http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-levy-has-failed-overseas/story-e6frg6xf-1226012259742

THE carbon tax promised by the Gillard government is unlikely to have a significant effect on either the economy or the use of energy.

But there is some concern that the transition to an emissions trading system in three to five years time could bring a dramatic jump in the carbon price.

The experience in both Europe and New Zealand shows that simply putting a price on carbon has had little influence on behaviour.

Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin said it had been established that the only carbon abatement in Europe had been the result of regulation and subsidies, which had boosted the use of solar and wind power.

"A carbon price is just a pure cost and gives you little incentive to avoid it unless you know what will happen in the future," he said.

He said a carbon tax was preferable to an emissions trading system, because it conferred greater certainty, but it was really only an interim step

The chief economist with the New Zealand consultancy Infometrics, Adolf Stroombergen, said the introduction of a carbon emissions trading system 18 months ago had brought some increase in energy prices but had little influence beyond that.

"It has added 3c a litre to the cost of petrol, but we'll probably see that go up 10c a litre over the coming week because of the Middle East. People have got used to prices going up and down," he said.

The Commonwealth Bank's chief New Zealand economist, Chris Tennant-Brown, said environmentalists would regard their scheme as "a bit of a disaster", with the change in price too small to generate change in behaviour.

If we have had a tax on carbon in England - which I'll be honest I had no idea we did - I can honestly say that none of my family, sister, parents, uncles, aunts etc have changed their behaviour one iota.

We still live exactly as before.

Just if a carbon tax was imposed on me. I would not change the way I live at all. I refuse to see why I should when others don't either.

Maqqa wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin said it had been established that the only carbon abatement in Europe had been the result of regulation and subsidies, which had boosted the use of solar and wind power. "A carbon price is just a pure cost and gives you little incentive to avoid it unless you know what will happen in the future," he said.

So us Abbott followers arent so dumb after all. But we knew that didnt we.

"Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin"

LMAO. Talk about BIAS.

I wonder if people do realize that no matter they do, nothing will change in their lifetime anyway?

What a load of old cobblers this whole climate change business is.

Bollox to it.

Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are.

My predominant argument against the carbon tax has always been that it affects the economy negatively while acheiving none of its stated goals. That makes it a truly pointless policy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

I wonder if people do realize that no matter they do, nothing will change in their lifetime anyway? What a load of old cobblers this whole climate change business is. Bollox to it.

Nice to see you thinking of your daughters and grandchildren there Andrei.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:23pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:01pm: I wonder if people do realize that no matter they do, nothing will change in their lifetime anyway? What a load of old cobblers this whole climate change business is. Bollox to it. Nice to see you thinking of your daughters and grandchildren there Andrei.

Whilst clearly self-centred, his attitude is no wrong. A carbon tax is 100% guaranteed to have zero effect on emissions. No country that has tried it has had any success whatseover. That argument alone is enough to through the carbon tax away. You might as well tax evaporation. It has more effect on global warming than CO2.

Please delete wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

"Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin" LMAO. Talk about BIAS.

Why? Because he says the tax won't work??

"Warwick McKibbin (born 21 April 1957 in Sydney) is an Australian Professor of Economics at the Australian National University who works across a wide range of areas in applied policy. He has published more than 200 scholarly articles and several books and is internationally known for his contribution to global economic modeling."

That sounds like he might know..He has about the same qualifications as Ross Garnaut..

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:37pm:

Please delete wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:00pm: "Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin" LMAO. Talk about BIAS. Why? Because he says the tax won't work?? "Warwick McKibbin (born 21 April 1957 in Sydney) is an Australian Professor of Economics at the Australian National University who works across a wide range of areas in applied policy. He has published more than 200 scholarly articles and several books and is internationally known for his contribution to global economic modeling." That sounds like he might know..He has about the same qualifications as Ross Garnaut..

So when was he anointed as "Australia's leading climate change economist"?

Most people wouldn't dare load someone up that way.

