OK, so we can talk about taxing ideas, we can argue about what exactly are (or are not) the "pollutants" that damage the environment and place oxygen breathers at risk, in fact, as is being fairly well demonstrated, we can do so ad nauseam.

So, I thought maybe to offer people a chance to throw up ideas about directly addressing issues to do with pollution.

For example, starting close to home, basic run of the mill littering is an issue around the region that I live in, I can only imagine that it might be similar in other areas. Now we have legal ramifications for individuals who actually get caught littering - fines. But, to my mind there is a much bigger picture to this. The kind of litter being dumped, i.e. plastic drink bottles, alcohol containers (cans and bottles), plastic snack packets, fast food packaging etc arguably could all be made from more environmentally friendly substances. Yes that has a cost, but, I should imagine the Corporate interests that sit behind these products won't struggle too much with passing costs onto the consumers who use them. So, in order to encourage (yeah, or enforce if you like) their eager participation, if the specific rubbish can be traced back to its manufacturer then they too get a fine, a significant fine. I think a few goes of that and we might see entire ranges of edible, or recycled and natural, plain packaging (with no dyes in it) come out with minimal fuss. I am sure for some the financial burden of this would be annoying, but, I don't see it being too big an issue if my Burger and Coke start to cost $20 because of fines and complete changing of packaging. It seems obvious to me that for junk (read as fast food, plastic packaging etc) there is a glass ceiling as to how high costs could go and retain custom. Of course I am guessing at that and recognise there are most likely very clear examples of the cost being of no great concern to some.

Anyway, that's just one little idea about a pollution issue close to home, well my home anyway.

Most Australians have a bit of a green streak down their back.

Meaning that dropping pollution out of the car or on the street is frowned upon.

I would say that's about 95% certain.... :D 8-)

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:49pm:

Most Australians have a bit of a green streak down their back. Meaning that dropping pollution out of the car or on the street is frowned upon. I would say that's about 95% certain.... :D 8-)

I don't know where your 95% figure comes from or if there is consensus on that  ;D

I realise there are probably heaps who "frown" on littering, but the sad reality there are very few (at face value) who actually do anything more than frown... Otherwise there would be far less litter.

Litter is also just one way we pollute.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

I don't know where your 95% figure comes from or if there is consensus on that  ;D

Lighten up its figurative language...guess who..??


Quote:

I realise there are probably heaps who "frown" on littering, but the sad reality there are very few (at face value) who actually do anything more than frown... Otherwise there would be far less litter. Litter is also just one way we pollute.

I don't believe in punishing the whole population because of a handful of dickheads.

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 1:09pm: I don't know where your 95% figure comes from or if there is consensus on that  ;D Lighten up its figurative language...guess who..?? Quote: I realise there are probably heaps who "frown" on littering, but the sad reality there are very few (at face value) who actually do anything more than frown... Otherwise there would be far less litter. Litter is also just one way we pollute. I don't believe in punishing the whole population because of a handful of dickheads.

I was being light, obviously (I thought) there is no way any consensus could have been reached. I figured it was flippant language and replied in kind.

Um, if (and I say if clearly) the AGW proves eventually to be correct it could quite easily be argued that you have supported dickheads in punishing the whole population.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 6:40am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 10:37am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 1:09pm: I don't know where your 95% figure comes from or if there is consensus on that  ;D Lighten up its figurative language...guess who..?? Quote: I realise there are probably heaps who "frown" on littering, but the sad reality there are very few (at face value) who actually do anything more than frown... Otherwise there would be far less litter. Litter is also just one way we pollute. I don't believe in punishing the whole population because of a handful of dickheads. I was being light, obviously (I thought) there is no way any consensus could have been reached. I figured it was flippant language and replied in kind. Um, if (and I say if clearly) the AGW proves eventually to be correct it could quite easily be argued that you have supported dickheads in punishing the whole population.

Considering all the pros and cons of the argument that is very unlikely to happen.

We all know the AGW science is largely based on computer circulation models, real world measurements (empirical data) and our history (past) don't support the hypothesis that CO2 controls temperature.

In our history we have seen stages where CO2 has fallen and our temperature has risen.

We have also seen CO2 rising while temperature has fallen.

If we go to the present, 440 gigatonnes of manmade CO2 have gone into our atmosphere since 1998 and temperatures are relatively flat.

440 gigatonnes of manmade CO2 is more than one third of all manmade CO2 since the industrial revolution.

Proving once again just like in our past history that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a role to play in our temperature, it certainly has never controlled temperature in our past or does it control temperature in the present times.