Following in the tradition of Copenhagen 2009, Cancun 2010 has been held in record cold while trying to somehow find a solution to Global 'Warming'.

As far as anyone can tell the only agreement was to meet agani next year and waste, time money and emit more CO2.

A complete waste of time and even by UN standards, a disaster.

Sheeple are the last to catch on that they`ve been had.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 7:36pm:

As far as anyone can tell the only agreement was to meet agani next year and waste, time money and emit more CO2. A complete waste of time and even by UN standards, a disaster.

The Federal Government and environment groups say the outcome of climate talks in Cancun, paves the way for Australia to introduce a carbon price as soon as possible.

Delegates from almost 200 countries agreed to curb greenhouse gas emissions, establish a multi billion dollar green fund and share technology.
Australia's Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says there needs to be some common sense shown by the opposition on climate change.

"And some national interest and some responsibility taken by Tony Abbott to support efforts to get a carbon price into our economy," he said.

Mr Combet has welcomed the deal but says Australia cannot participate in forums like Cancun if it is not doing more at home.

He says it now has to show common sense and a bit of respect for the scientific evidence.

"It's very good news on the climate change front, but there's a long way to go too - and back in Australia we've got to get a carbon price into place," he said.

"We have a responsibility internationally: you can't come to the international forum here and participate in important agreements like the Cancun agreement, and then not go home and do our best to meet our emission reduction obligations."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/12/3091147.htm

People are going cold on global warming, looking for a new sense of outrage and drama to spice up their empty little lives.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 4:42am:

People are going cold on global warming, looking for a new sense of outrage and drama to spice up their empty little lives.

Banning water will help too

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 4:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:36pm: As far as anyone can tell the only agreement was to meet agani next year and waste, time money and emit more CO2. A complete waste of time and even by UN standards, a disaster.   The Federal Government and environment groups say the outcome of climate talks in Cancun, paves the way for Australia to introduce a carbon price as soon as possible. Delegates from almost 200 countries agreed to curb greenhouse gas emissions, establish a multi billion dollar green fund and share technology. Australia's Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says there needs to be some common sense shown by the opposition on climate change. "And some national interest and some responsibility taken by Tony Abbott to support efforts to get a carbon price into our economy," he said. Mr Combet has welcomed the deal but says Australia cannot participate in forums like Cancun if it is not doing more at home. He says it now has to show common sense and a bit of respect for the scientific evidence. "It's very good news on the climate change front, but there's a long way to go too - and back in Australia we've got to get a carbon price into place," he said. "We have a responsibility internationally: you can't come to the international forum here and participate in important agreements like the Cancun agreement, and then not go home and do our best to meet our emission reduction obligations." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/12/3091147.htm

spin, spin, spin... Cancun agreed on NOTHING of substance. And combet is just using the conference as yet another lame attempt at justifying breaking a CORE ELECTION PROMISE.

So the "fact" that it was "cold" in Cancun while the conference was happening is relevant how?

Please delete wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

So the "fact" that it was "cold" in Cancun while the conference was happening is relevant how?

its relevant in the IRONY stakes. the same thing happened in Copenhagen as well.

or does the irony escape you?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:12am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 9:00am: So the "fact" that it was "cold" in Cancun while the conference was happening is relevant how? its relevant in the IRONY stakes. the same thing happened in Copenhagen as well. or does the irony escape you?

It was more than "just" cold, rather a week of blizzards in a tropcial location!!!
More like for a global cooling conference.

"or does the irony escape you? "

You seem to grasp these things with an intensity I don't understand.

Have they got to have the conference in the Gobi Desert to satisfy you?

Look at the problem of China.....

---

I note  it seems not one country in Cancun objected to the fact that climate change is real. Not one country argued that that climate change was not happening. Isn't that a positive?

wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 1:15pm:

I note  it seems not one country in Cancun objected to the fact that climate change is real. Not one country argued that that climate change was not happening. Isn't that a positive?

POSITIVE  WHAT


;)

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:12am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 9:00am: So the "fact" that it was "cold" in Cancun while the conference was happening is relevant how? its relevant in the IRONY stakes. the same thing happened in Copenhagen as well. or does the irony escape you?

Does it come natural or is it an effort to portray such a mentally challenged persona on some subjects but quite a reasonable knowledge on others?
Do you find it hinders getting a point across when wanting to?
There is no IRONY here as "Global Warming" has been changed to "CLIMATE CHANGE" to void silly time wasting arguments such as the one you so eagerly present,
"OH, It's cold so therefore it's all a lie by a left wing world government conspiracy"
The build up of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause extreme climate events on both ends of the scale i.e HOT & COLD

Please delete wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

So the "fact" that it was "cold" in Cancun while the conference was happening is relevant how?

It RAINED here the other day - yet these "one world government commies" are trying to tell me this country is in drought

What are we doing to prevent the runaway train that is China????

Look at that graph!!!!

They produce pretty much everyone else's added together.

If we don't stop China, we don't solve the problem. It is, sadly, that simple.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 1:55pm:

What are we doing to prevent the runaway train that is China???? Look at that graph!!!! They produce pretty much everyone else's added together. If we don't stop China, we don't solve the problem. It is, sadly, that simple.

Andrei, we don't need to do anything about China.
China is getting it own house in order without western interference, do some research, they are building more renewable energy than basically the rest of the world combined.
Anyway considering this is a problem of the making of the industrialised western world yet we, as the cause, do nothing whilst wagging fingers at countries who are just starting to pull their populations out of poverty.

How does one "stop" China?

It is?

You do realize that China only last week re-iterated its point that total emissions will continue to grow for the next 5-10 years and that only their 'rate of growth' will slow?????

How the bugger is that helpful?

Everyone else is talking about trying to reduce and them and India are talking about slowing the 'rate of growth'.

Sorry but to me, that means their emissions will rise.

Have a look at that graph. It's madness!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

do nothing whilst wagging fingers at countries who are just starting to pull their populations out of poverty.

I couldn't give a monkeys about their poverty.
I care about the fact we have to pay for them to have a get out of jail free card.

To quote the former US President "Why the hell should the US have to pick up the check for everybody else?"

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 1:55pm: What are we doing to prevent the runaway train that is China???? Look at that graph!!!! They produce pretty much everyone else's added together. If we don't stop China, we don't solve the problem. It is, sadly, that simple. Andrei, we don't need to do anything about China. China is getting it own house in order without western interference, do some research, they are building more renewable energy than basically the rest of the world combined.Anyway considering this is a problem of the making of the industrialised western world yet we, as the cause, do nothing whilst wagging fingers at countries who are just starting to pull their populations out of poverty.

And most of it is hydro or nuclear...

"Why the hell should the US have to pick up the check for everybody else?"

Because the USA, along with other developed nations, created the problem.

"Why the hell should the US have to pick up the check for everybody else?"

Can you point me to where he said that?

In the televised campaign debate with John Kerry.

When referring to Kyoto and the failure to address environment concerns, Bush (correctly) pointed out that it wasn't the job of the United States to pick up the check for everyone - which essentially was what Kyoto was doing.

Please delete wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:12pm:

"Why the hell should the US have to pick up the check for everybody else?" Because the USA, along with other developed nations, created the problem.

Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation????

"My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem. Because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments and new technologies.

The approach taken under the Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target.
It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9 million jobs.

As President of the United States, charged with safeguarding the welfare of the American people and American workers, I will not commit our nation to an unsound international treaty that will throw millions of our citizens out of work."  

President George W Bush

"In the televised campaign debate with John Kerry."

Nup. Not in the transcript I just scanned.

What he said was that Kyoto would cost a lot of American jobs.

Can you assist, me hicks? I would like to read the comments.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:08pm:

It is? You do realize that China only last week re-iterated its point that total emissions will continue to grow for the next 5-10 years and that only their 'rate of growth' will slow????? How the bugger is that helpful? Everyone else is talking about trying to reduce and them and India are talking about slowing the 'rate of growth'. Sorry but to me, that means their emissions will rise. Have a look at that graph. It's madness!

How will it help???
Well just imagine if everyone just kept on going & increasing CO2......OH WAIT WE ARE.
This is a pointless argument, Money rules and that's all that matters.
Nothing will be done & if the science comes in correct we will see mass starvation, wars over fresh water & a massive DECREASE in the human population of the earth.
Not a bad thing in some ways but tragic for all the innocent species we take with us.

Oh and America is broke they have no money to pick up anyone's cheque anymore.

"Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? "

China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation.

The problem is Dsmithy...it's BIG 'if'...

Please delete wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:

"Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation.

Well what is the criteria for a developed nation???

China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)......

So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:24pm:

The problem is Dsmithy...it's BIG 'if'...

Really???
So we advance our energy technology instead of continuing to use 19th century technology & a finite resource & the science is wrong,
Would you consider it a waste of money????
I mean imagine no more smog, gee I'd miss that.
Can you name 1 other area of human endeavour where new technology is a bad thing, and actively DISCOURAGED by governments?
Imagine if they decided a sharp knife was all the medical equipment needed, that's basically what we're allowing the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby to do.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:31pm:

Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:23pm: "Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation. Well what is the criteria for a developed nation??? China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)...... So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation????

When 90% of the population lives above the poverty line, not 40%

"Well what is the criteria for a developed nation???"

I'm no expert, but the difference would hinge on time - time with the wealth to build infrastructure, educate your citizenry, have everything running smoothly.

