www.robowars.org

RoboWars Australia Forum Index -> Off-Topic

60% emission reduction
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Post new topic   Reply to topic
  Author    Thread
Philip
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane


 Reply with quote  

Sorry, I missed this post.

No. I am not a climate change sceptic. Climate change has been happening for thousands of years. We have been getting warmer and cooler.

However, I am sceptical of the view that humans are having such an impact. I still remember, when I was in primary school, humans were going to cause another ice age. It was a scientific fact and you could not question it.

The climate has not risen by a few degrees in a century. It has risen by between 0.5 and 1 degree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Hypothetically, an atmosphere full of CO2 would be poisonous, but CO2 is a fraction of a single percent of the atmosphere.

Why do you say that an increase of 2 degrees will destroy the Great Barrier Reef? There are coral reefs in waters closer to the equator than the Great Barrier Reef. They are healthy.

I agree, Australia is rich and should actively reduce pollution. We would probably have the same outcome in mind. My concern with our CO2 tax is that polluters will simply move to countries without CO2 tax.

Australia was never going to directly suffer the GFC. The Keating and Howard economic reforms left the economy in a strong condition. Keating did a lot of good in the early years. Such as floating the dollar, removing import taxes, superannuation.

This isn't a question of political lines. Gillard has made a good call in supplying uranium to India, IMO. The people of India need access to cheap power. They need clean drinking water and refrigeration etcetera. Gillard will help these people by helping them develop nuclear power generation. They don't even have the CO2 emissions of a coal power station.

The GST was generally revenue neutral. It replaced sales tax. Keating was going to do something similar to the GST. The CO2 tax does not replace another tax. In that regard, the two are incomparable.

From memory, the CO2 tax will lose 4.6 billion dollars over four years. You rightly say that it will change into an ETS in the future. Australian businesses will be able to buy pollution permits from other countries. The federal government will have pay the compensation while it loses the income. How will they make up the shortfall? Will Gillard raise taxes or cut spending? I might start an offset company in Nigeria and sell permits to Australia.

Have you noticed that we can quantify the dollar loss, but they do not quantify any temperature improvement?

Climate change is a reality. It has happened for thousands of years and it will continue to happen.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Post Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:30 am 
 View user's profile Send private message
miles&Jules
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 3973
Location: ipswich QLD


 Reply with quote  

Hi Phil
So you, Allan Jones & Andrew Bolt are right(correct) and every scientific institution like csiro and Nasa are wrong???

Human induced climate change is only a theory...but so is evolution. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest adam and eve are fictional.

Some people believe the earth is flat....but there is a lot of evidence to support that its round.

Same with human induced climate change....look at the rate of increase since the industrial revolution...have you ever stayed in a big city and seen the smog...its horrid, is that naturally occurring to?

Do you think it is worth the risk of not acting? The carbon tax is going to cost us next to nothing....unless you earn over $150k....I know a few people who earn that and guess what they are sceptics to...I think is part of a conservative mind set.

Its like conservatives believing in god...when there is absolutely no evidence of any gods yet they beleive....But there is plenty of evidence of climate change.

"Why do you say that an increase of 2 degrees will destroy the Great Barrier Reef?"
I didn't come up with that, it is the CSIRO's analysis.

Carbon trading is like any kind of international trade ...are you saying international trade is bad....thats what its about....if there is a market for something that is how it becomes workable and then carbon emissions lower globally...that is the idea...yes do the Nigerian carbon credit company ....you might get rich...that is the incentive.

well if your going to sell uranium to anyone you might as well sell it to india...the problem is nuclear reactors are a nightmare waiting to happen. Fukushima, Chernobyl , three mile island.

"They don't even have the CO2 emissions of a coal power station."
India is full of Coal fire power stations as well.

"How will they make up the shortfall?" .... by taxing the big polluters thats the idea...Unlike Abbott who wants to tax us to pay them to stop polluting....how is that supposed to work?.

Once the carbon tax starts and no one even notices ...Abbot wont have a leg to stand on....When the carbon tax went through the senate last week...where was Abbot? on a plan to london...He couldn't handle the humiliation. Hilarious.

Im beginning to think labor is in to stay ..who would have thought a month or two ago.


talk soon
Miles
_________________
Miles Blow - Julie Pitts
www.mulesfilm.com.au
www.wombokforest.com.au

-Pickasso- Vivid Sportsman champion 2015

Post Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:58 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Philip
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane


 Reply with quote  

If you want to talk about the issue, I will keep on talking about it. If you want to try guilt by association instead of talking about the issue, I am not interested.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Post Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:35 am 
 View user's profile Send private message
miles&Jules
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 3973
Location: ipswich QLD


 Reply with quote  

Hi Phillip
Ok i may have gone off topic there....

Well you have to admit that the worlds science community couldn't all have got it wrong....I guess thats what convinced me...But science is about asking questions....so its heathy we can discuss these issues.
talk soon
miles
_________________
Miles Blow - Julie Pitts
www.mulesfilm.com.au
www.wombokforest.com.au

-Pickasso- Vivid Sportsman champion 2015

Post Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:16 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Philip
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane


 Reply with quote  

I would not say that the scientific community has got it all wrong. In fact, I agree with the scientific observations. We have seen an increase in the average temperature over the last few hundred years. I do question the more extreme views of commentators when they interpret the observations. That is key. The difference between observation and interpretation.

Lets find some points of agreement. We both appear to agree that we should live efficiently and that pollution such as sulphur dioxide should be reduced. We can all turn off the power at the wall to save stand by power etcetera. Australia's wealth can be used to help neighbouring countries affected by climate change.

Possibly, you would agree that the world has experienced warmer and cooler periods. Assuming you think the scientific observations pointing to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are valid.

Mankind's activity does have an effect on climate, but I don't think we are the most powerful force in our solar system. The Sun and naturally occurring phenomena such as rainfall events and volcanic activity play a huge part in our temperature. That does not diminish our responsibility to live sustainably.

I will continue to treat the doom and gloom interpretations (e.g. A Convenient Truth) with suspicion. As stated previously, I remember when, in the 1970s, we were headed for an ice age that would destroy the world as we knew it. I remember when we were going to run out of petrol in the 1980s. It would also destroy the world as we knew it. These were treated as proven fact back then.

To end on a point of agreement, science is about asking questions.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Post Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 am 
 View user's profile Send private message
miles&Jules
Experienced Roboteer


Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 3973
Location: ipswich QLD


 Reply with quote  

Yeah all sounds like we agree..... our only difference is whether
cutting our carbon emissions will have any effect on future global temperature rises. i think its worth a try.
_________________
Miles Blow - Julie Pitts
www.mulesfilm.com.au
www.wombokforest.com.au

-Pickasso- Vivid Sportsman champion 2015

Post Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:40 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
  Display posts from previous:      

Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 5 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Last Thread | Next Thread  >
Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
millenniumFalcon Template By Vereor.