Carbon Price from 2012 - FUEL RELATED

[colinl]

Originally Posted by ohzone

Never in the history of nations has every nation agreed to any one thing

True enough. It is even true on a local level. Not everyone believes in speeding laws, or laws against theft or violence. This doesn't make these laws meaningless and unworkable.

I take you point about limited resources to sustain demands. There will be at some point too many people living globally. I guess at that time nature will sort it out the way she does with all other overpopulation issues. Starvation and disease.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by colinl

True enough. It is even true on a local level. Not everyone believes in speeding laws, or laws against theft or violence. This doesn't make these laws meaningless and unworkable.

I take you point about limited resources to sustain demands. There will be at some point too many people living globally. I guess at that time nature will sort it out the way she does with all other overpopulation issues. Starvation and disease.

And a war, because someone deserves the little left more than everyone else.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

And a war, because someone deserves the little left more than everyone else.

Yep. That too. When food stock is down the rats turn on themselves.

[GOLDIE]

if it goes on that they will buy else where and than the goverment will loose even more.
Thats why they tax it here so we pay.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by metasaiah

I got this in an email recently. I'm sure some of you have received it already, maybe even months ago, but thought I'd share...

Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

I gather your point is that the denialist industry is targetting gullible people through email spam?....like the ones that say buy our pills and it will make your willy an inch longer?

Yes, always best to source some facts on the issue.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

[GOLDIE]

Ok they say the climate is changing lets look at a few things on the local scale.

In qld,nsw,vic,nt we in the last few months have just broken some 100 year records for rain and had some of the coolest weather for summer ever.

In wa they are dry in some areas but the heat has just broken a 100 yyear record.

If the earth was warming do you not think we would be getting less rain and that we would be only broking last years records for temps.

It is cycles ask any older person who has lived in your area for over 50 years and they will tell you that.

Now back to the tax it is not a carbon tax to save the planet it is just a tax.


Ian

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

Now back to the tax it is not a carbon tax to save the planet it is just a tax.

it can not be a tax - it is an honest scheme to save the planet

climate change is real and humans are the only reason for it happening. never before in the history of the world has it happened. there has never been a tropical age (global warming) because dinosaurs did not exist. there has never been an ice age (climate change) either. sea levels have never risen or receeded ever before in the history of our planet



mother nature has her own way - earthquakes, volcanoes, cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, blistering heat and freezing cold - and many other little nuances that affect the occupants of this planet. climates will always alter as the earth goes on for many years after the gullible people have left it. even if we are the singular factor into doing it, why should hard working people that are already struggling pay extra taxes, when the main contributors to co2 gases are just getting stronger and stronger, while polluting more and more

[superyob]

I think that climate change/global warming has become an ingrained political ideology, so much so that it has become 'truth'. Hence the tax...

[colinl]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I gather your point is that the denialist industry is targetting gullible people through email spam?....like the ones that say buy our pills and it will make your willy an inch longer?

Yes, always best to source some facts on the issue.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

Those type of email p!ss me off. They are just attempts at astroturfing I get a lot at work that use the same misconceptions and untruths to justify their racist rants.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

Ok they say the climate is changing lets look at a few things on the local scale.

In qld,nsw,vic,nt we in the last few months have just broken some 100 year records for rain and had some of the coolest weather for summer ever.

In wa they are dry in some areas but the heat has just broken a 100 yyear record.

If the earth was warming do you not think we would be getting less rain and that we would be only broking last years records for temps.

It is cycles ask any older person who has lived in your area for over 50 years and they will tell you that.

Now back to the tax it is not a carbon tax to save the planet it is just a tax.


