon and produces oxygen.
it is other gasses that are the issue. methane, carbon monoxide, and the toxic stuff comming out of factory chimneys that are the real problem.
stopping the felling of trees in places like the amazon and Indonesia would probably help a bit too.
in my opinion the 'carbon tax' is not what it should be called.

[PH005]

My worry is I dont trust governments to do the right thing, especially ones that do an about face on the very same topic.

[ving]

i don't think carbon is the issue.
.

true. link to data that states carbon density fluctuation has always been present.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2

i worry more about things like heavy metals in our water, etc

[ApolloLXII]

www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf

palaeoentomolog.ru/Lib/Chumakov4.pdf

downloads.climatescience.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/Global.pdf

www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/03.html

www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html

For those who might like to see what the views of some scientists are.

[ApolloLXII]

So, the dinosaurs created CO2 and killed themselves off too?

I never said anything of the sort. There's nothing yet definitely proved as to what killed off the dinosaurs. We will end up extinct like the dinosaurs though if nothing is done about the problem of pollution (carbon or otherwise).

[ApolloLXII]

My worry is I dont trust governments to do the right thing, especially ones that do an about face on the very same topic.

Therein lies another problem. We cannot trust the government to do ANYTHING right and about faces seem to be inherent in politics. Campaign on a promise and then break it once you've got into office and that kind of thing has ALWAYS worried me.

[Bennymiata]

My worry is I dont trust governments to do the right thing, especially ones that do an about face on the very same topic.

Dead right.
If pollution and carbon WAS such a big concern to our Federal Government, why did they reduce the funding to the CSIRO by such a huge amount in Rudd's first budget, and each budget they brought down thereafter?
Surely, it is the scientists in the CSIRO who would be best suited to solving these problems.

Now, if we could get these people with wood-burning stoves to put them out, and get the government to enforce clean water effluent on the coal mines, we'd all be better off.

We ALL want clean air and clean water, but if we have to live in caves to do it, then forget about it.

It's a bit like a few years ago when the big talk was about handing back land to the aboriginals.
My wife and I were at a dinner party a few years ago, when this was the hot topic for dicussion.
Seated next to us was another couple, who were all for the handing back of all lands, so I asked them when they were going to give their house over the aboriginals.
They looked at me like I had just shot their mother!
They said they weren't going to give their house over the aboriginals, they worked hard to afford it and they certainly weren't going to give it to anybody!
I said to them that they were being very two-faced about this, as it is them who are espousing this theory, and that they should set an example for others to follow.
I said to them how could farmers, miners etc just give away the land they own, when people like them wouldn't do it.

Same with the carbon tax.
Sounds good now, but when it's coming out of YOUR pocket (and it will, regardless if you even get some of it back in compensation), your opinion may change!

[WhoDo]

Is the UN, WHO, CSIRO etc etc wrong ? Don't these paek bodies represent science and the majority of global thinking ?

Maybe they do, Darren, but that begs the question "are they biased in their opinions?" Let's see, the UN says give us some money and we'll explore the political implications of asking our poorer members to give up their cheap fuel. Or the WHO who says give us some money and we'll explore the health impacts on those who are compelled to use cheaper fossil fuels. Then, of course, there is the CSIRO who says give us some money and we'll research all of the ways we can produce energy from renewable sources. IMHO there is inherent bias in almost any viewpoint presented in such forums. All of these organisations depend on governments for their funding. The reality is that altruism may exist at the grass roots in these august bodies but I seriously doubt it still exists at the top level where their organisational viewpoints are expounded.

I do agree, however, that climate change (perhaps even global warming ... or cooling) is occurring, as it has since the beginning of geological time. The direction is likely unaffected by man to any significant degree, and only man's ego believes it otherwise. Maybe the next great extinction event will claim mankind as well, who knows? The problem we can impact on is what resources we use, and how quickly they are depleted if they are non-renewable. We most certainly SHOULD be addressing that yesterday IMHO. There are more efficient ways of funding that effort than allowing politicians to slug people, not just big business, with another tax. They have a long history of squandering financial resources and failing to produce fundamental benefits in the process. Like I said, "free" insulation anyone?