China is rapidly developing, but they still have a huge impoverished population, and limited resources.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:31pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:23pm: "Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation. Well what is the criteria for a developed nation??? China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)...... So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation???? When 90% of the population lives above the poverty line, not 40%

Sorry but how is that my (or anyone else's) problem?

Plenty of things are not particularly nice but we deal with it and move on.

I don't see why we should make allowances for nations just because we feel sorry for them.

We don't do that in business do we?
If someone is down, you climb on them.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:24pm: The problem is Dsmithy...it's BIG 'if'... Really??? So we advance our energy technology instead of continuing to use 19th century technology & a finite resource & the science is wrong, Would you consider it a waste of money???? I mean imagine no more smog, gee I'd miss that. Can you name 1 other area of human endeavour where new technology is a bad thing, and actively DISCOURAGED by governments? Imagine if they decided a sharp knife was all the medical equipment needed, that's basically what we're allowing the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby to do.

Nope, I'm all the way behind advancing technology, and alternative power, and better medical knowledge etc....

What I'm NOT behind is a pointless tax (fine) like a Carbon Tax or an ETS which will do nothing other than pass the tax 'costs' on to all consumers, and have NO effect on either Climate Change, or the development of alternative/renewable energy.....and will, if we follow the UN's idea of paying money to developing nations, only serve to produce more of the 'allegedly' harmful Co2 emissions....

If we want to help developing nations and the poor people living in them, it'd be a far better idea to give them, not money, but technology.

Send people there to build renewable energy infrastructure and industry and train the local people on how to build more....

I appreciate that may sound harsher than what I am trying to convey.

I am simply saying that if we are going to fix the environment we can't go allowing for factors which don't help the issue.

The fact Indian and Chinese people are in poverty is not related to fixing the environment. It's a distraction.

So, hicks - I'll ask again.

How do you "stop" China? What are you proposing?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:24pm: The problem is Dsmithy...it's BIG 'if'... Really??? So we advance our energy technology instead of continuing to use 19th century technology & a finite resource & the science is wrong, Would you consider it a waste of money???? I mean imagine no more smog, gee I'd miss that. Can you name 1 other area of human endeavour where new technology is a bad thing, and actively DISCOURAGED by governments? Imagine if they decided a sharp knife was all the medical equipment needed, that's basically what we're allowing the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby to do. Nope, I'm all the way behind advancing technology, and alternative power, and better medical knowledge etc.... What I'm NOT behind is a pointless tax (fine) like a Carbon Tax or an ETS which will do nothing other than pass the tax 'costs' on to all consumers, and have NO effect on either Climate Change, or the development of alternative/renewable energy.....and will, if we follow the UN's idea of paying money to developing nations, only serve to produce more of the 'allegedly' harmful Co2 emissions.... If we want to help developing nations and the poor people living in them, it'd be a far better idea to give them, not money, but technology. Send people there to build renewable energy infrastructure and industry and train the local people on how to build more....

Cannot disagree with anything there Gizmo, I especially like the part I highlighted.
Western governments thinking is the more something costs the less we will use hence the carbon tax & frankly they are correct in assuming this.
Trouble is electricity is now virtually the same as shelter(at least in the western world) & is almost considered a human right & herein lies the difficulty, no one wants to hear of people freezing to death because they cant afford to run a heater.
But as Andrei says why should we give a toss about poor people & nations so I suppose the same goes for those without in our own society :(

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 2:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:31pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:23pm: "Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation. Well what is the criteria for a developed nation??? China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)...... So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation???? When 90% of the population lives above the poverty line, not 40%

But doesn't that then make America, Australia, Russia and England 'developing nations' too???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 3:15pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:31pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:23pm: "Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation. Well what is the criteria for a developed nation??? China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)...... So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation???? When 90% of the population lives above the poverty line, not 40% But doesn't that then make America, Australia, Russia and England 'developing nations' too???

Now I know your taking the p!ss
Surely you are not seriously suggesting that 60% of the populations in the countries you've mentioned live under the poverty line?
10% max for the Western
20% for Russia
& I reckon I've over estimated(guessed) with those figures

China’s minimum wage is lower than that in 32 African countries, and is almost the lowest in the world, according to “World Wage Research” (“WWR”), a widely viewed report circulated on China’s major Web sites and blogs.

“China’s average annual wage is less than 15 percent of the world average, ranking 158th in the world,” said Liu Zhirong, independent Chinese scholar and author of “WWR,” during an interview with Radio Free Asia (RFA).

His research showed that the lowest average annual income of the 183 countries and regions in the world is approximately US$6,078, while China’s is only US$896.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30453/

Anyone here living on $900 pa (or less, since this is an average)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty
Check it out Australia does not appear on either list

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 3:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:31pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:23pm: "Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation. Well what is the criteria for a developed nation??? China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)...... So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation???? When 90% of the population lives above the poverty line, not 40% But doesn't that then make America, Australia, Russia and England 'developing nations' too??? Now I know your taking the p!ss Surely you are not seriously suggesting that 60% of the populations in the countries you've mentioned live under the poverty line? 10% max for the Western 20% for Russia & I reckon I've over estimated(guessed) with those figures

Well Australia and America have about 50% living below the poverty line, so it seems we're close....

"Well Australia and America have about 50% living below the poverty line"

Do we??????? I'm shocked.

IF you accept that poverty in Australia is defined as having an income below 50% of the MEDIAN income,

(think about that definition for a moment)

"According to the Smith Family in 2001.

  1. 13.0% of Australians live in poverty (2.86 million).
  2. 2.9% of children live in poverty.
  3. 6.8% of single parent families live in poverty."

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 3:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 3:15pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:31pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 2:23pm: "Which really should INCLUDE China....How can a country that is a 'Superpower', with a technolgical level like China's, be considered a 'developing' nation???? " China IS a developing nation. A very rich developing nation. Well what is the criteria for a developed nation??? China has GDP that sh1ts on the western nations, massive export base, is pretty much self-sufficient for power and food and is racing ahead of almost every country in technology (particularly renewable/alternative energy)...... So at what point does a 'developing nation' become a developed nation???? When 90% of the population lives above the poverty line, not 40% But doesn't that then make America, Australia, Russia and England 'developing nations' too??? Now I know your taking the p!ss Surely you are not seriously suggesting that 60% of the populations in the countries you've mentioned live under the poverty line? 10% max for the Western 20% for Russia & I reckon I've over estimated(guessed) with those figures Well Australia and America have about 50% living below the poverty line, so it seems we're close....

Use the link
click on second world map r/h side
% of population living on under $2 p/day
Every Country you mentioned in dark Blue = LESS than 2% of population.

Median income in Australia is about $66,000.

So the poverty line in Australia would be $33,000.



(If I'm correct in my short research).

I'm out to the far right on this issue.

Climate change is a failure.

Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!"

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!"

Spot on.


Just another ALP white elephant.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:14pm: I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!" Spot on. Just another ALP white elephant.

Haha. Nice try.

The ALP didn't think this up. The scientists did. Can you not deny that your party is divided on this issue?

Can you not hush up Malcomn Turnbull on the issue?

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 8:00pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:18pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:14pm: I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!" Spot on. Just another ALP white elephant. Haha. Nice try. The ALP didn't think this up. The scientists did. Can you not deny that your party is divided on this issue? Can you not hush up Malcomn Turnbull on the issue?

Bloody hell it's a nerd conspiracy.
Those harrassed by jocks at school have had the last laugh by convincing governments to increase electricity costs.
No worries like I said earlier we as nations refuse to do anything, the statis quo will continue, those that believe better pray these"SCIENTISTS" really are just after more funding, people like me who don't will just look after ourselves, community is dead long live ME.
James you seemed smarter than to jump on the "kill the messanger" band wagon.
As always we follow America and seeing being elite, intelligent or being a scienist now are bad things in good old USA we now believe this too.
Don't worry I'm sure we'll have our own "Sarah" soon

Cancun climate deal offers hope to Pacific nations
December 13, 2010 13:55:30

Contrary to the expectations (and wishes) of many, a deal has been hatched at the Cancun Climate Summit, and it's set to benefit the nations in the Pacific that are among the most at risk from the consequences of climate change.

The developed nations have pledged to contribute to a multi billion dollar green fund which is designed to help developing countries deal with the impact of global warming and promote alternative energy sources.

Australia has already agreed to contribute $80 million to the fund.


http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201012/s3091449.htm






MULTILATERALISM was saved on Saturday as delegates to the United Nations (UN) climate change summit at Cancun in Mexico delivered an agreement to a standing ovation, but they put off until next year in SA tough decisions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Ending a marathon gathering of world climate officials in the Mexican resort on Saturday, the Cancun Agreement is a hollow shell which will need much fleshing out. SA, which hosts next year’s summit in Durban, has its work cut out for it to ensure a strong accord.

"This is not a perfect document, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good," Grenada’s delegate Albert Binger said. His sentiment was echoed by almost all other s who admitted while they were not completely happy with the result, they were prepared to work with it.

"Perfection is not an accident. For perfection, we can work later," said Bangladesh negotiator Ainun Nishat. "This is a question of the survival of Bangladesh."

Critical issues such as ambitious emissions cuts and the future of the Kyoto Protocol have been postponed once again. The US again sidestepped any hard concessions. Most elements of last year’s Copenhagen Accord, the weak political agreement it championed, have been retained in this year’s text.

