Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Political Parties >> Sustainability Party of Australia >> a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265709177

Message started by freediver on Feb 9th, 2010 at 7:52pm

Title: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Feb 9th, 2010 at 7:52pm
I hope this gets through and ends up replacing the CPRS.



A message from Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne

Dear friend,

With your help, we could be on the point of achieving a breakthrough on climate action.

Last month we wrote to you about the Greens' proposal to break the political deadlock over the Rudd government's CPRS. We urged all parties to embrace Professor Garnaut's suggestion of a two year interim scheme with a fixed carbon price, no trading and no offsets.

I am very pleased to tell you today that we are now in constructive negotiations with the government around this proposal.

We need your help to build the momentum towards a positive result.

Our proposal is a building block for future climate action that's got real teeth. It gets Australia moving straight away in building a flourishing zero emissions economy.

By writing letters to newspapers, you can help us build the public momentum we will need to convince Mr Rudd's government and at least two more Senators to embrace this interim solution and get Australia moving.

We really want to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion and put a price on carbon emissions, but we need your help to keep the government at the table.

Please help us break the climate deadlock.

Many thanks,

Christine Milne

Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens.

PS: We know this solution isn't perfect, but, unlike the CPRS, there is no way it can hold back climate action. It can only help get Australia moving towards a zero carbon future.

By getting this issue onto the letters pages, you can help us break the CPRS deadlock

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by soren on Feb 9th, 2010 at 9:25pm
Why am I not surprised that you are on the Greens' mailing list?




Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Feb 10th, 2010 at 9:30pm
Because I run a politics website?

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the topic?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by DARWIN on Feb 11th, 2010 at 5:06pm
Stuff the Greens. A CPRS could have been in the process of being set up now, with negotiations ongoing to raise the carbon price. This will do nothing because the Greens think that after the election they will have the BoP in the Senate and think Labor will come up with a new scheme they can approve. BS! The CPRS is all we got and all we will have!

The Greens are using the issue, the core reason supposedly for their existence, to play politics and garner more support. I hope no one votes for the idiots!

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by soren on Feb 11th, 2010 at 9:02pm

freediver wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 9:30pm:
Because I run a politics website?[/quot]

No. Do you think they addressed everyone as 'Dear friend'? Even

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the topic?



All the good that are produced by using energy from carbon have a price on them already. Then to put a price on carbon in a way that only speculators understand is stupid. It is interference by signalling 'use less energy'. That is the wrong signal. What we want is a different energy source.
The Greens, being a mere reactionary party, get almost everything wrong. This is another example.





Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:09am

Quote:
The CPRS is all we got and all we will have!


I would much prefer a tax. Being so much simpler, it could be set up much faster. It also will not become an unmanageable dinosaur as soon as we try to come up with an international arrangement. We are going to be stuck with this thing for 50 years. We need to get it right.


Quote:
All the good that are produced by using energy from carbon have a price on them already.


Exactly. We are putting the price on the negative externality.


Quote:
Then to put a price on carbon in a way that only speculators understand is stupid.


I agree with this point also. We need to keep it simple and manageable.


Quote:
It is interference by signalling 'use less energy'. That is the wrong signal. What we want is a different energy source.


The signal should be "emit less GHG's". The government has a minimal role to play in choosing how it is done, only in choosing why it is done. Reducing energy consumption is one of the low hanging fruit.


Quote:
The Greens, being a mere reactionary party, get almost everything wrong. This is another example.


But a lot of your comments support their proposal over alternatives.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 13th, 2010 at 8:50pm
This is before the Senate and they are asking people to contact local MPs and ask them to support it.

http://greensmps.org.au/ask-your-local-mp-work-immediate-levy-climate-polluters


Ask your local MP to work for an immediate levy on climate polluters
in

   * Climate Change & the Zero Carbon World

There is a real chance of serious action on the climate crisis before the coming election - if you help us by emailing your local member today and asking them to get behind good-faith negotiations with the Greens towards a simple carbon levy.

The Greens' deadlock-breaking proposal for a simple levy on Australia's biggest polluters - supported by key players from Professor Ross Garnaut to Greenpeace, from the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) to the Climate Emergency Network - has a real prospect of passing the Senate and getting Australia moving on climate action. The government has started negotiations with the Greens towards the proposal, but they need a strong signal from Australians to speed up those negotiations and get a bill before the parliament next month.

You can help make this a reality by emailing your local MP and asking them to raise the proposal with their leader - the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition - and tell them that their constituents are swinging behind the Greens' simple carbon levy proposal as a way to get climate action started swiftly in Australia. Ask them to get back to you with a response from their leader.

You can find the details of your local member by clicking on this link, plugging in your postcode and clicking through "Profile and Map" and "Current member details". Plug in their email address below and write them a personal email telling them the Greens' carbon levy is the way to go. (We are working on ways to make this process simpler, so thank you for making this effort.)

Together, we can get Australia moving towards real climate action before this year's election!

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 13th, 2010 at 9:15pm
If you are frightened of carbon...  then use a form of energy which doesn't produce any form of carbon by product.

But puhlease don't tax me for no bloody reason.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 13th, 2010 at 10:06pm
The government needs to raise revenue somehow. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 13th, 2010 at 10:07pm
i already pay enough tax thanks.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 13th, 2010 at 10:08pm
I don't want an increase in the total tax burden, just a change in how it is collected.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 13th, 2010 at 10:24pm
Well isn't this Greens idea an extra tax on an element for an obscure reason and won't it be essentially a tax on everything?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2010 at 7:17am
It will be a tax on GHG emissions. Taxing everything would defeat the purpose. The impact on retail prices will vary wildly.

Also, even if the Green's bill passes, the Greens will have no control over how the government responds with regard to the total tax burden.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 15th, 2010 at 12:45pm
can you think of anything that doesn't depend on emissions at some stage of their development or delivery?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:00pm
Not really.

Can you think of anything does doesn't depend on income?

If fossil fuels make up 0.1% of the cost of some items, and 50% of the cost of other items, then obviously a carbon tax will change consumer behaviour in a way that reduces emissions. Saying it is a tax on everything kind of misses the point. It is no more a tax on everything than income tax is a tax on everything.

It will also change many of the steps in the manufacturing process, not just the end consumer choices.