And I'm glad you mentioned that he is on a par with someone else ... which of course suggest he ISN'T "Australia's leading climate change economist".

allgoodfun wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:23pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:01pm: I wonder if people do realize that no matter they do, nothing will change in their lifetime anyway? What a load of old cobblers this whole climate change business is. Bollox to it. Nice to see you thinking of your daughters and grandchildren there Andrei. Whilst clearly self-centred, his attitude is no wrong. A carbon tax is 100% guaranteed to have zero effect on emissions. No country that has tried it has had any success whatseover. That argument alone is enough to through the carbon tax away. You might as well tax evaporation. It has more effect on global warming than CO2.

My attitude isn't self-centred - rather its just one that this is a whole big waste of time and as usual it will be those of us in the middle income bracket whacked the hardest.

Load of nonsense.

What will Abbotts plan achieve giving billions of dollars to the major polluters for nothing in return????????????????????????????????

skippy. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

What will Abbotts plan achieve giving billions of dollars to the major polluters for nothing in return????????????????????????????????

well since the carbon tax will acheive NOTHING, the bar isnt set that high, is it?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:37pm:

Please delete wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:00pm: "Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin" LMAO. Talk about BIAS. Why? Because he says the tax won't work?? "Warwick McKibbin (born 21 April 1957 in Sydney) is an Australian Professor of Economics at the Australian National University who works across a wide range of areas in applied policy. He has published more than 200 scholarly articles and several books and is internationally known for his contribution to global economic modeling." That sounds like he might know..He has about the same qualifications as Ross Garnaut..

gizmo, you can't be trusted... we've already sorted this out alright mate.

Don't make me have to tell you again OK! Good son!  8-) 8-) :-? ;D :D ;) :) :)

allgoodfun wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:23pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:01pm: I wonder if people do realize that no matter they do, nothing will change in their lifetime anyway? What a load of old cobblers this whole climate change business is. Bollox to it. Nice to see you thinking of your daughters and grandchildren there Andrei. Whilst clearly self-centred, his attitude is no wrong. A carbon tax is 100% guaranteed to have zero effect on emissions. No country that has tried it has had any success whatseover. That argument alone is enough to through the carbon tax away. You might as well tax evaporation. It has more effect on global warming than CO2.

"...closed system": bye bye!  ;) 8-) 8-)

Please delete wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:42pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:37pm: Please delete wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:00pm: "Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin" LMAO. Talk about BIAS. Why? Because he says the tax won't work?? "Warwick McKibbin (born 21 April 1957 in Sydney) is an Australian Professor of Economics at the Australian National University who works across a wide range of areas in applied policy. He has published more than 200 scholarly articles and several books and is internationally known for his contribution to global economic modeling." That sounds like he might know..He has about the same qualifications as Ross Garnaut.. So when was he anointed as "Australia's leading climate change economist"? Most people wouldn't dare load someone up that way. And I'm glad you mentioned that he is on a par with someone else ... which of course suggest he ISN'T "Australia's leading climate change economist".

You're kidding right? THAT'S your argument? this internationally known and renowed Professor is EQUAL best in the country and that isnt good enough?

progressiveslol wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are.

You don't understand markets at all!
Go on, point to a free one!

You can't, because governments engineer them to suit their purposes of providing goods and services to the people! They can re-engineer them too.... so take a long walk buddy!  :D :D ;D

I think you have to repeat year 11 economics dood! Do not pass GO, do not collect $200!!  :o :o

...lastly, hand over the-electronic-equivalent-of-all-your-cones cos you've had enough!!!!!  ;) ;D ;D ;D :o 8-) :'(

STOP CRYING GIRLFRIEND!  :D ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 5:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:03pm: Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are. You don't understand markets at all! Go on, point to a free one! You can't, because governments engineer them to suit their purposes of providing goods and services to the people! They can re-engineer them too.... so take a long walk buddy!  :D :D ;D I think you have to repeat year 11 economics dood! Do not pass GO, do not collect $200!!  :o :o ...lastly, hand over the-electronic-equivalent-of-all-your-cones cos you've had enough!!!!!  ;) ;D ;D ;D :o 8-) :'( STOP CRYING GIRLFRIEND!  :D ;) ;)

Free??? Free what? I cant see any reference to free.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

I wonder if people do realize that no matter they do, nothing will change in their lifetime anyway? What a load of old cobblers this whole climate change business is. Bollox to it.

