Carbon Emissions Targets

I'm astounded Rudd hasnt walked the walk on this one. He said it was the major issue facing this generation and then chooses a target that is insignificant. Bear in mind that we have the highest carbon emissions per capita in the world. Its not as though we are already living on the carbon poverty line. I hope this is blocked in the senate as being completely inadequate. The message below is from Getup (www.getup.org.au) if you want to vote.

Interestingly, the key point of that survey (I got my email today too) is whether you'd vote for them at the next election. I say it doesn't matter WHICH party got voted in, all the pollies are still bent over in front of a bunch of ore- and fossil fuel-mining companies and saying "Please sir, can I have some more?" while the mining barons laugh their arse off.

Astoundingly weak.

What a wasted opportunity this government is. At least John Howard saw that the times suited him. He knew that he had the opportunity to prosecute his ambitions as hard as he could. But it turns out that KRudd has no ambitions apart from not upsetting anyone.

I wonder what will happen in the U.S.? Similar situation - a people completely sick of the incumbent, lowest popularity ever, come on down Barack Obama with a fairly radical set of ideas. I wonder if he will follow any through?

Obama is already caught up in a political scandal, which is funny given his promise of hope and change. He's a corrupt Chicago politician, same old same old.

Anyway, since I dont believe in global warming being man-made, I'm not bothered, except that if it wont do anything (which is what we are now told the 5% will achieve) then why do it at all and incur all these costs? Seems a little silly to me.

It was global cooling back in the 70's and global warming - er - climate change - now. It also got hotter in the 30's and cooled through the 50's. Medieval warm period anyone? If a bunch of peasants could cope with a few degree temperature change, then so can we.

:lmao:

When I saw your name on the list, I thought - what has fos got for us this time? You are the Scarf's political naza.

I certainly agree that it's possible to be a climate change sceptic, in the sense that you feel that the evidence is inconclusive. But to be a climate change athiest is just crazy. Any half-sensible person would look at the evidence and take a balanced position.

In this case, we have gone very close to "do nothing" which is analogous to being on the Titanic, hearing about the iceberg, and having a big laugh because it is such a large ship. What's the worse case of doing something and finding out that the CC consensus was wrong? Our incomes fall 10% and the earth is a bit cleaner? What's the downside of doing nothing about CC if it is real?

Apart from anything else, this government has a very clear mandate for major structural change. It commissioned a report that said things were serious and we need major structural adjustment. So the government says "thanks very much, we'll ignore the mandate, we'll ignore the report, and give money to the coal industry."

And apart from all that, I see very little leadership on the very issue of structural adjustment. We need to reduce our dependence on oil, we need to reduce pollution, we need to regenerate areas of the world like the Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling, we need alternative sources of energy and alternative cultures of energy use, and all KRudd is giving us is a bit of cash.

Downside - pointless cost. What if its not real, like global cooling back in the 70's, when "urgent action" was needed? I have looked at the evidence and dont believe:

1. that its a man-made problem;
2. in all the gloom and doom - Barrier reef dying etc.

As I said, the Earth warms and cools over century-long periods. Retreating ice in Greenland is now revealing old abandoned villages, so it must have been even warmer back them without everyone dying. And why do we still have the Barrier reef if it was warm enough to kill the reef in the 1300's?

Look, if we are serious about reducing emissions the fastest, cheapest way to do that is nuclear power. Currently it is 0% of Australia's energy output, the reason we have such high per capita emissions (but still less than 2% of world emissions: in short, it does not really matter what we do, from a global perspective. Only NZ is more irrelevant).

If coal is so bad, is it OK to sell it to China for China to burn to emit carbon? Stopping that *will* hurt our economy, pretty badly.

I agree that pollution is bad, etc. I turn off lights around the house and dont throw things out car windows. But climate change has become a religion, in which there is only one "right" view.

The warmest year on record is in fact 1934. The earth has not warmed - and in fact has cooled slightly - since 1998.

I look forward to being proved right when in 50 years time we are still here.

Again, I don't understand how it's possible to say that the argument for man-made climate change is "baloney."

The evidence, by any standard, is strong. References to the 1970s and middle ages are very weak and indicate that such a person hasn't done enough reading on the topic.

I consider myself a CC sceptic, in the sense that I don't feel that the evidence is yet conclusive, but that there are compelling reasons to err on the side of caution. Here is a VERY balanced site to work through.

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

I'll say one last thing. And feel free to disagree - I don't ban people for that, just ask naza.

There is plenty of conflicting evidence about climate change, but the fundamentals are undeniable.

The "greenhouse effect" is a fact, which has the status of, say, "natural selection." We don't know everything about how i works, but we know that it works on earth, venus, anywhere in the universe. It is the basic laws of physics we are talking about.

CO2 traps heat. More CO2 traps more heat.

Having understood that, I feel that the obligation now rests with the sceptics to show why this wouldn't be the case with man-made CO2. Until they do prove their case, I say, let's presume Occam's Razor applies.

Personally, am more concerned about the fact we're chewing up our resources too friggin quickly - doesn't really matter how we burn everything as long as there is enough to go around 8)

And most of it is just wasteful activity too.

I'm not 100% on either side, but I tend to believe at least part of it is man made. I've read bits of research on both sides, and tend to favour that man is, at least, partly responsible. But I understand either way could be proven wrong in 20 years.

BUT, here's the big BUT, we should do something. Even if it's a 50/50 call, it's bloody worth it. You have an asteroid flying at earth, 50/50 chance to hit, do you choose to do nothing when you could try to avert the course?