A new Green Fund for climate action has been established, as well as an initiative to save forests, and a framework for monitoring and reporting domestic actions. Although no new funds were agreed, the Copenhagen Accord promises $30bn in fast-start finance up to 2012, and to scale up finance to reach $100bn annually by 2020.

Relief among delegates was palpable. Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, who brokered the compromise as the meeting’s president, was received with unprecedented enthusiasm in a late-night plenary. Praise for Mexico’s diplomacy grew hyperbolic.

Ms Espinosa was compared to a deity by India’s Environment Minister Shri Ramesh. "God has been very close to Mexico," he said.

"You have restored the confidence of the international community in multilateralism and the multilateral process," he told her, adding that he had never before witnessed two standing ovations even before the meeting had begun.

In return, Ms Espinosa graciously thanked India for its contribution.

Even Saudi Arabia — it demands compensation for lost oil revenue — received enthusiastic applause from the room when it indicated its willingness to work on the text.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=129288

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 8:14pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:00pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:18pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:14pm: I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!" Spot on. Just another ALP white elephant. Haha. Nice try. The ALP didn't think this up. The scientists did. Can you not deny that your party is divided on this issue? Can you not hush up Malcomn Turnbull on the issue? Bloody hell it's a nerd conspiracy. Those harrassed by jocks at school have had the last laugh by convincing governments to increase electricity costs. No worries like I said earlier we as nations refuse to do anything, the statis quo will continue, those that believe better pray these"SCIENTISTS" really are just after more funding, people like me who don't will just look after ourselves, community is dead long live ME. James you seemed smarter than to jump on the "kill the messanger" band wagon. As always we follow America and seeing being elite, intelligent or being a scienist now are bad things in good old USA we now believe this too. Don't worry I'm sure we'll have our own "Sarah" soon

No, Climate change is crap. Show me a link that proves otherwise.

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:14pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:00pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:18pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:14pm: I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!" Spot on. Just another ALP white elephant. Haha. Nice try. The ALP didn't think this up. The scientists did. Can you not deny that your party is divided on this issue? Can you not hush up Malcomn Turnbull on the issue? Bloody hell it's a nerd conspiracy. Those harrassed by jocks at school have had the last laugh by convincing governments to increase electricity costs. No worries like I said earlier we as nations refuse to do anything, the statis quo will continue, those that believe better pray these"SCIENTISTS" really are just after more funding, people like me who don't will just look after ourselves, community is dead long live ME. James you seemed smarter than to jump on the "kill the messanger" band wagon. As always we follow America and seeing being elite, intelligent or being a scienist now are bad things in good old USA we now believe this too. Don't worry I'm sure we'll have our own "Sarah" soon No, Climate change is crap. Show me a link that proves otherwise.

Oh hello Macca, sorry left over from yahoo where a poster always issued the same challenge.
"show me the link"
Show me the link that proves it is crap
You cant, just as I cant because there is no one website/article/peer reviewed paper that difinitively states one way or the other.
For years scientists said living in squallor, dirt floors animals allowed to live,sh!t and breed in our homes, night pots emptied straight into the street etc etc think Dickens London caused illness from little things called germs that the lay man could not see.
Thank god we didn't have the organised industry agruments back then or we'd all be still dying in droves from preventable dieases.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 9:27pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:14pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:00pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:18pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:14pm: I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!" Spot on. Just another ALP white elephant. Haha. Nice try. The ALP didn't think this up. The scientists did. Can you not deny that your party is divided on this issue? Can you not hush up Malcomn Turnbull on the issue? Bloody hell it's a nerd conspiracy. Those harrassed by jocks at school have had the last laugh by convincing governments to increase electricity costs. No worries like I said earlier we as nations refuse to do anything, the statis quo will continue, those that believe better pray these"SCIENTISTS" really are just after more funding, people like me who don't will just look after ourselves, community is dead long live ME. James you seemed smarter than to jump on the "kill the messanger" band wagon. As always we follow America and seeing being elite, intelligent or being a scienist now are bad things in good old USA we now believe this too. Don't worry I'm sure we'll have our own "Sarah" soon No, Climate change is crap. Show me a link that proves otherwise. Oh hello Macca, sorry left over from yahoo where a poster always issued the same challenge. "show me the link" Show me the link that proves it is crap You cant, just as I cant because there is no one website/article/peer reviewed paper that difinitively states one way or the other. For years scientists said living in squallor, dirt floors animals allowed to live,sh!t and breed in our homes, night pots emptied straight into the street etc etc think Dickens London caused illness from little things called germs that the lay man could not see. Thank god we didn't have the organised industry agruments back then or we'd all be still dying in droves from preventable dieases.

So you want someone to show you a link that proves that nothing exists.
Firstly you have to prove it exists!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 9:27pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:14pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 8:00pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:18pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 7:14pm: I'm out to the far right on this issue. Climate change is a failure. Or as Tony puts it, "Climate change is crap!" Spot on. Just another ALP white elephant. Haha. Nice try. The ALP didn't think this up. The scientists did. Can you not deny that your party is divided on this issue? Can you not hush up Malcomn Turnbull on the issue? Bloody hell it's a nerd conspiracy. Those harrassed by jocks at school have had the last laugh by convincing governments to increase electricity costs. No worries like I said earlier we as nations refuse to do anything, the statis quo will continue, those that believe better pray these"SCIENTISTS" really are just after more funding, people like me who don't will just look after ourselves, community is dead long live ME. James you seemed smarter than to jump on the "kill the messanger" band wagon. As always we follow America and seeing being elite, intelligent or being a scienist now are bad things in good old USA we now believe this too. Don't worry I'm sure we'll have our own "Sarah" soon No, Climate change is crap. Show me a link that proves otherwise. Oh hello Macca, sorry left over from yahoo where a poster always issued the same challenge. "show me the link" Show me the link that proves it is crap You cant, just as I cant because there is no one website/article/peer reviewed paper that difinitively states one way or the other. For years scientists said living in squallor, dirt floors animals allowed to live,sh!t and breed in our homes, night pots emptied straight into the street etc etc think Dickens London caused illness from little things called germs that the lay man could not see. Thank god we didn't have the organised industry agruments back then or we'd all be still dying in droves from preventable dieases.

And for years before that, the same scientists believed that you could cure diseases by using leeches to draw out the 'bad' blood, and that the mind was centred in the heart and the brain was just a cooling device......What's you're point???

Gravity, Like Climate Change, is a Con aye Anne !!!

We can prove gravity.
SO how about you prove climate change!

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:33am:

We can prove gravity. SO how about you prove climate change!

Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

       “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.


http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEoM20DCuvY

The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, while  there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

Have you managed to grab that straw you were clutching at yet greens???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:48am:

Have you managed to grab that straw you were clutching at yet greens???

What,  the THEORETICAL straw ?

nichy wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:49am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:48am: Have you managed to grab that straw you were clutching at yet greens??? What,  the THEORETICAL straw ?

No, the one that means people who doubt manmade climate change MUST also doubt evolution and Gravity....

The same one alarmists always reach for when questioned and asked for proof...

nichy wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:49am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:48am: Have you managed to grab that straw you were clutching at yet greens??? What,  the THEORETICAL straw ?

SO greens cannot prove that climate change exists, but instead is trying to change the subject onto gravity.
So therefore as gravity exists then climate change must also exist.
Is there any connection - no.


Well I can prove that climate change doesn't exist by proving that wind exists - is there any connection  - no. But it will prove it to greens.

As it certainly looks like greens does have to much wind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX4cGhQW5Ec


Can greens prove that climate change exists????


We won't hold our breath!

Just prove that climate change exists, rather than telling about your invisible friend as being real!

nichy wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:47am:

The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, while  there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

If it is law, then prove why the theory of gravity is not proven yet. Why do objects speed up the closer they get to the edge of the universe. This disproves the theory of Gravity.


Is God a proven fact ... if not, then do the climate change disbelievers support the lords prayer in parliament.


If it ain't fact, it ain't fact.


If it isn't a proven fact ... it ain't real

Just prove that climate change exists rather than telling us all about your invisible friend

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:56am:

nichy wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:49am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:48am: Have you managed to grab that straw you were clutching at yet greens??? What,  the THEORETICAL straw ? SO greens cannot prove that climate change exists, but instead is trying to change the subject onto gravity. So therefore as gravioty exists then climate change must also exist. Is there any connection - no. Well I can prove that climate change doesn't exist by proving that wind exists - is there any connection  - no. But it will prove it to greens. As it certainly looks like greens does have to much wind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX4cGhQW5Ec Can greens prove that climate change exists???? We won't hold our breath!

Miss Anne, you might want to add "Anthropogenic" in front of climate change, in that post......just to make it clear...

You are so full of questions greens,  but NO answers.  

One fact is - greens is full of bulls#!t -  no doubt about that.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 7:00am:

Just prove that climate change exists rather than telling us all about your invisible friend

If one theory supported by the majority of science doesn't hold any sway, then no other should either.

No Gravity & No Evolution ... and No Lord's Prayer in Our Parliament

____ wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 7:06am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 7:00am: Just prove that climate change exists rather than telling us all about your invisible friend If one theory supported by the majority of science doesn't hold any sway, then no other should either. No Gravity & No Evolution ... and No Lord's Prayer in Our Parliament

Nice touch using Gravity and Evolution greens, since both of those theories were initially denied by "the majority of science" when they were first advanced....