GREED BREEDS BODYBAGS: HOW MANY DEAD AMERICANS ARE THERE NOW?

HOW MANY DEAD DOES JUSTICE EQUAL THESE DAYS IN AMERICA?????

HOW MANY DEAD DOES JUSTICE EQUAL ANYWHERE THESE DAYS AND PAST DAYS AND FUTURE DAYS!!!!

SMILE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS WON'T YOU PAL!  :) :)

progressiveslol wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:03pm: Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are. You don't understand markets at all! Go on, point to a free one! You can't, because governments engineer them to suit their purposes of providing goods and services to the people! They can re-engineer them too.... so take a long walk buddy!  :D :D ;D I think you have to repeat year 11 economics dood! Do not pass GO, do not collect $200!!  :o :o ...lastly, hand over the-electronic-equivalent-of-all-your-cones cos you've had enough!!!!!  ;) ;D ;D ;D :o 8-) :'( STOP CRYING GIRLFRIEND!  :D ;) ;) Free??? Free what? I cant see any reference to free.

SO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN FREE-MARKETS!

NOW I SIMPLY MAKE YOU TELL ME HOW ABBOTTS POLICIES MAKE THE MARKETS DO THE JOB HE WANTS THEM TOO!!!

DON'T RUSH WILL YA!  8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 5:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:03pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:03pm: Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are. You don't understand markets at all! Go on, point to a free one! You can't, because governments engineer them to suit their purposes of providing goods and services to the people! They can re-engineer them too.... so take a long walk buddy!  :D :D ;D I think you have to repeat year 11 economics dood! Do not pass GO, do not collect $200!!  :o :o ...lastly, hand over the-electronic-equivalent-of-all-your-cones cos you've had enough!!!!!  ;) ;D ;D ;D :o 8-) :'( STOP CRYING GIRLFRIEND!  :D ;) ;) Free??? Free what? I cant see any reference to free. SO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN FREE-MARKETS! NOW I SIMPLY MAKE YOU TELL ME HOW ABBOTTS POLICIES MAKE THE MARKETS DO THE JOB HE WANTS THEM TOO!!! DON'T RUSH WILL YA!  8-)

We have only established that you make up your own words in peoples responses.

allgoodfun wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

My predominant argument against the carbon tax has always been that it affects the economy negatively while acheiving none of its stated goals. That makes it a truly pointless policy.

YEH, okeley dokeley!

I don't think too many people would pay good money for advice like that!

 ;) ;)

progressiveslol wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:03pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:03pm: Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are. You don't understand markets at all! Go on, point to a free one! You can't, because governments engineer them to suit their purposes of providing goods and services to the people! They can re-engineer them too.... so take a long walk buddy!  :D :D ;D I think you have to repeat year 11 economics dood! Do not pass GO, do not collect $200!!  :o :o ...lastly, hand over the-electronic-equivalent-of-all-your-cones cos you've had enough!!!!!  ;) ;D ;D ;D :o 8-) :'( STOP CRYING GIRLFRIEND!  :D ;) ;) Free??? Free what? I cant see any reference to free. SO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN FREE-MARKETS! NOW I SIMPLY MAKE YOU TELL ME HOW ABBOTTS POLICIES MAKE THE MARKETS DO THE JOB HE WANTS THEM TOO!!! DON'T RUSH WILL YA!  8-) We have only established that you make up your own words in peoples responses.

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D

Man, I feel like I've just had a shot of pure ecstacy writing that!  ;) ;D :o :D

Keep in mind that these sorts of responses are those that the mythical moderators actually want. lots of posts, lots of noise, zero content.

allgoodfun wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

Keep in mind that these sorts of responses are those that the mythical moderators actually want. lots of posts, lots of noise, zero content.