Ian

Climate change is much more than climate cycles. It has been studied by a number of specialists in climate. These guys understand the cycles you talk about at a very high level. Climate change is widely accepted now. It is just a little inconvenient. It means if you accept it, then you have to make some uncomfortable decision that will change your life. If you allow yourself to accept the lesser accepted theory that what we do has no effect on the world, then everything if fine, and we can just go right on and ignore the whole thing. This of course is the easiest option.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by colinl

Climate change is much more than climate cycles. It has been studied by a number of specialists in climate. These guys understand the cycles you talk about at a very high level. Climate change is widely accepted now. It is just a little inconvenient. It means if you accept it, then you have to make some uncomfortable decision that will change your life. If you allow yourself to accept the lesser accepted theory that what we do has no effect on the world, then everything if fine, and we can just go right on and ignore the whole thing. This of course is the easiest option.

There are no accurate records of surface temperature, or air temperature, or water temperature over a long enough timeframe for people to even understand weather events, or when they will happen. Many studies of animals have shown abnormal behaviour shortly before 'natural disasters'. If we can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance then how the hell do we know what will happen and what effects it will have in 100 years?

[colinl]

Originally Posted by irish2

There are no accurate records of surface temperature, or air temperature, or water temperature over a long enough timeframe for people to even understand weather events, or when they will happen. Many studies of animals have shown abnormal behaviour shortly before 'natural disasters'. If we can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance then how the hell do we know what will happen and what effects it will have in 100 years?

No idea. I'm not a scientist. All I know is that while scientists can stuff up, they are generally very good at what they do and suffer through pretty stringent peer revue processes which are aimed at poking holes in their theory. We accept so much what they theorise on a daily basis, it is just that accepting this one is a little inconvenient for many people.

I have no idea how right they are. What I ask myself is "Do I think it more or less likely that our activities will have an effect on the planet?" Obviously the planet has a great ability to heal itself. Common sense tells me that this will have a limit. Have we reached it? Do we want to push it to its limit? What will happen to us when that limit is reached? I'm quite happy to look for a small hint to the answer to these questions and make some changes to my life. I would rather that than actually experience the answers.

[CJR09]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

If the earth was warming do you not think we would be getting less rain


Ian

No it is the exact opposite - the warmer the temps the greater the rates of evaporation the greater the moisture content in atmosphere the greater the precipitation

[irish2]

Originally Posted by colinl

I have no idea how right they are. What I ask myself is "Do I think it more or less likely that our activities will have an effect on the planet?" Obviously the planet has a great ability to heal itself. Common sense tells me that this will have a limit. Have we reached it? Do we want to push it to its limit? What will happen to us when that limit is reached? I'm quite happy to look for a small hint to the answer to these questions and make some changes to my life. I would rather that than actually experience the answers.

The planet does heal and change over time. If we do indeed change the climate, I am sure the extra cyclones and floods will help to limit population to an extent. Natural disasters are only a disaster to us, it is a good thing for the planet. That is why looking at carbon tax is stupid until you look at population control.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by CJR09

No it is the exact opposite - the warmer the temps the greater the rates of evaporation the greater the moisture content in atmosphere the greater the precipitation

This does not work in practise. The changing temperatures change air and ocean currents. La nina and El nino are simple examples of this. There is just as much evaporation occuring but the location of the precipitation changes.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by superyob

I think that climate change/global warming has become an ingrained political ideology, so much so that it has become 'truth'. Hence the tax...

Spot on.

[2011G6E]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshom...torists-brown/

This **** literally lives in a different universe from the rest of us...he cannot see how raising the price of fuel can possibly affect anything or anyones "hip pocket".
What would be affected? The simple answer is "Practically everything". Transport of goods will cost more, people will pay more to drive thier vehicles, public transport runs on fuel as well so it will have to go up in cost, businesses will find it more expensive to do business as everything they get in the form of raw materials will cost more too as it it transported, never mind the finished goods that they have to transport as well.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by irish2

The planet does heal and change over time. If we do indeed change the climate, I am sure the extra cyclones and floods will help to limit population to an extent. Natural disasters are only a disaster to us, it is a good thing for the planet. That is why looking at carbon tax is stupid until you look at population control.