Unlike that crude analogy, we gain something. Moses may be a climate sceptic, but he has a real and salient point: by cutting emissions, we reduce pollution and smog. If they don't cause climate change, they do destroy our environment and health. Capitalism will enver respond to such things like the environment unless consumer sentiment demands it over cheapness, and unfortunately we've ended up with a badly polluted world.

Those people who've ever been to a smog-ridden city will know what I mean. Constantly darkish skies, thick disgusting air, plenty of health related problems. I'd like to see us take the financial pain even if it means nothing more than never having to have that here, ignoring the whole climate change.

Oh, and agree, the 5% change is soft. It's 5% more then we would ever get under Howard, but it's too soft for what Rudd supposedly stood for.

Personally, I'm still celebrating that Howard is gone - that come down still hasn't ended.

So far this government has proven to be a bunch of hypocrites and have had more policy turns/backflips than an olympics gymnastics competition. So far we have:

1. Early term advice to the public to 'save your money, put it in the bank' - followed by pre-christmas handouts and asking the public to spend it (read an article recently that said if any financial planners gave that advice to their clients they should be sacked).
2. After the first interest rate cut Swan said something along the line of 'it isn't our job to tell the banks how much of the rate cut to pass on', with a complete backflip after the last few rate cuts.
3. Promising big policy changes regarding the environment and large emission cuts - delivering a half assed policy that does nothing good and plenty bad.

My opinion is that the policy is all wrong - they just tried to make everyone happy, and ended up pissing most off.

Why give the public such a large input credit for residential solar systems, which are the most inefficient power generating source on a cost basis. Why not just give credit for putting power into the grid for any type of renewable energy, including wind and tidal - and make it 2-3x the electricity cost (I understand something like this is happening in the ACT already).

Why give so much credit to the high emitting industries - why not give them more for changing to green energy sources instead of just credit for continuing on their merry way.

Why not have more investment into renewable energy research and development, instead of thinking a carbon trading scheme will do it all (I know this will follow through to private investment into renewable energy generation, but the government should be leading the way). We should be looking to lead the way in wind, solar and tidal power generation - afterall we have one of the best environments to do this.

And we have a bunch of scientists chomping at the bit to get stuff happening. They get no encouragement, so they go overseas.

I am yet to see any "evidence" that is anything more than a statistical anomaly plotted on a graph- or to put it simply, a graph that shows the amount of CO2 in the air compared to temperature.

This is the basis of most arguments proving that Carbon is the key element in any climate change that is occurring.

Graphs and statistics are a dangerous way to prove something, this was shown when global warming became climate change due to a few stats that were out of place- now cold weather is climate change, so is warm weather- something tells me that there has to be an agenda somewhere that need any weather event to be caused by humans.

here are some things to plot on a graph if you are after "evidence"
the consumption of light beer and mid strength beer has been increasing over the years, as well as the temperature!
the number of fuel efficient cars is increasing, as well as the temperature!
the number of "non white" immigrants has steadily increased since the abandonment of the white australia policy, at the same time temps are increasing- so the more "non whites" the more damage is done to the planet
---note, I do not believe any of these are a valid reason, and the last one was to indicate the sheer stupidity of believing any graph presented by a former vice president!---

carbon trading is a ridiculous concept, it is alright to pollute, as long as you plant some trees to counteract the crime. What kind of ridiculous concept is this??? by this logic, a pregnant women can murder, because she will be replacing the life with a new one.


Unfortunately not voting for the Labor party will do little, I have a feeling that most who do this on an environmental reason, will vote Green and the preferences will return Labor to power.

This is a great time of change, the greens now have the ability to show some balls and refuse to do preference deals with Labor- THIS IS THE ONLY THING LABOR FEAR!. without the greens, Labor cant win an election.

Its quite easy to prevent our stupid preferential voting scheme doing something you don't want it to: either put the two majors last in a full preference voting situation (Federal elections require this) or don't mark them at all (State and Local). And for the upper house, vote in the marijuana dudes - they need all the help they can get. though they're too stoned to care

I don't agree with a carbon trading scheme. All you'll find there is that the big fish in the very small pond of our utilities industry will buy their way to carbon-neutrality, and pass the costs onto the consumer. Ultimately that is cheaper than having to modify their systems and structures.

eventually you will get to a preference that will be a major party (enemy to greenies!). Upper house requires the fewest votes once the majors take their quota, I think family first only got 2000 votes last time around.

I have never understood the increase in cost of going green with "natural" methods- solar, wind, tides hydro etc. Essentially when the infrastructure is in place the cost is greatly reduced, what business that is not government based/supported (power) charges you more for equipment they are yet to purchase? Imagine if there was a car invented that refueled itself and needed no further power once purchased (solar?), how would you feel if Taxis decided to up their charges TODAY for a car they plan to buy in the future? Any normal business would take a loan and repay with the future savings--why not the power companies?

I wonder if the cost of power is increasing because we are encouraged to use energy efficient globes, this must reduce the amount of income the power companies make, so prices HAD to go up to meet budgets.

That hits the nail on the head. Impose targets in a way that the government doesn't lose face and make the consumer pay for it. Beaut.

Ti's bullshit and a simple a case of the government doing something because they said they would so we'd vote for them.

Enough said in the above. I'll just add that "I feel robbed Kev".

Which is not to say I think we should NOT pay anything extra, but that EVERYONE from Mr Corporate CEO downward need to contribute.