Whatever reduction in emissions you hope to achieve, a carbon tax is the best mechanism to achieve them from an economic perspective.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:20pm
"Not really" proves my point which you were disputing.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by mozzaok on Apr 16th, 2010 at 2:43am
Well this initiative from The Greens is a positive step forward which I heartily agree with, and think that FD has already covered the basic positives of this scheme.

One thing Soren said does deserve further consideration, I think;


Quote:
'use less energy'. That is the wrong signal. What we want is a different energy source.


now I think that he is misunderstanding the original premise here, he says the message is just to, "use less energy", but it is not that at all, the message is to, use less, high emission, finite, fossil fuel based energy.

And that is the right signal, and having a tax specific to energy derived that way will help us to develop what we want, a"different", read as cleaner and more sustainable, energy source.

I was never a fan of the governments planned Cap and Trade scheme, and have always found the idea of a straight forward tax a simpler and better option, and this proposal from the Greens can deliver that to us, so I agree that all who are concerned about tackling rising emissions, and all who are concerned about avoiding convoluted Cap and Trade schemes, should consider the request to voice their support for this scheme, to newspapers, and other media forums, as well as to their local MP.

I most certainly will be.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:40am
If new taxes were to be introduced, I'd want to know that the funds were being directly pumped into research and development, othewise they'd end up being used as just another excuse for useless governments.

The latest step forward in solar technology sounds promising, and developed right here in Melbourne:
http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2010/03/solar-panels-made-three-times-cheaper-and-four-times-more-efficient/

Developing better alternatives will be the only way to really "fix" the problem. Introducing new taxes may be an incentive, but it's going about it in an ass-about fashion and leaves the door ajar for incompetent governments to use the taxes as a cash cow.


Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:40am

mozzaok wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 2:43am:
One thing Soren said does deserve further consideration, I think;


Quote:
'use less energy'. That is the wrong signal. What we want is a different energy source.



Using less energy is one of the cheapest options for reducing emissions, and one that many other schemes miss. Many people (presumable Soren) confuse our past 'dependence' on fossil fuels by equating energy consumption with quality of life. They are not the same thing. What we need are the products and services that we produce with energy (and many other resources), not the energy itself. If we can produce the same stuff, or an equally good set of things, with 10% of the energy, it won't harm us to do so.


Quote:
If new taxes were to be introduced, I'd want to know that the funds were being directly pumped into research and development, othewise they'd end up being used as just another excuse for useless governments.


This is a bad idea. The point is to put a price on emissions, not raise revenue for something. Wouldn't it be far better to use it to reduce other taxes and improve the economy?

Grendel, you are missing the point. I am not necessarily disputing what you say. I am saying that it is ambiguous and ultimately meaningless, in the same way that complaining that income tax is a tax on everything doesn't really get you anywhere.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:06am
Sounds to me like you're talking about a sleight of hand there FD. It's the old Howard shell game.
The energy required (being the pea) is a constant. You are talking about reducing the requirement of current lifestyles, not the size of the pea.

Agreed, we can all (westerners) get by very easily whilst reducing our energy consumption. Reducing the population would accomplish the same.

It's not realistic. Our population will grow and grow and grow, the economy demands it.
There's no use in the ever tightening of the screws in an economy that is built upon wants rather than needs. I think we need something better than a bandaid solution such as new taxes.









Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:17am

Quote:
The energy required (being the pea) is a constant.


This is completely wrong. You can produce the same outcome - goods and services - with a fraction of the energy. Isn't it obvious that if energy is free, people will waste it?


Quote:
I think we need something better than a bandaid solution such as new taxes.


It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:40am

freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:17am:

Quote:
The energy required (being the pea) is a constant.


This is completely wrong. You can produce the same outcome - goods and services - with a fraction of the energy. Isn't it obvious that if energy is free, people will waste it?


You are not getting my meaning.
I'm saying that there is a basal energy requirement, and this is a constant.
The more the population increases, the more that that basal requirement will also increase.
I'm not talking about wastage or efficiency. Yes we can save a hell of a lot of energy by being more efficient, but this will not reduce the basal requirement (being the pea).
And who would put up with being forced to cut back to the bear basal requirement? Not many.
In effect, I'm agreeing with Soren here that energy sources that are already out there in abundance need to be harnessed. The real wastage is that we already have a lot of know-how to employ it, and it's not being used.
As long as fossil fuels are the cheaper alternative, then they will be used. The only way to stop that cycle is to make clean fuels the cheaper alternative. More taxes are a load of garbage unless they are there for the sole purpose of bringing about a more sustainable future. I'd be very suspicious of that one.



Quote:
I think we need something better than a bandaid solution such as new taxes.



Quote:
It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.


It's a bandaid. The acceptable submission to government demands is a constant and always has been.


Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:00am

Quote:
It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.


So 0% is the extiguishment of life, and 100% is a total full-on wastage that is probably not attainable?
Where's the happy medium?






Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by muso on Apr 16th, 2010 at 11:37am

Darwin wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 5:06pm:
Stuff the Greens. A CPRS could have been in the process of being set up now, with negotiations ongoing to raise the carbon price. This will do nothing because the Greens think that after the election they will have the BoP in the Senate and think Labor will come up with a new scheme they can approve. BS! The CPRS is all we got and all we will have!

The Greens are using the issue, the core reason supposedly for their existence, to play politics and garner more support. I hope no one votes for the idiots!


All we have at this stage is the Renewable Energy Target Scheme which was introduced in August last year.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/renewable-target.aspx

Effectively large energy consumers currently pay an extra tax on their energy (electricity, natural gas etc) and some can claim back some of that tax using the Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed industry assistance scheme originally intended for the CPRS.

Along with Energy Efficient Opportunities, administered by the (Commonwealth)  Department of Resources Energy and Tourism, NGERS and Gas Electricity Certificates (here is Queensland) it's making life very complicated right now for industry.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 16th, 2010 at 11:48am
Yes all this alarmism and people like Gore trying to make big bucks out of it is making things very complicated when they don't need to be,

NSW is having 60% added to their electricity bills due to the CPRS that doesn't even exist and a lot of people will not be able to afford this type of rise in price.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:58pm

Quote:
I'm saying that there is a basal energy requirement, and this is a constant.


There is no fundamental minimum requirement. If there was, you could tell us what it is. But you can't, can you?


Quote:
I'm not talking about wastage or efficiency. Yes we can save a hell of a lot of energy by being more efficient, but this will not reduce the basal requirement (being the pea).