I will.... I promise to overdose on this profound statement until my head becomes a cartoon like that guy off that show ya know!!!!

yeh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can feel it's profoundness already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 :o :o I should come here to talk to intellectuals like you more often!!

Yeh, man, plooooooooooooooise can I join the club that votes for the Liberal Party cos you guys know what's going on like!!!! ????  ::) ::) :-X

Maqqa wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-levy-has-failed-overseas/story-e6frg6xf-1226012259742 THE carbon tax promised by the Gillard government is unlikely to have a significant effect on either the economy or the use of energy. But there is some concern that the transition to an emissions trading system in three to five years time could bring a dramatic jump in the carbon price. The experience in both Europe and New Zealand shows that simply putting a price on carbon has had little influence on behaviour. Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin said it had been established that the only carbon abatement in Europe had been the result of regulation and subsidies, which had boosted the use of solar and wind power. "A carbon price is just a pure cost and gives you little incentive to avoid it unless you know what will happen in the future," he said. He said a carbon tax was preferable to an emissions trading system, because it conferred greater certainty, but it was really only an interim step The chief economist with the New Zealand consultancy Infometrics, Adolf Stroombergen, said the introduction of a carbon emissions trading system 18 months ago had brought some increase in energy prices but had little influence beyond that. "It has added 3c a litre to the cost of petrol, but we'll probably see that go up 10c a litre over the coming week because of the Middle East. People have got used to prices going up and down," he said. The Commonwealth Bank's chief New Zealand economist, Chris Tennant-Brown, said environmentalists would regard their scheme as "a bit of a disaster", with the change in price too small to generate change in behaviour.

Seems like a pretty silly analysis. Both a tax and a trading scheme can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% cut in emissions. How much it achieves depends on the price or allowable limits under a trading scheme. Whatever you set that at, it will achieve the emissions reductions at much lower cost than the alternatives promoted in the article. He might as well argue that speed limits don't work if you set tham at 200 km/h.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 6:52pm:

Seems like a pretty silly analysis. Both a tax and a trading scheme can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% cut in emissions. How much it achieves depends on the price or allowable limits under a trading scheme. Whatever you set that at, it will achieve the emissions reductions at much lower cost than the alternatives promoted in the article. He might as well argue that speed limits don't work if you set tham at 200 km/h.

The speed limit example does not stick if you look at the limits in Germany and Australia

The tax was never meant to anything near 100% so your example was only ever going to be hypothetical

The point is it does not work overseas in several countries so why implement it here?!

skippy. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

What will Abbotts plan achieve giving billions of dollars to the major polluters for nothing in return????????????????????????????????

We wouldn't need to do this if Rudd hadn't ratified Kyoto

Please delete wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

"Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin" LMAO. Talk about BIAS.

well ernie, and you call us sceptics.. for not believing Al Gore..lol

and we know he didnt have a boat to row dont we?

most people I have found all take home a pay packey they are all being paid by someone..

so they all have a bias..thats what I think

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 5:14pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:09pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:03pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 5:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:03pm: Abbotts policies allows for the market to drive green technology. Governments always fail and cost us more. They should get out of our way. Take labor for an example. What wasters of money they are. You don't understand markets at all! Go on, point to a free one! You can't, because governments engineer them to suit their purposes of providing goods and services to the people! They can re-engineer them too.... so take a long walk buddy!  :D :D ;D I think you have to repeat year 11 economics dood! Do not pass GO, do not collect $200!!  :o :o ...lastly, hand over the-electronic-equivalent-of-all-your-cones cos you've had enough!!!!!  ;) ;D ;D ;D :o 8-) :'( STOP CRYING GIRLFRIEND!  :D ;) ;) Free??? Free what? I cant see any reference to free. SO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN FREE-MARKETS! NOW I SIMPLY MAKE YOU TELL ME HOW ABBOTTS POLICIES MAKE THE MARKETS DO THE JOB HE WANTS THEM TOO!!! DON'T RUSH WILL YA!  8-) We have only established that you make up your own words in peoples responses. oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D oh noes YELLOW CHICKEN IS COMING TO GET US ALL, HIDE QUICKLY!  ;D Man, I feel like I've just had a shot of pure ecstacy writing that!  ;) ;D :o :D

deadhorse.. I am b egining to think really nasty things for you.. you ruin every thread..WHY??????????????????