EXACTLY! If we are a burden on the environment, then we need to look at the problem not the symptom.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I gather your point is that the denialist industry is targetting gullible people through email spam?....like the ones that say buy our pills and it will make your willy an inch longer?

Yes, always best to source some facts on the issue.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

Interesting. What do you make of this chap, Piers Corbyn? Global warming at play relating to these two events, or the sun having a bit of fun?

Of course this chap is labelled as a climate sceptic because he doesn't agree with government funded climate scientists. Interesting to note his forecasting compared to UK's MET office in relation to the 2010 winter in the northern hemisphere. While the MET was predicting increased winter temperatures he predicted the opposite. The MET was caught with it's pants down.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by irish2

The planet does heal and change over time. If we do indeed change the climate, I am sure the extra cyclones and floods will help to limit population to an extent. Natural disasters are only a disaster to us, it is a good thing for the planet. That is why looking at carbon tax is stupid until you look at population control.

That's the point I was trying to make. We pay for actions one way or another.

While population is a large factor, it isn't the only factor. The way we live our lives is also a realistic factor. Using more resources and creating more pollutants will limit the sustainable population, while living with a better view to how we interact within the environment will increase the sustainable population. Either way there will be a limit, but that limit will vary considerably depending on how we live.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Interesting. What do you make of this chap, Piers Corbyn? Global warming at play relating to these two events, or the sun having a bit of fun?

Of course this chap is labelled as a climate sceptic because he doesn't agree with government funded climate scientists. Interesting to note his forecasting compared to UK's MET office in relation to the 2010 winter in the northern hemisphere. While the MET was predicting increased winter temperatures he predicted the opposite. The MET was caught with it's pants down.

I know he has only released one peer reviewed piece of work. and that an examination of his predictions stated "It is unusual for most of the detail to be completely correct, but equally it is rare for nearly everything to be wrong ... Some forecasts are clearly very good, and a few are very poor, but the majority fall in the gray area in between, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical assessor would find fault."

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Interesting. What do you make of this chap, Piers Corbyn? Global warming at play relating to these two events, or the sun having a bit of fun?

Of course this chap is labelled as a climate sceptic because he doesn't agree with government funded climate scientists. Interesting to note his forecasting compared to UK's MET office in relation to the 2010 winter in the northern hemisphere. While the MET was predicting increased winter temperatures he predicted the opposite. The MET was caught with it's pants down.

Labelling him a climate sceptic would be flattering and untruthful.

Surely you could do some thorough research on him yourself rather than just cherry pick two things he got right? perhaps look at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn for a start.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by irish2

The planet does heal and change over time. If we do indeed change the climate, I am sure the extra cyclones and floods will help to limit population to an extent. Natural disasters are only a disaster to us, it is a good thing for the planet. That is why looking at carbon tax is stupid until you look at population control.

Even if we limited the population to what we have now, present levels of use of fossil fuels have us on the road to ruin. You think you have a way of limiting the population that wants to improve its standard of living, buckley's chance, the only chance we've got is to achieve that standard of living without burning fossil fuels, where there is a price disincentive/incentive, there will be a way!

[colinl]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshom...torists-brown/

This **** literally lives in a different universe from the rest of us...he cannot see how raising the price of fuel can possibly affect anything or anyones "hip pocket".
What would be affected? The simple answer is "Practically everything". Transport of goods will cost more, people will pay more to drive thier vehicles, public transport runs on fuel as well so it will have to go up in cost, businesses will find it more expensive to do business as everything they get in the form of raw materials will cost more too as it it transported, never mind the finished goods that they have to transport as well.
.

Who knows how he has evaluated this. On the face of it I can't see how it won't effect the hip pocket.

On the plus side, we might not have to worry about fuel shortly.
Cella Energy are almost finished there development of a synthetic petrol. They believe it could be ready for usage in about 3 years. The following is from the American Thinker Blog.

"British scientists are refining the recipe for a hydrogen-based fuel that will run in existing cars and engines at the fraction of the cost of conventional petrol.