So you are complaining about the last 1% before we eliminate the first 99%? Is that what you mean by pea?


Quote:
As long as fossil fuels are the cheaper alternative, then they will be used. The only way to stop that cycle is to make clean fuels the cheaper alternative.


Taxes are the most appropriate way to make renewable alternatives cheaper. Their benefit is that they also capture the car cheaper options of emissions reductions. The fact is, people would prefer to reduce their consumption of electricity than to use the same amount and pay a lot more for it. Who are you to decide whether they go with reducing consumption or paying more for alternatives, and to what extent they choose each? You are in effect limiting their choice by saying the government should dictate the extent to which each option is implimented. An emissions tax on the other hand would let the end consumer decide.


Quote:
More taxes are a load of garbage unless they are there for the sole purpose of bringing about a more sustainable future. I'd be very suspicious of that one.


That is what they are there for. The difference is they do this by correcting the price signals in the market, rather than increasing government revenue so that they can go on elaborate spending sprees for the environment.


Quote:
It's a bandaid. The acceptable submission to government demands is a constant and always has been.


This doesn't even make sense.


Quote:
So 0% is the extiguishment of life


No. 0% is the elimination of anthropogenic emissions.


Quote:
and 100% is a total full-on wastage that is probably not attainable


100% is 'business as usual'.


Quote:
Where's the happy medium?


I think that is what the IPCC is getting at. Maybe 50% in 50 years. I'm not sure on the details. Obviously it will depend on the long term cost. If it is easier than expected to reduce emissions, people will want to reduce them more. If it is harder than expected, people will put up with the climate change.


Quote:
NSW is having 60% added to their electricity bills due to the CPRS


Excellent.


Quote:
a lot of people will not be able to afford this type of rise in price


They should lower other taxes.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 16th, 2010 at 8:58pm

Quote:
No. 0% is the elimination of anthropogenic emissions.


And with it the end of us all... for to stop all our emissions we'd have to stop  breathing   :D

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:01pm
Not that you want to be an alarmist, hey Grendel?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:06pm
Nothing alarmist about that at all...  just common sense...  we exhale CO2 to create a non-human-emissions environment we have to stop breathing.

As for fear of man made emissions, there has always been warming and cooling, CO2 levels go up and down... naturally.  What are you going to do about those emissions?

Oh and plants need CO2 to survive, wee need plants to survive.... oh and CO2 at high altitudes actually cool the planet not warm it...  what about that?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:13pm
Why would I want to do anything about that?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 17th, 2010 at 8:59am
you are the one advocating ZERO emissions fd...  not me.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 17th, 2010 at 9:46am
What makes you think that Grendel?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 17th, 2010 at 10:16am
My error if you are not...  but I thought you advocated no emissions.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 17th, 2010 at 11:23am
No I don't. I don't advocate any particular level of emissions. I think we should set a short term goal, achieve it, then reasses the situation. I expect it will be easier than we thought to reduce emissions.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Grendel on Apr 17th, 2010 at 11:37am
Then why are you worried about it at all?
Why create a tax for no reason other than to take money off people and create a wealth deficit in society.

I think technology will take care of itself, regardless of any tax.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 17th, 2010 at 12:16pm
The purpose of the tax is to reduce GHG emissions.

To clarify, what I am promoting is the best mechanism gfor reducing GHG emissions, not a target for the total long term reduction. Whatever your target is, a tax is the best mechanism to achieve it. It does the least harm to the economy.

When I say I don't advocate any particular level of emissions, I do advocate reducing our emissions, I just don't think we can expect to decide now what the situation in 50 years time needs to be. In fact it is simply not possible to dictate to people what to do in 50 years time. We can only decide what to do now. We can set short term goals based on what we would like in 50 years time, but that is about the extent of our control.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 18th, 2010 at 7:32am

freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:58pm:

Quote:
I'm saying that there is a basal energy requirement, and this is a constant.


There is no fundamental minimum requirement. If there was, you could tell us what it is. But you can't, can you?


All I can say is that in 1990 Australians on average were emitting 17.4 cubic tonnes of CO2 per capita as compared to 18.8 in 2007. Considering the many advances in energy efficiency and a significant increase in population over this period, this isn't a good figure.
By your reckoning, our 100% (business as usual) emissions in 2007 were about 8% higher than what they were in 1990.
No I can't give you a figure on what the base requirement per capita may be in Australia, but atm you'd be pushing sh!t uphill to achieve even a 20% reduction per capita, let alone what is required if our population doubles.



Quote:
So you are complaining about the last 1% before we eliminate the first 99%? Is that what you mean by pea?


No, I'm complaining about the idealism that a 99% reduction, or even a 20% overall reduction is achievable without a major shift in energy sources.
Forcing people to use less by raising prices doesn't reduce our requirements to live, work, and hopefully play in this current economic climate. There's only so far that you can push the envelope without going beyond acceptable boundaries.

I'd like to buy a $60k Audi, but I can only afford a $30k Holden. Would the government be doing me a service by raising taxes on Holdens, increasing it's price to $90k, and thereby making the Audi the cheaper alternative? No, of course not. It's the same $60k that I couldn't afford before.



Quote:
Taxes are the most appropriate way to make renewable alternatives cheaper. Their benefit is that they also capture the car cheaper options of emissions reductions. The fact is, people would prefer to reduce their consumption of electricity than to use the same amount and pay a lot more for it. Who are you to decide whether they go with reducing consumption or paying more for alternatives, and to what extent they choose each? You are in effect limiting their choice by saying the government should dictate the extent to which each option is implimented. An emissions tax on the other hand would let the end consumer decide.


It's not so much a case of "letting the consumer decide" as it is denying people the right to use it until an affordable alternative comes along.
People are already very conscious of the fuels that they use and generally limit their usage where possible.
More taxes might squeeze a bit more blood out of the stone in the short term, but together with the expected increase in population, the net effect will still be more emissions until better alternatives are developed.


Quote:
They should lower other taxes.


Yeah right!!  :D

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 18th, 2010 at 8:49am

Quote:
No I can't give you a figure on what the base requirement per capita may be in Australia, but atm you'd be pushing sh!t uphill to achieve even a 20% reduction per capita, let alone what is required if our population doubles.


But you just finished explaining that you don't know anything about the 'minimum requirements'. What are you basing this on?