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 6:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:20pm: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-levy-has-failed-overseas/story-e6frg6xf-1226012259742 THE carbon tax promised by the Gillard government is unlikely to have a significant effect on either the economy or the use of energy. But there is some concern that the transition to an emissions trading system in three to five years time could bring a dramatic jump in the carbon price. The experience in both Europe and New Zealand shows that simply putting a price on carbon has had little influence on behaviour. Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin said it had been established that the only carbon abatement in Europe had been the result of regulation and subsidies, which had boosted the use of solar and wind power. "A carbon price is just a pure cost and gives you little incentive to avoid it unless you know what will happen in the future," he said. He said a carbon tax was preferable to an emissions trading system, because it conferred greater certainty, but it was really only an interim step The chief economist with the New Zealand consultancy Infometrics, Adolf Stroombergen, said the introduction of a carbon emissions trading system 18 months ago had brought some increase in energy prices but had little influence beyond that. "It has added 3c a litre to the cost of petrol, but we'll probably see that go up 10c a litre over the coming week because of the Middle East. People have got used to prices going up and down," he said. The Commonwealth Bank's chief New Zealand economist, Chris Tennant-Brown, said environmentalists would regard their scheme as "a bit of a disaster", with the change in price too small to generate change in behaviour. Seems like a pretty silly analysis. Both a tax and a trading scheme can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% cut in emissions. How much it achieves depends on the price or allowable limits under a trading scheme. Whatever you set that at, it will achieve the emissions reductions at much lower cost than the alternatives promoted in the article. He might as well argue that speed limits don't work if you set tham at 200 km/h.

OK FD.. SO AFTER THIS CARBON TAX KICKS IN... WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT BACK ON USING...

I mean I am already cut to the bone... but you I am sure plan to go back to the push lawn mower..

get the old cycle out.. sell the cars..tell the wife no more dishwasher or dryer.. only one TV.. one computer.. if that eat more raw food cooking kills us.... or have you already done all that???.

so not sure what that leaves you to make all this difference you claim this TAX will make..I know you would have filled the pool in ages ago..lol.

I tell you what I cant think of a thing I can do I am not in a position to waste anything..and I am not alone

Maqqa wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:11pm:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 6:52pm: Seems like a pretty silly analysis. Both a tax and a trading scheme can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% cut in emissions. How much it achieves depends on the price or allowable limits under a trading scheme. Whatever you set that at, it will achieve the emissions reductions at much lower cost than the alternatives promoted in the article. He might as well argue that speed limits don't work if you set tham at 200 km/h. The speed limit example does not stick if you look at the limits in Germany and Australia The tax was never meant to anything near 100% so your example was only ever going to be hypothetical The point is it does not work overseas in several countries so why implement it here?!

But it does work Maqqa. You are just incapable of telling the difference. My example was not 100%. It was between 0% and 100%. It is not hypothetical.


Quote:

OK FD.. SO AFTER THIS CARBON TAX KICKS IN... WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT BACK ON USING...

Probably not much. I have already cut back on GHG emissions 'embedded' in my lifestyle and habbits in anticipation of higher prices. Eventually I will probably make further cuts. Air travel especially once it comes under regulation.


Quote:

I mean I am already cut to the bone... but you I am sure plan to go back to the push lawn mower.. get the old cycle out.. sell the cars..tell the wife no more dishwasher or dryer.. only one TV.. one computer.. if that eat more raw food cooking kills us.... or have you already done all that???.

No cods. The beauty of the pricing mechanisms is that it targets the bigger cuts that are easy to make but have less impact on lifestyle. BTW, I already use my bike to commute to work fairly often. Air conditioning is another huge one. I almost never use the ones in this house.


Quote:

I tell you what I cant think of a thing I can do I am not in a position to waste anything..and I am not alone

It's funny how many ideas people can come up with once there is money involved.