"since both of those theories were initially denied by "the majority of science" when they were first advanced.... "

Really? I find no evidence at the time of any dispute about gravity, beyond whether it was Newton or Hooke.

Feel free to inform me.

As to evolution, I think most of the dispute was religious, rather than scientific.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 7:37am:

"since both of those theories were initially denied by "the majority of science" when they were first advanced.... " Really? I find no evidence at the time of any dispute about gravity, beyond whether it was Newton or Hooke. Feel free to inform me. As to evolution, I think most of the dispute was religious, rather than scientific.

Copernicus was afraid to publish his theories under his own name, Brahe got chased out of Denmark and had to move to Hungary, Kepler went against thousands of years of theory, Galileo was persecuted for a lot of his because of his ideas and his support for Copernicus' ideas....

Yes a lot of the resistence did come from the Church, but in those days, most of the science was carried out by monks and priests (they numbered the most of the 'literate' class after all) and even Copernicus was a priest....

But they were "chased out" by religious people for religious reasons, not by their fellow scientists.

To compare what happened then with now is a little absurd.

Copernicus ... Brahe ... Kepler .... Galileo

Gravity - concentrate, the issue was gravity (and evolution)

Yawn so its turned into a "You prove, no you" thread.
To those that deny any man made climate change, I ask simply what are your reasons for such a closed mind?
Is it simply that if accepted as fact you will have to pay more, whether its thru increased charges or a tax???
Is that what you are willing to gamble your children's future on???
A couple of extra dollars????
And how much are we talking $10 or $20 p/week, I spend more than that on coffee p/week.
More importantly why do you care, most skepitism seems to come from the right, most righties believe poverty is the poor persons fault due to inaction, I mean we have Andrei saying who gives a toss about a whole nation so why the pretense you give a stuff about a unknown pensioner in Australia, they should have worked F#%^*&Ken harder & saved RIGHT????
Are you all petrol/Coal dynasties?? Is your livelihood about to disappear under an alternate energy elephant??? Really why are you guys so against cheap renewable energy being developed & used.
I don't care, I smoked for 20 years & probably have 15 to 20 left max, none of this sh!tfight will have the slightest impact on me, but don't you guys even think "what if I'm wrong" & the impact it would have if you are?
My sides easy Climate Change crap no worries we've now got clean renewable electricity for a piittance after set up costs........You, your wrong, starvation, disease & death, hell of a gamble.

Smithy you would agree though that a carbon tax will increase the monthly outgoings of families across Australia who are already struggling?

Why make them pay more?
What does it achieve?

It certainly doesn't stop the planet's climate changing.

____ wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:58am:

nichy wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:47am: The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, while  there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. If it is law, then prove why the theory of gravity is not proven yet. Why do objects speed up the closer they get to the edge of the universe. This disproves the theory of Gravity. You can disbelieve gravity if you like Woody, but I`ll stick with it if it`s all the same to you. Is God a proven fact ... if not, then do the climate change disbelievers support the lords prayer in parliament. The Lord's Prayer isn't causing pandemic starvation and poverty for the masses, while making a few people immensely rich. If it ain't fact, it ain't fact. ACC definitely aint a PROVEN fact. If it isn't a proven fact ... it ain't real

As a ACC agnostic, I`d prefer to just say, "it`s not proven".

"Why make them pay more?"

Because something has to be done.

"What does it achieve?"

It funds clean technologies, that will hopefully arrest the increase in GGs.

"It certainly doesn't stop the planet's climate changing."

I think you are not qualified to say this.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:12am:

Smithy you would agree though that a carbon tax will increase the monthly outgoings of families across Australia who are already struggling? Why make them pay more? What does it achieve? It certainly doesn't stop the planet's climate changing.

Yes but why should that be a concern?

Because as any student of economics such as yourself knows the more something costs the less its is used. It's why we all don't have truffle oil on our eggs of a morning.


Less carbon burned less CO2 less change, simple

The longer the climate change debate goes, and the more countries only make half hearted attempts at change while racking up frequent flyer miles the more people will start to question the validity of it all.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:57am:

Just prove that climate change exists, rather than telling about your invisible friend as being real!

LOl, you'd be the expert on invisible friends, mellie. ;D

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:38am:

The longer the climate change debate goes, and the more countries only make half hearted attempts at change while racking up frequent flyer miles the more people will start to question the validity of it all.

Well if climate change is true, the earth is doomed if your scenario is true.
The thing is, Smithy is right, most of us will never know,but, if it is true, the non believers are setting the future of our own kids up for hell on earth because they are too arrogant to give a fcck, and money in their greedy pockets is more important than our kids futures to them.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:30am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 8:12am: Smithy you would agree though that a carbon tax will increase the monthly outgoings of families across Australia who are already struggling? Why make them pay more? What does it achieve? It certainly doesn't stop the planet's climate changing. Yes but why should that be a concern? Because as any student of economics such as yourself knows the more something costs the less its is used. It's why we all don't have truffle oil on our eggs of a morning. Less carbon burned less CO2 less change, simple

I am not saying you don't have a point.

However when you look at how much Australia contributes to emissions globally - it is pissing in the wind compared to the rest of the world.

Therefore, I just don't see how making families pay more for energy that they desperately need does anything.

You'll make electricity more expensive. What's a family going to do? Sit in the dark?

You'll make air con more expensive. What do we do? Sit around and put ice bags on our head.

My bills in Melbourne were $500+ per quarter for gas in winter and well over $500 per quarter in summer for electricity.
Now add a carbon tax and inflation and you're looking at $600+ bills per quarter for an average family.
Now personally I'm alright don't worry about me, but I'm thinking here of the guy who earns 3-4 or even 5 times less than me.

How on earth are these people supposed to manage?

Their bills will be sky high and for what? China is still going to pump out emissions like its going out of fashion and we're none the better.

"but I'm thinking here of the guy who earns 3-4 or even 5 times less than me."

Touching.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:57am:

"but I'm thinking here of the guy who earns 3-4 or even 5 times less than me." Touching.

Well its clear a lot of people on here aren't.

Do you realise how stretched some house budgets are right now?

And you want to ADD to them???

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:59am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 8:57am: "but I'm thinking here of the guy who earns 3-4 or even 5 times less than me." Touching. Well its clear a lot of people on here aren't. Do you realise how stretched some house budgets are right now? And you want to ADD to them???

Yea enough with the fake concern, we all know you only care about yourself and YOUR pocket.

"Do you realise how stretched some house budgets are right now?"

Normally you call people on low income "failures", and express befuddlement that they can't earn as much as you do.

Now you pretend to worry about them.

Touching.

The truth is that once a carbon tax is in place, people will be compensated, in much the same way as when the GST was introduced.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 9:20am:

"The truth is that once a carbon tax is in place, people will be compensated, in much the same way as when the GST was introduced.

Hang on, so we increase the bills - and then give people money to pay them?

Right?

This plan sounds like a winner to me.


In Accounting that is known as 'Roundtrip accounting' and the CFO of AmericaOnline faces a jail term for it.

You charge someone, then give them the money to pay it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 8:30am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 8:12am: Smithy you would agree though that a carbon tax will increase the monthly outgoings of families across Australia who are already struggling? Why make them pay more? What does it achieve? It certainly doesn't stop the planet's climate changing. Yes but why should that be a concern? Because as any student of economics such as yourself knows the more something costs the less its is used. It's why we all don't have truffle oil on our eggs of a morning. Less carbon burned less CO2 less change, simple I am not saying you don't have a point. However when you look at how much Australia contributes to emissions globally - it is pissing in the wind compared to the rest of the world. Therefore, I just don't see how making families pay more for energy that they desperately need does anything. You'll make electricity more expensive. What's a family going to do? Sit in the dark? You'll make air con more expensive. What do we do? Sit around and put ice bags on our head. My bills in Melbourne were $500+ per quarter for gas in winter and well over $500 per quarter in summer for electricity. Now add a carbon tax and inflation and you're looking at $600+ bills per quarter for an average family. Now personally I'm alright don't worry about me, but I'm thinking here of the guy who earns 3-4 or even 5 times less than me. How on earth are these people supposed to manage? Their bills will be sky high and for what? China is still going to pump out emissions like its going out of fashion and we're none the better.

Actually our emissions p/person in this Nation are the 2nd worst in the world so enough of the "we won't matter" lie.

Simple modifaction of behaviour will save these desparate families from sitting in the dark.
Turn all your stuff(DVD/Foxtel/PS3,Xbox,Wii, kettle,stereo etc) off at the wall. Standby adds 15 to 20% to your electricity bills.
There with a little disipline & effort I've just saved them more than a ETS will cost.

When I grew up in the 70's we had no A/C (earth shattering I know)it's not a right, people have & still do survive without it & yes ice bricks were a high demand product.As were blankets in Winter, amazing sitting on the lounge with 3 layers of clothes + a blanket instead of shorts & T-shirt with the aircon pumping out 26 degree air.

"In Accounting that is known as 'Roundtrip accounting' "

In society, it's called "taxation". If you want to argue, argue against the GST.

"Turn all your stuff(DVD/Foxtel/PS3,Xbox,Wii, kettle,stereo etc) off at the wall."

I forget the exact figures, but at one stage they were saying that if everyone in the UK switched their TVs off at the wall, several power stations would not have to be built.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

"In Accounting that is known as 'Roundtrip accounting' " In society, it's called "taxation". If you want to argue, argue against the GST.