Quote:
No, I'm complaining about the idealism that a 99% reduction, or even a 20% overall reduction is achievable without a major shift in energy sources.


It is not idealism. It is common sense. If people prefered to use more energy than to reduce their consumption, I would have no problem with alternative energy sources, and a carbon tax would facilitate that too. You are the only one here push a one size fits all solution.


Quote:
Forcing people to use less by raising prices


That is not what it does Amadd. It encourages people to cause less CO2 emissions. Whether they do so by using less electricity or choosing alternative energy sources is completely up to them. It gives them the choice. This is a good thing.


Quote:
I'd like to buy a $60k Audi, but I can only afford a $30k Holden. Would the government be doing me a service by raising taxes on Holdens


The tax would be on GHG emissions, not Holdens.

Quote:
It's not so much a case of "letting the consumer decide"


Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. For some reason you oppose this and want the government telling people how to do it. Why?


Quote:
as it is denying people the right to use it until an affordable alternative comes along


So your 'solution' involves a solution that doesn't actually exist?


Quote:
People are already very conscious of the fuels that they use and generally limit their usage where possible.


Crap. How far down your list of expenses is your electricity bill?


Quote:
More taxes might squeeze a bit more blood out of the stone in the short term


I am not proposing more taxes. You were doing so by insisting the government go on an elaborate spending spree rather than using it as an opportunity to reduce other more arbitrary taxes.


Quote:
Yeah right!!


Why are you opposed to lowering other taxes?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 18th, 2010 at 5:18pm

Quote:
But you just finished explaining that you don't know anything about the 'minimum requirements'. What are you basing this on?


And I just explained that you don't know anything about the maximum requirements either. The maximum (100%, business as usual) emissions were lower in 1990 than they were in 2007, even with many advances in energy efficiencies, go figure.

I'm basing it on the lowest "acceptable" energy level in order to function within Australia relative to our current requirements.
Obviously some people need to use more energy than others for various reasons, other people waste it for no real reason.
You could reduce a person's energy requirement by a great amount if you were to put them in a coma and feed them intravenously, even then the larger person will require more drip. Is that acceptable or profitable?
Maybe it might one day be possible to power our machines by plugging others into the matrix  :o

The point is that these taxes will be there to increase prices and increase pressure. I don't want to see my dear old granny sitting there in the cold because she can't afford to, or doesn't want to use energy for heating, but that's a reality even without a 60% electricity hike.


Quote:
It is not idealism. It is common sense. If people prefered to use more energy than to reduce their consumption, I would have no problem with alternative energy sources, and a carbon tax would facilitate that too. You are the only one here push a one size fits all solution.


I think that this type of tax is a "one size fits all" bandaid solution.
It's not common sense to expect that we will be able to reduce our consumption by 99% with what we have readily available - that's just ridiculous.
It's probably possible for most people to generate enough power to satisfy a lot of their daily "household" needs by use of wind, solar, and even an exercise bike. However, there's not a great push to be self-reliant. The push is to be squeezed more externally.


Quote:
Crap. How far down your list of expenses is your electricity bill?


Significant enough to change to low energy globes, turn off appliances not in use etc.


Quote:
Why are you opposed to lowering other taxes?


I'm not opposed to it.
You're telling the story. I haven't heard any suggestion that this would happen, have you?

Temporary taxes for the WW1 war effort, we still have them, and more.

Do you think that we've ever really had tax cuts?
Every time that the CPI rises, we should get a tax "adjustment", it's not a tax cut.
Every time a public company is sold, we should get a tax adjustment. Does this happen?
Introduce a GST and we get an income tax "adjustment" not a tax cut.
Howard's tax "adjustments" were just plain rude in that he stole from the poor to give to the rich.

If governments don't adjust taxes in line with all of these things, they are effectively raising income taxes.
They should use these tax hikes for the development of alternatives that are already out there waiting to be employed - along with a better health system, education, etc.














Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 18th, 2010 at 10:29pm

Quote:
And I just explained that you don't know anything about the maximum requirements either.


How is that even relevant? Or meaningful?


Quote:
The maximum (100%, business as usual) emissions were lower in 1990 than they were in 2007, even with many advances in energy efficiencies, go figure.


This is fairly common. If something is cheaper to use, people often use more of it, because it is cheaper. I'm not sure why you think it is an issue. It is only really a flaw in some of your ideas.


Quote:
I'm basing it on the lowest "acceptable" energy level in order to function within Australia relative to our current requirements.


And what is that? You keep talking about this imaginary number like it is real.


Quote:
Obviously some people need to use more energy than others for various reasons, other people waste it for no real reason.


Just like some need more food, more medicine, more cars, or whatever. So what?

Quote:
You could reduce a person's energy requirement by a great amount if you were to put them in a coma and feed them intravenously, even then the larger person will require more drip. Is that acceptable or profitable?


No. That is why I am proposing a carbon tax rather than your silly communist style proposals.


Quote:
The point is that these taxes will be there to increase prices and increase pressure.


A green tax shift, if implimented correctly, would have little effect on real prices. What do you mean by pressure?


Quote:
I don't want to see my dear old granny sitting there in the cold because she can't afford to


We can afford to keep warm now. We will afford to keep warm afterwards, provided people like you don't ruin the economy with your grandiose tax and spend schemes.


Quote:
I think that this type of tax is a "one size fits all" bandaid solution.


What it is, is the cheapest way to reduce our emissions. That's what counts. You are the one who wants to limit people's options for reducing their emissions because you think you can decide for them. Old grannys would die in the cold because of your silly schemes, not a green tax shift.


Quote:
It's not common sense to expect that we will be able to reduce our consumption by 99%


Which is why no-one is proposing that we do.


Quote:
I'm not opposed to it.
You're telling the story. I haven't heard any suggestion that this would happen, have you?


You said you'd rather the government spent the money than lowering taxes. Hence, you are opposed to the idea of using it to lower other taxes.


Quote:
Do you think that we've ever really had tax cuts?


It's kind of hard if every time a new tax is introduced, people like you stand up and say 'don't reduce other taxes, let's spend it on grandiose schemes instead.'


Quote:
If governments don't adjust taxes in line with all of these things, they are effectively raising income taxes.
They should use these tax hikes for the development of alternatives


So in one breath you complain about taxes going up constantly, but in the next demand the government spend more money. You can't have it both ways.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 19th, 2010 at 9:33am

Quote:
How is that even relevant? Or meaningful?