With hydrogen at its heart rather than carbon, it will not produce any harmful emissions when burnt, making it better for the environment, as well as easier on the wallet.

The first road tests are due next year and, if all goes well, the cut-price ‘petrol’ could be on sale in three to five years.

Professor Stephen Bennington, the project’s lead scientist, said: ‘In some senses, hydrogen is the perfect fuel. It has three times more energy than petrol per unit of weight, and when it burns, it produces nothing but water.

‘Our new hydrogen storage materials offer real potential for running cars, planes and other vehicles that currently use hydrocarbons."

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Labelling him a climate sceptic would be flattering and untruthful.

Surely you could do some thorough research on him yourself rather than just cherry pick two things he got right? perhaps look at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn for a start.

What's to read there other than commentary?

[cheap]

I'm no climate specialist, but scientists who claim to be climate specialists seem to have their work cut out for them in predicting what’s going to happen, here are a couple of naturally occurring phenomena which have scientifically be proven to have dramatic impact upon climate:

Solar Flares
Volcanic Eruptions
El Nino and La Nina
and finally my favorite Milankovitch cycles

So why don't the climate specialists suggest the sun be turned down or seek ways to stop the Earths rotation?

The pretense that somehow this tax will alter the climate is pathetically silly.

This is a tax (a huge tax) the likes of which Australia has never seen, there will literally be lights turning off, but for all the wrong reasons

[colinl]

Originally Posted by cheap

I'm no climate specialist, but scientists who claim to be climate specialists seem to have their work cut out for them in predicting what’s going to happen

They seem to have done their work. It isn't a new theory, it has lasted decades of challenges and it is still the most accepted theory by people involved in the research of climate.

[bobthebilda]

=cheap]
The pretense that somehow this tax will alter the climate is pathetically silly.

This is a tax (a huge tax) the likes of which Australia has never seen, there will literally be lights turning off, but for all the wrong reasons

If oil is $100 a barrel and a barrel can make approx 80 litres of petrol and 78 litres of other stuff, then the oil content of petrol is approx $100 / 158 (litres in a barrel) = 63 cents of crude in a litre of petrol. Have you ever wondered what makes up the majority of the other 80 cents (at $1.43 per litre). Take out refinery, transport, marketing and sales costs, and tax is just about the biggest component in a litre of petrol. We have seen huge taxes on petrol for many decades.

Certain european countries have petrol in the $2.20 (equivalent aussie dollar) for a litre, with same input costs.

As we import the equivalent of approx. 150 million barrels of crude (or petrol products) per year @ $15 billion then it would make sense to make this product dearer to try and increase the efficient use of it. After all, we can land australian LPG in suburbia for 64 cents a litre

[cheap]

Originally Posted by colinl

They seem to have done their work. It isn't a new theory, it has lasted decades of challenges and it is still the most accepted theory by people involved in the research of climate.

Hi Col,

Would you be able to explain the 'accepted theory'

Thanks

[cheap]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

If oil is $100 a barrel and a barrel can make approx 80 litres of petrol and 78 litres of other stuff, then the oil content of petrol is approx $100 / 158 (litres in a barrel) = 63 cents of crude in a litre of petrol. Have you ever wondered what makes up the majority of the other 80 cents (at $1.43 per litre). Take out refinery, transport, marketing and sales costs, and tax is just about the biggest component in a litre of petrol. We have seen huge taxes on petrol for many decades.

Certain european countries have petrol in the $2.20 (equivalent aussie dollar) for a litre, with same input costs.

As we import the equivalent of approx. 150 million barrels of crude (or petrol products) per year @ $15 billion then it would make sense to make this product dearer to try and increase the efficient use of it. After all, we can land australian LPG in suburbia for 64 cents a litre

Yeah, well don't get me started on the pricing of engergy, it isn't like we have a shortage ...

And I couldn't give a rats about most Eropean countries either! They're a little behind schedule in having yet another war and when it happens they'll no doubt seek the assistance of the Western Alliance to come over and save their bacon (again).