No it's not.

Roundtrip accounting is charging someone for something and then giving them the money to pay for it.

And it's illegal in the United States.

Charging someone a tax and then giving them funding to pay for it may not be illegal in Australia but its certainly idiotic.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 9:20am:

"Do you realise how stretched some house budgets are right now?" Normally you call people on low income "failures", and express befuddlement that they can't earn as much as you do. Now you pretend to worry about them. Touching. The truth is that once a carbon tax is in place, people will be compensated, in much the same way as when the GST was introduced.

And you know that because... Gillard 'hint's at that? Let's face it - her 'word' aint all that credible. and if she believes in it so much then take it to an election like Howard did with the GST!

"Charging someone a tax and then giving them funding to pay for it may not be illegal in Australia but its certainly idiotic."

And yet you fully support the GST, and regularly advocate increasing the rate to reduce income tax.

You're seriously telling me that's the same thing???

That's called adjusting the tax policy of a nation.

Take a look only over the water to you.

NZ just REDUCED its income tax and increased GST from 12.5% to 15%.
Its tax adjustment.

Now INTRODUCING a tax is one thing - giving people money to pay it is just simply idiotic.

So you want to bring a tax in to do what?
Force people to use less of something they need - like lighting, electricity, gas....

But then give them funds to pay for it.

Sound a good idea?

A Carbon Tax has ONE PURPOSE. it is levied on fossil fuel power generators to make the cost of their product significantly more expensive. The theory behind this peculiar form of idiocy is not to make renewables CHEAPER but to make its major compettitor (fossil fuels) a lot more expensive. it is in fact no different to the import tarrifs that we used to have and got rid of because they were 'uncompetitive'.  The removal of tariff protection radically altered our car industry and instead of the rusty crappy vehicles built in the protectionist 70s and 80s, we now build world class cars that compete on the world market. Renewable energy is a lot more expensive that fossil fuels - especially in australia. By taxing fossil fuels you remove the incentive for renewables to become more efficient. Emerging technologies whos primary advantage is generating cost suddenyl become less urgent and less attractive.

The Carbon Tax - like tariffs before it - is well intentioned but fatally flawed. And just as the GST experience showed us, compensation is only temporary. In the end we all end up paying more for our energy.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

"Charging someone a tax and then giving them funding to pay for it may not be illegal in Australia but its certainly idiotic." And yet you fully support the GST, and regularly advocate increasing the rate to reduce income tax.

The GST is a tax to replace other taxes. The Carbon Tax is a tax to seek to punish a industry sector to help another. The comparison is invalid. One (GST) is a tax the other is a tariff.

"The GST is a tax to replace other taxes."

Is it now? Here was I just thinking it was a new tax.

Compensation was offered to make it palatable to the voters Removing other taxes was also a sweetener.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

"The GST is a tax to replace other taxes." Is it now? Here was I just thinking it was a new tax. Compensation was offered to make it palatable to the voters Removing other taxes was also a sweetener.

The GST is a uniform consumer taxation model, and far more efficent and fair than the old sales tax that was an absolute nightmare with particular indurstries gaining substantially while others copped taxes as high as 22%.

Farmers used to trade their work utes every two years for a brand new one and get a cheque from the car yard!

Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change.

All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done.

Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone?

I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

"The GST is a tax to replace other taxes." Is it now? Here was I just thinking it was a new tax. Compensation was offered to make it palatable to the voters Removing other taxes was also a sweetener.

well clearly you were either in prison or a child when it was introduced. the GST was revenue neutral and reduced income taxes and removed a raft of other taxes. Some products were actualyl CHEAPER. so yes, it was tax reform and ONLY tax reform.

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:24am:

Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change. All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done. Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone? I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter.

and it isnt just Labor. Labor waste a crap load of money but the best you can say about the Libs is that they waste slightly less. they are ALL terrible.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:28am:

Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:24am: Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change. All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done. Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone? I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter. and it isnt just Labor. Labor waste a crap load of money but the best you can say about the Libs is that they waste slightly less. they are ALL terrible.

Agreed!

"The GST is a uniform consumer taxation model, and far more efficent and fair than the old sales tax that was an absolute nightmare with particular indurstries gaining substantially while others copped taxes as high as 22%."

And just BTW, I am not arguing against the GST, as much as longweekend would like to twist it that way.

I merely pointed out that the GST redistributed taxes, and compensated those most affected.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:37am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:28am: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:24am: Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change. All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done. Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone? I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter. and it isnt just Labor. Labor waste a crap load of money but the best you can say about the Libs is that they waste slightly less. they are ALL terrible. Agreed!

It is amazing to watch government at all levels spend enormous amounts on projects that fail. The BER is a classic example of where anything the govt gets involved in costs 3 times as much as anybody else. The waste is astonishing but what is worse is when you see public servants having no problem spending 10 times as much to renovate an office than they would renovating their entire home and having no problem.

longweekend -
Quote:

.......The Carbon Tax - like tariffs before it - is well intentioned but fatally flawed....

a whopping great new tax on air that does nothign for the globe is NOT well intentioned.
it's smacking idiotic

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:52am:

longweekend - Quote: .......The Carbon Tax - like tariffs before it - is well intentioned but fatally flawed.... a whopping great new tax on air that does nothign for the globe is NOT well intentioned. it's smacking idiotic

The carbon tax would probably also capture the exhilation from our own population, as afterall we exhale about 1kg of carbon dioxide daily!

So Julia Gillard wants to tax our breathing!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:50am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:37am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:28am: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:24am: Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change. All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done. Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone? I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter. and it isnt just Labor. Labor waste a crap load of money but the best you can say about the Libs is that they waste slightly less. they are ALL terrible. Agreed! It is amazing to watch government at all levels spend enormous amounts on projects that fail. The BER is a classic example of where anything the govt gets involved in costs 3 times as much as anybody else. The waste is astonishing but what is worse is when you see public servants having no problem spending 10 times as much to renovate an office than they would renovating their entire home and having no problem.

You see Longy, thats your problem
You say something sensible then go and spoil it with partisian cr@p
The BER of NSW is actually coming in at 5% UNDER BUDGET
I quote todays SMH

Quote:

Less than estimated To say there was a ''blow-out'' of $188 million in the Building the Education Revolution program is factually and contextually incorrect (''Auditor attacks $188m school blow-out'', December 8). The figure of $188 million mentioned in the Auditor-General's report and the accompanying press release refers only to estimated construction sums the department accepted, not the actual cost of building contracts or projects. With 75 per cent of the $3 billion program complete in NSW, tendered prices are averaging 5 per cent less than the estimated construction sums. Angus Dawson BER Program Director, Sydney

A better more even post would have been that everyone tries to rort the government, overcharging at ridiculous amounts & are too stupid to realise they only people  they are ripping off are themselves & the rest of the community.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:08am:

Copernicus ... Brahe ... Kepler .... Galileo Gravity - concentrate, the issue was gravity (and evolution)

I was concentrating on Gravity.....

Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo were the giants Newton was talking about, when he said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"...

The thing is if the Government puts it into 'General Revenue' it will just get lost and wasted - like everything else.

Governments waste money, always have, always will.

Hence why I have no issue with cutting every corner in the book to deny them revenue from me.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:27am:

"Why make them pay more?" Because something has to be done. "What does it achieve?" It funds clean technologies, that will hopefully arrest the increase in GGs. "It certainly doesn't stop the planet's climate changing." I think you are not qualified to say this.

That's the nub of the problem ernie, the Copenhagen Accord (which didn't pass) AND the Cancun Accord (which did) carry no provision to use the money to fund research...instead the money will be sent to developing nations, who will most likely use it to build factories, power stations and iron smelters, most of which will be coal or oil powered....

"most likely use it to build factories, power stations and iron smelters, most of which will be coal or oil powered.... "

Assumption.

And the technology will be cleaner than it would have otherwise been, because of research done in the West and the East (but NOT Australia, the way we go about things)

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:

"most likely use it to build factories, power stations and iron smelters, most of which will be coal or oil powered.... " Assumption. And the technology will be cleaner than it would have otherwise been, because of research done in the West and the East (but NOT Australia, the way we go about things)

Yes it's an assumption, but a reasonably likely one.
The 3 things poor nations need most are Electricity, jobs and manufacturing..

The simplest,consistent, baseload power source is a coal/gas or oil fired power station (which can be built where the are no rivers).

The best source of jobs for unskilled or semi skilled workers is mining and iron smelting.

And the commonest manufactured goods that people want are appliances (fridges, stoves, washing machines etc) and cars.....all of which require metals to build..

I doubt the first thing a poor or developing nation is going to build will be a nuclear power station or solar thermal farm......because the educational levels don't exist for enough of the population, and a deisre for self-sufficiency would make it unlikely that the countries would want to hire a mass of westerners to build and run the facilities for them...

"I doubt the first thing a poor or developing nation is going to build will be a nuclear power station or solar thermal "

Exactly why they are putting together a fund - to tie grants to ensure developments are clean.

Why does it bother you to help countries develop, to allow people to enjoy some of the benefits we enjoy?

Are you determined that they stay in poverty??

The "poverty line" in Australia is $33,000 pa (correct me if I'm wrong).

In China, the average annual income is $800 or so.

Why are you and Hicks so dead set against the developing world getting developed?