It's relevant and meaningful that you are telling me that there is no such thing as a base (acceptable or survivable) energy requirement due to our current economic circumstance.
I proved to you the 100% "business as usual"per capita usage was 8% higher in 2007 than it was in 1990. Even with the advent of energy saving products, the figure still went up.


Quote:
This is fairly common. If something is cheaper to use, people often use more of it, because it is cheaper. I'm not sure why you think it is an issue. It is only really a flaw in some of your ideas.


What is the flaw? If you want to start competing with the CO2 emission giants, then you're in for a sad loss unless you can come up with something of substance.
Attempting to unnaturally raise the price of a readily available product does not agree with free market capitalism in the least.


Quote:
And what is that? You keep talking about this imaginary number like it is real.


The number is real, and at any given time in our history, we are bound by an energy requirement (number) in order to compete within the current economic climate.
The only way to reduce that number is to provide a lower number which will accrue the same result. Raising taxes does none other than enforce hardship and say " You come up with something better so that we can tax that too". It's total crap.


Quote:
Just like some need more food, more medicine, more cars, or whatever. So what?


So where are your priorities?
It may be that a car is more important than medicine given a specific cicumstance. Who are you to say which is individually more important?


Quote:
No. That is why I am proposing a carbon tax rather than your silly communist style proposals.


Communistic? Are you listening to yourself?


Quote:
A green tax shift, if implimented correctly, would have little effect on real prices. What do you mean by pressure?


Now you're being outlandishly hypocritical.
You just said that you applaud a 60% hike in electricity costs!!
You are advocating the unnatural raising of prices to force somebody else to come up with some good ideas, which will undoubtedly be taxed when they do. And they already have.
Ideas get squashed all the time at the hands of corporations, and governments are always in their back pockets.



Quote:
We can afford to keep warm now. We will afford to keep warm afterwards, provided people like you don't ruin the economy with your grandiose tax and spend schemes.


What is my tax and spend scheme? You're the one advocating new taxes that will never end.
Here's the late news: We could always afford to keep warm by rubbing two sticks together. Give us back our sticks.

Sorry, but there are plenty enough technologies already out there that can easily suffice the average energy requirements without looking to your almighty government for savior.
You need to look beyond your almighty government for release is what I think.


Quote:
What it is, is the cheapest way to reduce our emissions. That's what counts. You are the one who wants to limit people's options for reducing their emissions because you think you can decide for them. Old grannys would die in the cold because of your silly schemes, not a green tax shift.


The cheapest way is to let the free market take care of itself.
Everytime somebody comes up with some good widespread opportunities for people to be self-reliant, it is squashed by large corporations, that's their nature.
They don't want us to be reliant on ourselves, they want us to be reliant on them.
It's a sham. Every technology is already available for the average person to provide 90% of their energy requirements for themselves, but the other 10% is always held to ransom.
If you can't see that my picture of how the tax system operates is true, then I'd hope that you go back in history and do the maths for yourself before you tell me that my conclusion is wrong.
Advances come from great individual ideas, taxes come from assholes.



Quote:
Which is why no-one is proposing that we do.


I thought that you said that I was arguing about the other 1%?
So where is the 99% coming from?
Raising costs is in no way going to reduce the demand that is dictated to us by the economic climate we live in.
You don't lower demand by raising the cost of something that is a necessity.


Quote:
You said you'd rather the government spent the money than lowering taxes. Hence, you are opposed to the idea of using it to lower other taxes.


No, I think that I said that I'd rather the government spent the money that has already been raised.
Go through the maths again, and you will see that the money has already been raised. They usurp the progress of collective like-minded individuals with your blessing.


Quote:
It's kind of hard if every time a new tax is introduced, people like you stand up and say 'don't reduce other taxes, let's spend it on grandiose schemes instead.'


Again, do the math and tell me if you think that the public has gained a net profit from government taxes.i


Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 19th, 2010 at 9:44am

Quote:
So in one breath you complain about taxes going up constantly, but in the next demand the government spend more money. You can't have it both ways.


Hang on. I'm saying that taxes "effectively" go up if they are not adjusted in line with things like: Wage increases, CPI increases, selling of public assets..etc.
But worse...and much much worse is that ideas, inventions, innovations, that were set forth for the furtherment of everybody, have been harnessed by a few. And you agree to pay governments and corporations handsomely for it, where the innovators are happy with a measely sum, or sometimes even nothing at all.






Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 19th, 2010 at 8:16pm

Quote:
Significant enough to change to low energy globes, turn off appliances not in use etc.


See Amadd, you already know how to reduce your GHG emissions without silly expensive options like renewable energy sources. You don't need the government to tell you how to do it after all.


Quote:
Hang on. I'm saying that taxes "effectively" go up if they are not adjusted in line with things like: Wage increases


That wasn't what I was referring to. You complain that a new tax will inevitably increase the overall tax burden, then turn around and say you will only accept this new tax if it increases the overall tax burden - you will only accept it if the government spends it on your schemes, rather than using the opportunity to reduce other taxes.


Quote:
where the innovators are happy with a measely sum, or sometimes even nothing at all


sounds kind of idealistic to me.


Quote:
It's relevant and meaningful that you are telling me that there is no such thing as a base (acceptable or survivable) energy requirement due to our current economic circumstance.


Now you are getting even more slippery. Your 'base' is now based on 'current circumstance'? But it still means something? I am telling you it doesn't exist because you can;t tell me what it is.


Quote:
I proved to you the 100% "business as usual"per capita usage was 8% higher in 2007 than it was in 1990. Even with the advent of energy saving products, the figure still went up.


Of course you did. But you failed to make a point with this little anecdote. Perhaps you think it means something more, but can't put it into words.


Quote:
Attempting to unnaturally raise the price of a readily available product does not agree with free market capitalism in the least.


Who cares? The entire justification for any of this intervention, whether it be a tax, a trading scheme, or your idea of the government taking over everything, is a well recognised failure of an unregulated free market. Also, carbon taxes harness market forces to deliver change with the least cost. Your silly schemes throw market forces out the window and make grannys freeze to death in the night.


Quote:
The number is real


So real that you can't tell us what it is? Is it a secret real  number?