Bottom line: A carbon tax and/or an emissions trading scheme is unlikely to solve global problems to do with climate change. They may save government problems in funding political agendas but not much else and we'll all be the poorer in the end. A friend of mine once pointed out a simple truth; money follows ideas, not the other way around. When the government can come up with concrete strategy for using our taxes to develop solutions to real problems, then I'll happily ante up. I have a granddaughter and I want her to inherit a better world than the one I will leave one day. I just don't trust governments to do it with taxation when they haven't committed to where it will be spent, how and why. I guess I'm just getting really cynical in my dotage.

[jim]

Im not a scientist, dont understand the science, dont intend to....so...in lieau of a personal understanding I will go with the vast majority on these things.

)

More or less my position. I'm always surprised at how confidently many people express strong opinions on complex scientific issues, when on examination it turns out that they're as unqualified as I am, and are merely reflecting received opinion.

I once knew a lady who more or less considered the opinion of John Laws to be the last word on any possible topic. Not a stupid lady, and not in any way unusual either.

Depressing.

[ving]

[Lance B]

to be frank, there would be a lot more money on the circuit for a skeptic

Im not a scientist, dont understand the science, dont intend to....so...in lieau of a personal understanding I will go with the vast majority on these things.

You can believe what you want.

Not when there is a tax to be implemented by a government and those same said scientists are funded by government grants to unis etc.

[Lance B]

[QUOTE=jim;854533]More or less my position. I'm always surprised at how confidently many people express strong opinions on complex scientific issues, when on examination it turns out that they're as unqualified as I am, and are merely reflecting received opinion.[QUOTE]

Some may not undertsand the science, but I understand most of it and I also have done much research. Also, there is an even split of scientists who believe in man made global warming and those that don't, yet they are all scientists and even they can't come to a consensus, so I don't think you should condemn anyone for expressing a well read and researched opinion .

20 odd years ago, we were told that eggs were bad for you as they have cholesterol and therefore give us heart disease, however, we now know that eggs are actually good for you and can help reduce cholesterol and assist in balancing triglycerides! Also, these same climate warming scientists in the 70'2 were predicting an ice age! The same scientists that said mobile phones were ok and wouldn't give you cancer and now we here from WHO, that they can give you cancers. These same scientists first told us it was global warming and they had computer models that we would have rising temperature of a .5 degree every decade, now they call it climate change as their computer models got it all wrong and we don't have universal warming at all. These same scientists many years ago who were shouting that the Antarctic was losing ice and we were shown melting ice falling into the sea for effect. This has been shown to be a sham as they only showed one section of Antarctica losing ice on the east whereas on the west it was gaining ice to the tune of 100,000square KMs every 10 years!! And do you know what is causing the extra ice to be formed? The bloody hole in the ozone layer which was supposed to be such a villainous catastrophic disaster for mankind! They now realise that the ozone hole has always been there and always will be and it has always fluctuated in size.

So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm. I put as much faith in them as I do the governments that pay their wages.

[ApolloLXII]

I loved that movie. Should have concentrated the whole thing on this little guy and his efforts with the acorn.

[Lance B]

I never said anything of the sort. There's nothing yet definitely proved as to what killed off the dinosaurs. We will end up extinct like the dinosaurs though if nothing is done about the problem of pollution (carbon or otherwise).

But you drew the parallel, ie, "unless we want to end like up like them". So, you drew them into the discussion in some way as to make us think that their demise is linked to ours if we don't stop carbon dioxide emissions.

[junqbox]

[QUOTE=Lance B;854555][QUOTE=jim;854533]
So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm. [QUOTE]

And if the ones you're so vociferously supporting that are wrong, what then?