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

The "poverty line" in Australia is $33,000 pa (correct me if I'm wrong). In China, the average annual income is $800 or so. Why are you and Hicks so dead set against the developing world getting developed?

Because there'd be no more cheap labour then.
The irony did dawn on me yesterday with Andrei quoting GW Bush & American jobs in the Climate changed debate.
He had no such concerns when his industry mates were outsourcing said jobs to the 3rd world for no other reason than a better bottom line.
Also quoting Ronald Regan about America picking up cheques was quite funny too seeing he & every republican president since has done nothing but double if not triple the US's debt whilst in office.
Never let facts or history get in the way of a good rant ;)

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:52pm:

"I doubt the first thing a poor or developing nation is going to build will be a nuclear power station or solar thermal " Exactly why they are putting together a fund - to tie grants to ensure developments are clean. Why does it bother you to help countries develop, to allow people to enjoy some of the benefits we enjoy? Are you determined that they stay in poverty??

It doesn't bother me, I'd help the developing nations climb out of poverty any way I could.

But I'm still a realist, and I know that just shovelling money to them isn't the way to do it.
If we want to help them, instead of giving them cash, fund and build the technology ourselves, and train their people in the process..

You and I both know that with some of government system that currently exist in Africa, most of the money wouldn't be used to upgrade the lives of the poor, with infrastructure like water, power schools hospital etc, it'd be used to prop up the government regime and buy bigger and better guns...

As the old saying goes, 'Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.....TEACH a man to fish, and you feed him for the rest of his life'....

Just throwing cash at poor nations is giving them 'a fish'....

Gizmo's right,
large sums of money to the tin pot dictatorships that seem to prevail in the 3rd world is like giving caviar to pigs.
Train their people, supply parts, offer back up support etc etc.
Empower the population don't just pander to their political elite.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:50am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:37am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:28am: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:24am: Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change. All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done. Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone? I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter. and it isnt just Labor. Labor waste a crap load of money but the best you can say about the Libs is that they waste slightly less. they are ALL terrible. Agreed! It is amazing to watch government at all levels spend enormous amounts on projects that fail. The BER is a classic example of where anything the govt gets involved in costs 3 times as much as anybody else. The waste is astonishing but what is worse is when you see public servants having no problem spending 10 times as much to renovate an office than they would renovating their entire home and having no problem. You see Longy, thats your problem You say something sensible then go and spoil it with partisian cr@p The BER of NSW is actually coming in at 5% UNDER BUDGET I quote todays SMH Quote: Less than estimated To say there was a ''blow-out'' of $188 million in the Building the Education Revolution program is factually and contextually incorrect (''Auditor attacks $188m school blow-out'', December 8). The figure of $188 million mentioned in the Auditor-General's report and the accompanying press release refers only to estimated construction sums the department accepted, not the actual cost of building contracts or projects. With 75 per cent of the $3 billion program complete in NSW, tendered prices are averaging 5 per cent less than the estimated construction sums. Angus Dawson BER Program Director, Sydney A better more even post would have been that everyone tries to rort the government, overcharging at ridiculous amounts & are too stupid to realise they only people  they are ripping off are themselves & the rest of the community.

under a GOVERNMENT budget! a budget that already expects to pay 3 times what private industry would do the job for. Private schools have already shown that when they manage the process they get 3 times the value. 'under budget' means nothing if your budget is to spend $3M on a $1M house.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:52pm:

"I doubt the first thing a poor or developing nation is going to build will be a nuclear power station or solar thermal " Exactly why they are putting together a fund - to tie grants to ensure developments are clean. Why does it bother you to help countries develop, to allow people to enjoy some of the benefits we enjoy? Are you determined that they stay in poverty??

You do know that this 'fund' has no idea where its money is coming from, dont you? It is a mother-hood statement - nothing more.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:50am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:37am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:28am: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:24am: Does anyone here honestly believe any government is capable of introducing this tax and using the tax dollars effectivley to combat climate change. All I see is another level and department of government chewing massive dollars in administration while nothing is really done. Take the speed camera revenue in Victoria, it hasnt decreased the road toll, the roads arent any better so where has it gone? I have issues with coughing up money to any government that is incapable of actually using the money for its intended purpose.  To me its just going to be another slush fund and the public service will get fatter. and it isnt just Labor. Labor waste a crap load of money but the best you can say about the Libs is that they waste slightly less. they are ALL terrible. Agreed! It is amazing to watch government at all levels spend enormous amounts on projects that fail. The BER is a classic example of where anything the govt gets involved in costs 3 times as much as anybody else. The waste is astonishing but what is worse is when you see public servants having no problem spending 10 times as much to renovate an office than they would renovating their entire home and having no problem. You see Longy, thats your problem You say something sensible then go and spoil it with partisian cr@p The BER of NSW is actually coming in at 5% UNDER BUDGET I quote todays SMH Quote: Less than estimated To say there was a ''blow-out'' of $188 million in the Building the Education Revolution program is factually and contextually incorrect (''Auditor attacks $188m school blow-out'', December 8). The figure of $188 million mentioned in the Auditor-General's report and the accompanying press release refers only to estimated construction sums the department accepted, not the actual cost of building contracts or projects. With 75 per cent of the $3 billion program complete in NSW, tendered prices are averaging 5 per cent less than the estimated construction sums. Angus Dawson BER Program Director, Sydney A better more even post would have been that everyone tries to rort the government, overcharging at ridiculous amounts & are too stupid to realise they only people  they are ripping off are themselves & the rest of the community.

It might be coming under budget, but that isnt the point.

If I set my budget to build our house at $600,000, and it only costs me $550,000 am I infront considering I could have had it built by someone of equal quality and size for $220,000.

I know a building costing $1,005,000 for 12 x 14m unfurnished and the school wont complain for fear of not getting further funding.

There is a difference between hitting budgets and actually getting value for money.

So now you're against all aid to Africa? This gets worse and worse.

We have no idea at this point how the fund will be allocated or overseen.

Everything I'm reading from gizmo, hicks and longweekend is pure obstructionism - one petty reason piled onto another, all trying to argue against a carbon tax in Australia.

The wackiest extension being Hicks' argument about Mars.

You always be able to do NOTHING - doing SOMETHING obviously is  a bridge too far. I at least thought longweekend would be in support of aid to the starving in the world, in whatever form.

But if it's got anything to do with GW, all christianity flies out the window.

In an embarrassing set-back for the Gillard Government, US President Barack Obama has ditched his plans for an emissions trading scheme in favour of a direct action plan to tackle climate change.

In the wake of the US mid-term election results, the President has now conceded that:

“Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  It was a means, not an end.  And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

He wants to:  “…find ways that we can solve these problems that don’t hurt the economy”.

Those ways and means highlighted by the President overnight included greater use of gas energy, support for electric cars and improved fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.

The President has announced that cap-and-trade is now dead, buried and cremated in the US.

He’s clearly signalled he wants to look at options now that “don’t hurt the economy”.

When you had a Democrat Senate candidate, Joe Manchin, literally shooting a bullet through the US Cap-and-Trade Bill in a campaign video it was clear that the US ETS was in trouble.  (Joe won.)

President Obama’s announcement that he wants to scrap his ETS in favour of direct action is a massive set-back for Julia Gillard’s plan to impose a carbon price on Australian householders and businesses.

If she won’t listen to Coalition plans for direct action, perhaps she might listen to the US.

The American people have voted with their feet: they don’t want their economy “hurt” by higher electricity prices and tax burdens.

President Obama will now examine direct action models, just as has been put forward by the Coalition here in Australia.  By contrast, Julia Gillard has refused to support plans to convert Victoria’s Hazelwood power station from coal to gas.

This new paradigm should be explored when Julia Gillard meets Secretary of State Hilary Clinton this weekend.

Gee that's credible verge - no wonder you didn't include a link!

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:54pm:

Gee that's credible verge - no wonder you didn't include a link!

My apoligies, I found it on the Liberal site while looking at their banking reforms policy.

No matter who posted it, has or has not Obama dropped an ETS and is heading to a Direct Action plan?

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:42pm:

So now you're against all aid to Africa? This gets worse and worse. We have no idea at this point how the fund will be allocated or overseen. Everything I'm reading from gizmo, hicks and longweekend is pure obstructionism - one petty reason piled onto another, all trying to argue against a carbon tax in Australia. The wackiest extension being Hicks' argument about Mars. You always be able to do NOTHING - doing SOMETHING obviously is  a bridge too far. I at least thought longweekend would be in support of aid to the starving in the world, in whatever form. But if it's got anything to do with GW, all christianity flies out the window.

What are you talking about??
Where exactly did I say that???

I'm against treating poor nations, like the ones in Africa, the same way rich people in the West treat beggars and the homeless.....i.e, throw them a couple of dollars so they'll stop following you, and hug yourself that you've done your bit to stop poverty....

If you want to help the poor/homeless in your city, find them a job and somewhere to live...

If you want to help the poor in 3rd world countries BUILD them a clean power system, schools, hospitals and a job base......don't just hand the cash over blindly to fund the despots army....

Do you remember what happened with the food from England in the 80's??