Quote:
we are bound by an energy requirement (number) in order to compete within the current economic climate


So we are bound by an imaginary number that keeps changing in response to our attempts to not be bound by it?


Quote:
The only way to reduce that number is to provide a lower number which will accrue the same result.


So your imaginary number can go up or down on our whim, but we are also bound by it?


Quote:
Raising taxes does none other than enforce hardship and say " You come up with something better so that we can tax that too". It's total crap.


Your silly schemes would enforce far more hardship.


Quote:
So where are your priorities?


To let market forces decide the priorities, rather than the government, or people like you.


Quote:
It may be that a car is more important than medicine given a specific cicumstance. Who are you to say which is individually more important?


I'm not. You are the one saying that. I am the one suggesting we let people choose how to reduce their emissions.


Quote:
Communistic? Are you listening to yourself?


Yes. Your idea is about government controlling the economy. Mine is about market forces deciding the best outcome. Your ideas is based on communist style solutions, and mine on capitalism.


Quote:
You are advocating the unnatural raising of price


And you call me a hypocrit? How is forcing us onto more expensive options not advocating unnatural price changes?


Quote:
What is my tax and spend scheme?


You said you would only accept a carbon tax if the government wasted the money on your silly ideas for expensive unnecessary renewable energy solutions.


Quote:
Sorry, but there are plenty enough technologies already out there that can easily suffice the average energy requirements without looking to your almighty government for savior.


Are you suggesting people switch to them without government intervention?


Quote:
The cheapest way is to let the free market take care of itself.


But it doesn't do that.


Quote:
Raising costs is in no way going to reduce the demand that is dictated to us by the economic climate we live in.


And you have the gall to suggest I educate myself. Think about what you are saying. With one breath you complain that prices are going to go up. But in the next you insist price has no influence on people's behaviour.


Quote:
You don't lower demand by raising the cost of something that is a necessity.


Yes you do. Especially if it is being wasted. Think about it Amadd.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 20th, 2010 at 8:30am

Quote:
See Amadd, you already know how to reduce your GHG emissions without silly expensive options like renewable energy sources. You don't need the government to tell you how to do it after all.

Yes FD, I learnt at a young age how to turn off a switch. Very clever, aren't I?  :D
Renewable energy sources may or may not be expensive to develop, and expensive for the corporations that will lose a share of the market, but they are by no means silly.
The word "renewable" sends shudders down the spine of companies that rely on consumerism for profits. Why would they want people creating their own fuel via the sun, the wind, or via some other means?


Quote:
That wasn't what I was referring to. You complain that a new tax will inevitably increase the overall tax burden, then turn around and say you will only accept this new tax if it increases the overall tax burden - you will only accept it if the government spends it on your schemes, rather than using the opportunity to reduce other taxes.


You're the one stating that by creating this new tax, it will automatically lower other taxes. I really have no reason to believe this and  I'm wondering where your reasoning lies there. Certainly not with historical data.
And yes, that's what I'm saying. I'd only be supportive of this new tax if the windfall were to be invested into producing real solutions, not a bandaid fix of forcing people to skimp on their energy requirements.


Quote:
sounds kind of idealistic to me.


Well believe it not, there are people out there who get a thrill out of creating something that will be beneficial to all humankind without focussing on how much money it might make for them.


Quote:
Now you are getting even more slippery. Your 'base' is now based on 'current circumstance'? But it still means something? I am telling you it doesn't exist because you can;t tell me what it is.


I'm basing it on our social requirement.
If we were a nation of cave dwellers who traded kangaroo pelts and hunted with spears, then obviously our energy requirements and our emissions would be far less.
But that's not us is it?
We are a vast modern nation which requires ample amounts of energy to keep our economy going.
No I can't tell you what our base requirement is to keep the status quo, or what the acceptable level is for a drop in quality of life. Somewhere around what it is now I'd guess.


Quote:
Of course you did. But you failed to make a point with this little anecdote. Perhaps you think it means something more, but can't put it into words.


The point was that you couldn't tell me what 100% means. "Business as usual"? What's that mean?
Also, my point is that even with advances in energy efficiencies, rising energy prices, more education...etc. between the period of 1990 - 2007, we were actually using more energy per capita. And that's not even considering the rise in population and our total emission output.
So, in fact, our base energy requirement has risen. Where will a new tax change this?


Quote:
So real that you can't tell us what it is? Is it a secret real  number?


Yeah, it's a secret. Can't tell you sorry, or you'd put a tax on it.
I think I've given you enough clues to work it out for yourself.


Quote:
So we are bound by an imaginary number that keeps changing in response to our attempts to not be bound by it?


If you don't want to be bound by it, then you'd better sharpen up that spear FD. Forget about shopping at the supermarket. Supermarkets require lighting, they require lots of trucks, people who breathe, etc. etc.
And don't bother going to work either, because ...etc. etc.


Quote:
Your silly schemes would enforce far more hardship.


And what silly schemes might they be? Harnessing the energy which is already out there and which produces little or no greenhouse gasses?


Quote:
Yes. Your idea is about government controlling the economy. Mine is about market forces deciding the best outcome. Your ideas is based on communist style solutions, and mine on capitalism.


No, mine is about giving back power to the people. Allowing people to produce their own power.
Yours is about government control via taxes.


Quote:
Are you suggesting people switch to them without government intervention?


We pay our governments to look after our best interests, not theirs.
Yes, I'm saying that it's totally realistic to be able to produce clean household energy requirements even with the technology that we have today.
Advance current technologies a bit further and you might find that there is enough excess to power a small car, or to grow hydro crops which you might choose to trade with your neighbors. And you might even choose to pedal your bike and sell your efforts to the grid, your supermarket, your workplace. Or even give it to your granny.

It wouldn't do well for consumerism would it?
But in the end, you need to be able to state where the energy is coming from. It doesn't come from taxes, it comes from an energy source of some kind. It seems to me that you're choosing the same old fossil fuel energy source and advocating that everybody should pay more than it's worth.





Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 20th, 2010 at 8:06pm
You missed this one Amadd. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part:

Are you suggesting people switch to renewables without any government intervention?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 21st, 2010 at 7:39am

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 8:06pm:
You missed this one Amadd. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part:

Are you suggesting people switch to renewables without any government intervention?


Not an oversight. There's a limit to how many characters I can type in a single post, so I skipped a couple of responses.

There's a difference between making renewables cheaper through research, development and the lowering of production costs, and simply hoping that they'll become a viable option through artificially raising the price of the non-preferred product - that's a pretty unimaginative intervention, any Bozo could think that one up.
It's a similar tact to that which most managements still use today in their vain attempts to increase profits: "Work harder and longer for less pay". But in the end, the increased profits come from innovations.


Quote:
Are you suggesting people switch to renewables without any government intervention encouragement?


No, I think that governments need to put the whip away and encourage more innovations. God knows, it will be none of those Bozos who invent anything of real value.





i




Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 21st, 2010 at 8:08am
So you complain that we already have the solutions we need, but pin all your hopes on new technology, while at the same time wanting to remove one of the key motivators for development of new technology? If you think all these inventors are hapopy to do it for free, why do they need a government handout to begin with?

Your 'solution' is looking more and more naive Amadd. Sooner or later you will have to face the reality that fossil fuels are simply cheaper. That's why we have been using them - not some absurd conspiracy from multinational corporations. That is the only issue that needs to be overcome.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 21st, 2010 at 9:42am
I don't think that you're being very honest of my opinions there. You are trying to twist and turn my comments.


Quote:
So you complain that we already have the solutions we need


We have enough to make a real impact on CO2 emmissions, but we should've been far more advanced by now.


Quote:
but pin all your hopes on new technology


New technologies will happen with or without you, me or our governments.
I don't need to pin any "hopes" on that. I know they will happen.


Quote:
while at the same time wanting to remove one of the key motivators for development of new technology?


Standover tactics never work in a positive way, they merely breed contempt. I hope that you will reassess your definition of the word "motivation".


Quote:
If you think all these inventors are hapopy to do it for free, why do they need a government handout to begin with?


You tell me. If people are so smart to begin with, then why do we need schools? If an athlete has natural ability, then why do they need to train?
If a musician is talented, then why do they need lessons?
And why do innovations need public (government) encouragement? It's simply the development of what is already there.


Quote:
Your 'solution' is looking more and more naive Amadd. Sooner or later you will have to face the reality that fossil fuels are simply cheaper. That's why we have been using them - not some absurd conspiracy from multinational corporations. That is the only issue that needs to be overcome.


Yes fossil fuels are far cheaper atm. They are a limited source that have been developed over many years (relatively). There's an infrastructure in place of research, development and production that has been honed to make them the energy source of reliance, and we do rely on them.

No I don't think that we have developed enough technology in order to power multiple trainloads of cargo from Adelaide to Darwin on a regular basis without requiring fossil fuels, but I think that you're being pretty naive to think that it can't be done.
Renewable energy is not a question of perpetual motion, unless you are taking into consideration that the Sun's (or God's if you like) energy will one day run out. I won't look that far ahead.
There is energy all over the place in the form of heat and gravity that can be harnessed. And it is being harnessed in some respects, but not very efficiently atm.
So why beat about the bush with bs taxes when the only real solution in order to advance, or even to keep our status quo, requires the development of existing methods and the development of new methods to harness the energy that is already out there?









Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 21st, 2010 at 8:27pm

Quote:
Standover tactics never work in a positive way


I was referring to your views on patent rights and other perks for inventors.


Quote:
I hope that you will reassess your definition of the word "motivation".


Money talks. Bullshit walks.


Quote:
And why do innovations need public (government) encouragement? It's simply the development of what is already there.


That is just the reality we face Amadd. Sure they might happen anyway without encouragement, but we would be behind by a century or two.


Quote:
I think that you're being pretty naive to think that it can't be done


Where have I said it can't be done? All I am arguing about is cost, not achievability. Your strategy (or the bits of it that work) can achieve the same thing. It would just cost twice as much.


Quote:
So why beat about the bush with bs taxes when the only real solution in order to advance, or even to keep our status quo, requires the development of existing methods and the development of new methods to harness the energy that is already out there?


Because of all the options that actually work, taxes are the best way to impliment the cheapest strategies for reducing GHG emissions, regardless of whether they are based on new technology, old technology, or simple common sense. It is not beating around the bush. It is a very direct and rapid method.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 21st, 2010 at 8:29pm
Just to be fair, I should let you know that you are up against things like this statement of consensus from economists regarding the cheapest ways to reduce GHG emissions:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 22nd, 2010 at 6:28am

Quote:
Just to be fair, I should let you know that you are up against things like this statement of consensus from economists regarding the cheapest ways to reduce GHG emissions:


;D That sounds like an oxymoron to me, because for every economist there's an equal and opposite economist.


Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 22nd, 2010 at 6:59am
So find me one economist who disagrees with this:


Quote:
The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Apr 22nd, 2010 at 8:24am

Quote:
So find me one economist who disagrees with this:


Find me an economist that doesn't state the obvious that a "revenue neutral" carbon tax is better than a trading scheme.
The question revolves around this "revenue neutral" idealism.
Like I stated, I'm fine with it if the revenue goes directly back into the development of cleaner alternatives. But even if governments were to be this transparent, the cleaner alternative that they'll force upon us will be nuclear power.
Not that I'm totally against nuclear power if it were to be a last resort, however, it takes the focus off of self-sufficiency, which I think should be the ultimate aim, not just an historical aim. It's a no brainer that the "solution" that you are really gunning for is nuclear power above self-sufficient alternatives.




Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Apr 22nd, 2010 at 9:20pm

Quote:
Find me an economist that doesn't state the obvious that a "revenue neutral" carbon tax is better than a trading scheme.


A trading scheme can also be revenue neutral. It will definitely be revenue neutral if the rights are grandfathered. This is not a good thing for the economy.


Quote:
But even if governments were to be this transparent, the cleaner alternative that they'll force upon us will be nuclear power.


Wouldn't it make more sense for the customer to pay for whatever power source it set up? Is your solution to start taxpayer funded subsidies for electricity? Why turn a simple thing like reducing GHG emissions into an enourmous tax and spend game for the electricity industry?


Quote:
It's a no brainer that the "solution" that you are really gunning for is nuclear power above self-sufficient alternatives.


Are you talking about me here?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by MRMILO57 on Nov 29th, 2010 at 5:27pm

Grendel wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 10:07pm:
i already pay enough tax thanks.