One of the African nations (yes I mention Africa again, mostly because it contains a lot of countries and starving people and military dictatorships..) was under going a massive famine ( no I can't recall which nation it was..too long ago), on the back of a military coup....the people of England donated millions of pounds, as well as food, clothing etc.....The Humanitarian groups, with the assistance of the British Government sent hundreds of tons of food (mostly grain) to this country to feed the starving villagers.....Everybody felt good about doing it...until someone check and discovered that 80 or 90% of the grain was diverted by the government of the country to feed the soldiers.....

Why? Because the British Government and the Humanitarian Groups didn't make the delivery themselves, to ensure it went where it was needed....Which may well be the same problem with the Carbon Tax idea....

Is it better to send the money and HOPE it's used to help the poor, or use the money ourselves to build what the poor need??

"Is it better to send the money and HOPE it's used to help the poor, or use the money ourselves to build what the poor need??"

How do you do it, gizmo? Occupy the country so you can spend your own money? Worked well in Iraq, didn't it.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:05pm:

"Is it better to send the money and HOPE it's used to help the poor, or use the money ourselves to build what the poor need??" How do you do it, gizmo? Occupy the country so you can spend your own money? Worked well in Iraq, didn't it.

No, send in engineers and technicians to teach the people how to build what they need, and help them build it, and how to build what they need to build it...

It worked for the Romans, although they did conquer first..but that's not necessary...

It's slightly slower and requires more commitment than just "figuratively" slipping a cheque under the door....but it works out better for the people themselves in the long run...

Although, in some cases...it'd probably better easier to invade, depose the rulers and start from scratch...

But that's a little extreme....And not always successful

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:13pm:

Although, in some cases...it'd probably better easier to invade, depose the rulers and start from scratch... But that's a little extreme....And not always successful

It is if you act as they did in WWII
Soldier on every corner, Law & order enforced, rebuild bigger & better etc etc think Japan 45 to 60
But if you treat it like we have Iraq, paid guns for hire, inadequate troop numbers, no law & order, allow old civillian/religious disagreements to surface & once again take hold & wall yourself & your puppet government in a compound, well then your toast.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:41pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:13pm: Although, in some cases...it'd probably better easier to invade, depose the rulers and start from scratch... But that's a little extreme....And not always successful It is if you act as they did in WWII Soldier on every corner, Law & order enforced, rebuild bigger & better etc etc think Japan 45 to 60 But if you treat it like we have Iraq, paid guns for hire, inadequate troop numbers, no law & order, allow old civillian/religious disagreements to surface & once again take hold & wall yourself & your puppet government in a compound, well then your toast.

Or even 'sort of' like they did in the 18th and 19th centuries.....similar to the colonial system, but with much much more respect for the culture and 'rights' of the native population...treat them like real people (which, admittedly, the English, Spanish and Dutch did NOT do), raise the education,technology and living standards a lot, then leave..

Meanwhile, back in the real world ....

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:01pm:

Please delete wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:54pm: Gee that's credible verge - no wonder you didn't include a link! My apoligies, I found it on the Liberal site while looking at their banking reforms policy. No matter who posted it, has or has not Obama dropped an ETS and is heading to a Direct Action plan?

There is nothing wrong with a direct action plan, its a good thing, interesting the Libs have it on their website though, I've never heard Abbott speak of replacing coal with natural gas nor has he encouraged electric cars, I wonder if he knows about their policy. If he were to talk about things like that he might even get a few more votes, though I expect he is more concerned about losing the vote of the climate change deniers in his party and its support base. I mean why bother doing anything, if there is nothing happening?

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

The "poverty line" in Australia is $33,000 pa (correct me if I'm wrong). In China, the average annual income is $800 or so. Why are you and Hicks so dead set against the developing world getting developed?

Because -

1) The developing world does not contribute as much in regards to emissions. Look at the problem of China. We never had this issue in the 1980s with them.

2) It ruins our competitive advantage.

Whether you like it or not, we benefit from the developing world being able to produce things for us at a tenth of the cost.
We get the product, we own the profit and we are able to help their economy at their level too.

Now when they move beyond this stage is when it become problematic for us all.

It is 'them' v 'us' - that is what global market economics is all about.

Ahhh .... that's the Hicks I know and love.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 3:13pm:

Meanwhile, back in the real world ....

Well yeah..I didn't say it would be successful...

Sending in experts to do the work, and train locals in their skills is a workable method though..Yes?

What, at the point of a gun?

To quote my now departed old Grandfather -

'At the end of the day, we got on well with the Indians, most of the time everything was good. But now again our unit had to dish out a bit of God, King and Empire'

;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 3:59pm:

To quote my now departed old Grandfather - 'At the end of the day, we got on well with the Indians, most of the time everything was good. But now again our unit had to dish out a bit of God, King and Empire' ;D

What Indians was your Grandfather referring to? ;D

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

What, at the point of a gun?

Why would you need "the point of a gun"????

The people in the 3rd world countries are BEGGING for help...that's the whole point to their demands in the AGW system...They want help, why do you think the 3rd World would reject assistance to bring them up to our standard of living??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

Please delete wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 3:50pm: What, at the point of a gun? Why would you need "the point of a gun"???? The people in the 3rd world countries are BEGGING for help...that's the whole point to their demands in the AGW system...They want help, why do you think the 3rd World would reject assistance to bring them up to our standard of living??

Yes, just like the boat people how they try and claim that they are genuinely seeking help yet bypass numerous countries just to settle in Australia.
Guess then the 3rd World countries would also be wanting to dictate the help that they will ONLY accept.
But they don't as they're genuinely seeking help unlike the boat people!

Quote:

Yes, just like the boat people how they try and claim that they are genuinely seeking help yet bypass numerous countries just to settle in Australia

Such a stupid comment ,no surprise you made it, the Jews passed many countries to come here, as did the Vietnamese,why are they here? you see when we blow the fcck out of a country we have a certain duty to take in that countries miss placed people.

skippy. wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:40pm:

Quote: Yes, just like the boat people how they try and claim that they are genuinely seeking help yet bypass numerous countries just to settle in Australia Such a stupid comment ,no surprise you made it, the Jews passed many countries to come here, as did the Vietnamese,why are they here? you see when we blow the fcck out of a country we have a certain duty to take in that countries miss placed people.

Well you're the expert in stupidity as shown by your posts and no one is within a bulls roar of taking that title from you, pot meet kettle!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

Please delete wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 3:50pm: What, at the point of a gun? Why would you need "the point of a gun"???? The people in the 3rd world countries are BEGGING for help...that's the whole point to their demands in the AGW system...They want help, why do you think the 3rd World would reject assistance to bring them up to our standard of living??

Please name one such country.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:40pm: Quote: Yes, just like the boat people how they try and claim that they are genuinely seeking help yet bypass numerous countries just to settle in Australia Such a stupid comment ,no surprise you made it, the Jews passed many countries to come here, as did the Vietnamese,why are they here? you see when we blow the fcck out of a country we have a certain duty to take in that countries miss placed people. Well you're the expert in stupidity as shown by your posts and no one is within a bulls roar of taking that title from you, pot meet kettle!

I thought you had a tanty and said you'd stop posting on the politics board mellie, another lie.

skippy. wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:45pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:40pm: Quote: Yes, just like the boat people how they try and claim that they are genuinely seeking help yet bypass numerous countries just to settle in Australia Such a stupid comment ,no surprise you made it, the Jews passed many countries to come here, as did the Vietnamese,why are they here? you see when we blow the fcck out of a country we have a certain duty to take in that countries miss placed people. Well you're the expert in stupidity as shown by your posts and no one is within a bulls roar of taking that title from you, pot meet kettle! I thought you had a tanty and said you'd stop posting on the politics board mellie, another lie.

You don't need to display your stupidity any more, we all know that you are stupid.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 4:59pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 3:50pm: What, at the point of a gun? Why would you need "the point of a gun"???? The people in the 3rd world countries are BEGGING for help...that's the whole point to their demands in the AGW system...They want help, why do you think the 3rd World would reject assistance to bring them up to our standard of living?? Please name one such country.

ALL of the 3rd world developing nations who want the payments from the Developed nations...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 3:59pm:

To quote my now departed old Grandfather - 'At the end of the day, we got on well with the Indians, most of the time everything was good. But now again our unit had to dish out a bit of God, King and Empire' ;D

The Amritsar Massacre, also known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, is an extremely dishonorable and disgraceful event because of the kind of brutality that was practiced by the British on the helpless Indians. For a long time, the soldiers unloaded the bullets ruthlessly and brutally on the crowd that was trapped to death. Nearly four hundred people were killed and more than a thousand were severely injured.

This appalling and horrifying event of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar resulted in the mass Indian uprising and insurgence and ultimately led to the Indian Freedom. But, the tragic day of the massacre in Amritsar will always bring a bloodcurdling and terrifying memory in the minds of all Indians.

http://www.mapsofindia.com/amritsar/massacre.html

"ALL of the 3rd world developing nations who want the payments from the Developed nations... "

Name one that would allow western nations to walk in and completely manage construction and management of, say, power stations.

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 4:05am:

"ALL of the 3rd world developing nations who want the payments from the Developed nations... " Name one that would allow western nations to walk in and completely manage construction and management of, say, power stations.

None that WOULD, but all of them SHOULD.

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 4:05am:

"ALL of the 3rd world developing nations who want the payments from the Developed nations... " Name one that would allow western nations to walk in and completely manage construction and management of, say, power stations.

Who said 'completely manage'???

I'm talking about offering assistance , training and finance....