Well it looks like the greens are going backwards from this point, after the bloodbath in Victoria. l think it would be best if all of them cheer up and start to live life.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:17pm
Would that be the 'bloodbath' where they increased their take of the vote?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by muso on Dec 3rd, 2010 at 2:35pm

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 8:29pm:
Just to be fair, I should let you know that you are up against things like this statement of consensus from economists regarding the cheapest ways to reduce GHG emissions:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html


OK. I agree with that. It's probably the cheapest way, but not the most cost effective. What is comes down to is that a carbon tax is less easy to rort.

Just look at the European experience. What amazing reductions did they achieve?

As far as carbon reduction schemes are concerned, you get what you pay for.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by freediver on Dec 3rd, 2010 at 8:32pm
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me, but for different reasons?

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Amadd on Dec 3rd, 2010 at 11:23pm
Yeah well, when you're getting down to making decisions upon the least rortable, then we may as well all just give up and rort what we can whilst we are alive.

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by MRMILO57 on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:57am
Well tell me, why Was Bob Brown and is congregation at that Melbourne Hotel foyer, looking absolutely shattered, and crying their eyes out late election night in Victoria 2010?

One other if you can explaine to me, why did the greens have a closed congregation gathering in the foyer of that hotel?

Was someone scared of a rogue bullet?????






freediver wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:17pm:
Would that be the 'bloodbath' where they increased their take of the vote?


Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Jan on Jan 29th, 2011 at 10:57am
Theres lots of talk about taxes and GHGs but not a lot about what can be done to help the environment and the economy. The worst GHG is Methane, a fart tax maybe?

Her's your answer, HEMP, (no TCH) You can eat it, its a medical marvel, the oil can be used in cosmetics and food procuction, it's better and healthier than Soy, You can wear it, build with it, (in fact it is now thought that the stone used to build the pyramids were actually man-made stones made from hemp). Hemp mixed with lime and water makes a cement that when dry looks exactly like STONE

It can be made into a fuel for vehicles, Plastic to make just about anything from furniture to cars, it burns more efficiently and cleaner than coal (and can be used to fire power stations cleaner and cheaper). It's estimated it can be used in 25,000 products.

It's cheap to grow,, make a good profit for the growers, grows in any climate requires very little fertilizer, growing peas and plowing them in before seeding does the trick, and you can grow up to three crops a year depending on climate, Australia would have no problems there.

Plastic made from it breaks down easily without harming the enviroment it's even good for the soil.

Watch these short videos and decide for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_YP1U0GaUY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxlj6fgQ-ZU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxd64t6H3_4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AzbtWzwK8A&NR=1

So why is it illegal? Well look at the products it can produce quickly and cheaply.

What would the oil companies and all the other Multinationals that control our government do?

Yikes the pollies might lose a whole lot of "bonuses". The government wont consider it in order to protect the polluters.

But there it is folks environment saved, economy saved but it'll never happen because we sit on our arses and do nothing.

When I contacted the environmental minister several years ago I got the standard answer, "it was tried and the crops failed"

Wonder who the agriculturists were?




Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Jan on Feb 7th, 2011 at 6:16am
And here's another sensible proposal besides growing hemp ...

Stop deforestation and grow more trees, we are all carbon based, trees and plants as well, Trees breathe in Carbon and breath out oxygen, we breath in oxygen and breathe out carbon ... a marriage made in heaven.

Also WATER can be gathered from air ... even in the desert, and we have the technology to do just that ... but the information is rapidly disappearing from the internet ... even the pic and information about the working water from air structure that was built in Brisbane has disappeared ... Just after the foreign countries began negotiations to buy up our water utilities.

Fancy that!!!

C02 has nothing to do with climate change, and if we adopt sensible and renewable solutions we wouldn't have a reason to have a carbon tax.

But then the zionist corporations would miss out on buying up what rightfully belongs to us and impede their plans to globalize us ...

Now that would never do!!!  

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Jan on Feb 7th, 2011 at 7:14am
Well I decided to do another surf of the web and found these sites for Air to Water machines

Making water out of thin air ....

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/10/71898

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/machine_cranks.phpInfo .... http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/water-from-air.htm

http://www.airwater.com.au/p4.htm

http://www.konia.com.au/

With video  http://www.watermakerindia.com/projects.php

1 of 5 videos   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S837zQYKQMY&feature=related

And here's the fly in the ointment...
http://www.air2water.net/about.html

Air2Water LLC holds patent rights worldwide pertaining to the Air2Water water generation technology, including six U.S. patents and 37 patents in other countries containing a total of 156 claims. We have patents issued and pending in most industrialized nations covered through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) as well as European patents under the European Patent Treaty.

Australian products  http://www.airwater.com.au/awproducts.htm

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Lisa on Feb 11th, 2011 at 1:24am
C02 has nothing to do with climate change, and if we adopt sensible and renewable solutions we wouldn't have a reason to have a carbon tax.

But then the zionist corporations would miss out on buying up what rightfully belongs to us and impede their plans to globalize us ...

Now that would never do!!!

- Jan



??????????????????????????????

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Beertruk on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:06pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 1:24am:
C02 has nothing to do with climate change, and if we adopt sensible and renewable solutions we wouldn't have a reason to have a carbon tax.

But then the zionist corporations would miss out on buying up what rightfully belongs to us and impede their plans to globalize us ...

Now that would never do!!!

- Jan



??????????????????????????????


What 'Zionist Corporations'? Israel is only 15,000,000 people. I wouldnt have thought they would be taking over the world.

I am also against more taxes...also Mother Nature does not take cheques or cash.



Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Soren on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:29pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 1:24am:
C02 has nothing to do with climate change, and if we adopt sensible and renewable solutions we wouldn't have a reason to have a carbon tax.

But then the zionist corporations would miss out on buying up what rightfully belongs to us and impede their plans to globalize us ...

Now that would never do!!!

- Jan



??????????????????????????????



Jan!  Jaan!!


NOT happy, Jan!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2akt3P8ltLM

Title: Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 8th, 2011 at 12:31am

Amadd wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:00am:

Quote:
It is not a bandaid. It can achieve whatever reduction you want, from 0% to 100%.


So 0% is the extiguishment of life, and 100% is a total full-on wastage that is probably not attainable?
Where's the happy medium?

THAT IS THE ONE- AND ONLY!!- QUESTION MARKETS ARE GOOD AT FINDING THE ANSWER TO!  :o :o 8-) 8-) :o :o 8-) 8-) ;)

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2017. All Rights Reserved.