There was a time, not all that long ago, when lots of 3rd countries hired Western experts to help build major infrastructure.....Dams, oil wells, oil refineries, airports, mines, manufacturing plants, bridges, hotels etc.....All built with local money and labour and 'imported' experts....

It still goes on in some areas of the world now too I think...

"If we want to help them, instead of giving them cash, fund and build the technology ourselves," - gizmo.

So I keep asking - how are you going to do this?

"Sending in experts to do the work" - gizmo

How? On what legal basis? With who's permission?

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 7:09am:

"Sending in experts to do the work" - gizmo How? On what legal basis? With who's permission.

With who's permission do you think????

How the hell should I know - this is your fantasy.

You're proposing to impose your will on another country - how?

Gonna sick Halliburton on them?

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 7:16am:

How the hell should I know - this is your fantasy. You're proposing to impose your will on another country - how? Gonna sick Halliburton on them?

No ernie, you're just being deliberately obtuse......

I've never said anything other than that to OFFER to teach and help build the power systems is a better idea than just throwing cash at the countries to keep them quiet......

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 7:24am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 7:16am: How the hell should I know - this is your fantasy. You're proposing to impose your will on another country - how? Gonna sick Halliburton on them? No ernie, you're just being deliberately obtuse...... I've never said anything other than that to OFFER to teach and help build the power systems is a better idea than just throwing cash at the countries to keep them quiet......

Ernie is normally obtuse seeking to derail a thread by askling for irrelevant details and minor issues.

"No ernie, you're just being deliberately obtuse......"

No, you've lazily proposed and argued as if your idea is achievable.

It isn't.

You're sayig that we should build things ourselves, with aid money, to prevent the money getting into the hands of tinpot dictators.

So how are you going to do it?

Would you please pray tell why you think its a good idea for developing nations to become advanced developed world nations on an equal footing with us?

Do you understand the concept of competitive advantage and economic superiority??

Their advancement hinders our economic well-being. They are not mutually exclusive in the global market.

So effectively you would want to shoot ourselves in the foot.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 3:59pm: To quote my now departed old Grandfather - 'At the end of the day, we got on well with the Indians, most of the time everything was good. But now again our unit had to dish out a bit of God, King and Empire' ;D The Amritsar Massacre, also known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, is an extremely dishonorable and disgraceful event because of the kind of brutality that was practiced by the British on the helpless Indians. For a long time, the soldiers unloaded the bullets ruthlessly and brutally on the crowd that was trapped to death. Nearly four hundred people were killed and more than a thousand were severely injured. This appalling and horrifying event of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar resulted in the mass Indian uprising and insurgence and ultimately led to the Indian Freedom. But, the tragic day of the massacre in Amritsar will always bring a bloodcurdling and terrifying memory in the minds of all Indians. http://www.mapsofindia.com/amritsar/massacre.html

Completely and totally off-topic.
I know you are not trying to link in a massacre to someone I was referring to - who incidentally was decorated twice for service to his country in India.

Anyway, off topic.

"Would you please pray tell why you think its a good idea for developing nations to become advanced developed world nations on an equal footing with us?"

So they can all have TVs to watch the cricket.

Let them all crowd around a black and white set by the 100 as per usual.

When we outsourced at my last place to India, people thought we were taking advantage by paying them $500 per year instead of the $40k to Aus staff.

Now $500 per year is EIGHT TIMES the cost of living in Chennai.

Hence my point, they don't need to be on the same footing as us, they never have been so they don't miss it.

The problem I have with so many people on the Left is that they seem incapable of looking at matters economically - they seem always without exception to being in social equality.

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 7:36am:

"No ernie, you're just being deliberately obtuse......" No, you've lazily proposed and argued as if your idea is achievable. It isn't. You're sayig that we should build things ourselves, with aid money, to prevent the money getting into the hands of tinpot dictators. So how are you going to do it?

By offering to build the things, with OUR money and train their people in the process so they can build more later, again using our money...

The countries never object when charity groups dig wells for villages do they?
Or when western groups build and fund hospitals and schools??

So why should they object to western countries paying for power stations??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 8:49am:

So why should they object to western countries paying for power stations??

They wouldn't.

When we began moving our manufacturing base to Chennai, the local management pointed out the benefits to India.

Capital infrastructure, direct funding from outside of India, jobs for 5,000 workers on a good Indian salary, training from guys from the US and Europe etc

Developing countries welcome capital infrastructure and the developed world nations get the profit and the shareholder value.

It's win-win.

"So why should they object to western countries paying for power stations?? "

Because implicitly it's a country doing the building, not a church group. That's when "tinpot dictators" ask for their share, or refuse pointblank.

Corporations won't do it, because they won't profit.

Gizmo, I think you have to acknowledge that our positions are quite close.

They want to set up a fund, which I am trying to defend, and it seems that your main objection is that the fund needs to be tightly controlled.

Not a huge difference.

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Gizmo, I think you have to acknowledge that our positions are quite close. They want to set up a fund, which I am trying to defend, and it seems that your main objection is that the fund needs to be tightly controlled. Not a huge difference.

No possibly not....
I just think the 'fund' should be used to supply the technology (maybe under UN control) rather than given as cash.....

Please delete wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Gizmo, I think you have to acknowledge that our positions are quite close. They want to set up a fund, which I am trying to defend, and it seems that your main objection is that the fund needs to be tightly controlled. Not a huge difference.

The actual problem is that this 'fund' DOESNT EXIST nor are there any plans on how to set it up or who wil contribute. dont yout hink they missed a 'small step' somewhere?

"The actual problem is that this 'fund' DOESNT EXIST"

That's why they want to set it up.

stop all this climate change crap
as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right!

Only the dumbest of the dumb believe that it does exist.
So im asking all those dumbest of the dumb to put up some proof or STFU!

tickfen wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

stop all this climate change crap as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right!

I guess you are another one of those people who doesn't understand the difference between "climate change"(which has been happening for 4.5 Billion years) and "man made climate change"(which has only been happening the last 150 years).

Baaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 9:52pm:

tickfen wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 6:26pm: stop all this climate change crap as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right! I guess you are another one of those people who doesn't understand the difference between "climate change"(which has been happening for 4.5 Billion years) and "man made climate change"(which has only been happening the last 150 years). Baaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa

There's a whole lot of environmentalists who don't seem to understand the difference either Oh_Yeah....

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 9:52pm:

tickfen wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 6:26pm: stop all this climate change crap as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right! I guess you are another one of those people who doesn't understand the difference between "climate change"(which has been happening for 4.5 Billion years) and "man made climate change"(which has only been happening the last 150 years). Baaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa

I see that you're another one who claims that something exists yet cannot prove it.

tickfen wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

stop all this climate change crap as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right! Only the dumbest of the dumb believe that it does exist. So im asking all those dumbest of the dumb to put up some proof or STFU!

SPot on there tick.

But you know that they can't prove it so they won't.
Instead they will maintain their belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny etc.
A good tale for the children, but nobody else.

These people have no grip on reality...they jet around the world, stay at 5 star hotels with air conditioners everywhere, drink champers, no doubt feast on endangered species, fart in their leather chairs and come up with claptrap like "we will limit global warming to 2 degrees C". If they can limit global warming or climate change or whatever they call it this week to such a specific temperature then they can limit it to zero. Hell they can even reverse it...just like Canute!

Any change on a global scale is likely to take decades and if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow the temperature would still increase...
Assuming no negative feedbacks and you could probably point to the northern hemisphere as experiencing them at the moment (slowing gulf stream).
But don't think these talks will end up doing anything other than fatten a bunch of brain dead politicians and fat (fatter) cats.

The Governments obligation is to provide Job security, affordable housing, border security, legal rights, welfare, social nstability, free education and health care to native born Australians.  Nothing supersedes these obligations. 8-)

tickfen wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

stop all this climate change crap as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right! Only the dumbest of the dumb believe that it does exist. So im asking all those dumbest of the dumb to put up some proof or STFU!

tick.. Abbott believes human caused climate change is crap......

and I have yet to see anyone prove otherwise..

lets face it ICECAPS wouldnt be melting if earth was not warming up..we have more vulcanos erupting and violent earthquakes happening..

all that tells ME at any rate something else is happening underground or under the ocean which ever way you want to look at the thing..

whatever is going on isnt all about "above ground"..

in the past 100 years we have learnt a lot, and we I believe are doing our best to change things..my god did you know the ACT govt is going to ban plastic bags.. now theres an innovation for you!!!!!!.all in the name of science.

codswal wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:26pm:

tickfen wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 6:26pm: stop all this climate change crap as abbott said, climate change is crap - it doesnt exist, and he is right! Only the dumbest of the dumb believe that it does exist. So im asking all those dumbest of the dumb to put up some proof or STFU! tick.. Abbott believes human caused climate change is crap...... and I have yet to see anyone prove otherwise.. lets face it ICECAPS wouldnt be melting if earth was not warming up..we have more vulcanos erupting and violent earthquakes happening.. all that tells ME at any rate something else is happening underground or under the ocean which ever way you want to look at the thing.. whatever is going on isnt all about "above ground".. in the past 100 years we have learnt a lot, and we I believe are doing our best to change things..my god did you know the ACT govt is going to ban plastic bags.. now theres an innovation for you!!!!!!.all in the name of science.

You mean to say that the ice caps haven't melted before?
That we haven't had earthquakes before?
That we haven't had volcanoes erupting before?