OK FD.. SO AFTER THIS CARBON TAX KICKS IN... WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT BACK ON USING...

Probably not much. I have already cut back on GHG emissions 'embedded' in my lifestyle and habbits in anticipation of higher prices. Eventually I will probably make further cuts. Air travel especially once it comes under regulation.

Quote:

I mean I am already cut to the bone... but you I am sure plan to go back to the push lawn mower..

get the old cycle out.. sell the cars..tell the wife no more dishwasher or dryer.. only one TV.. one computer.. if that eat more raw food cooking kills us.... or have you already done all that???.

No cods. The beauty of the pricing mechanisms is that it targets the bigger cuts that are easy to make but have less impact on lifestyle. BTW, I already use my bike to commute to work fairly often. Air conditioning is another huge one. I almost never use the ones in this house.

Quote:

I tell you what I cant think of a thing I can do I am not in a position to waste anything..and I am not alone

It's funny how many ideas people can come up with once there is money involved.  
Back to top      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




so if you arent going to cut back any more... what difference are you going to make to anything... isnt that the idea of this CARBON TAX... we are not doing enough... so they keep telling us..

this is the trouble they have implanted this idea that its BIG business that are the offenders.. if they hit the big guys with a straight out HUGE TAX there would be hell to pay.. the govt wouldnt last 5 minutes and they know it.. big business would sack left right and centre.

yet if we get all this malarki  its all about saving the planet.. well who would dare to complain..we all know if we dont do something now we will all be gone in 10 years..  and hasnt the govt said they will compensate... what ever that means..

well so you wont be saving anymore you have done as much as you can do... and so have I... and I can only guess there are plenty more out there saying the same thing.... some of us are just a bit too old to ride a bike..

yet you say once money is involved they will find ways of savings...lol..

proves our point really this is all about MONEY.. not cleaning the air.. and saving the planet..

you know most of out food is processed at some stage of its life to get to our tables..even if its just packaging...so everything will be affected..


you say you dont use your aircon... but you havent got rid of it...

same with the bike. you havent got rid of the car...and catch the bus when it rains.

what about the dishwasher clothes dryer. petrol lawnmower.. whipper snipper... you might not use them as often as you once did... but they are still there.. and the shops are still selling them hand over fist.

if the govt was genuine about saving the planet.. they would have stopped the manufacturing of these power/petrol driven machines.....

and said look get fit.. do it like your grandad did it..


look this isnt a nice thing to say but some members of my family do not own a house broom... they use the vacuum cleaner all the time..

I shake my head when I think any of the younger generation giving up anything!!! I hope I live to see it.

Quote:

so if you arent going to cut back any more... what difference are you going to make to anything...

I can't really say for certain. Some things may get really expensive. Also, long term I probably will. Finally, the carbon tax has already made a difference because many people have made adjustments already in anticipation of higher prices. For example, anyone buying a house in the last five years or so would have considered that the cost of commuting a long distance is going to go up significantly.


Quote:

isnt that the idea of this CARBON TAX... we are not doing enough... so they keep telling us..

I am, as far as I can tell so far. But it is still over a year away.


Quote:

this is the trouble they have implanted this idea that its BIG business that are the offenders..

The impact of the tax will not be limited to big business. One of the advantages is that it spreads equally through the entire economy.


Quote:

well so you wont be saving anymore you have done as much as you can do...

There is plenty more I could do, but that is a long way down the track when the price is higher. The first cuts are the easiest ones to make.


Quote:

and so have I... and I can only guess there are plenty more out there saying the same thing.... some of us are just a bit too old to ride a bike..

There are always lots of options. I see more and more people commuting is enourmous vehicles every day. So there are obviously plenty who haven't done much at all.


Quote:

yet you say once money is involved they will find ways of savings...lol.. proves our point really this is all about MONEY.. not cleaning the air.. and saving the planet..

False dichotomy. The tax equates the two.


Quote:

you say you dont use your aircon... but you havent got rid of it...

It does not emit GHG's just by sitting there in the wall. In fact getting rid of it would probably increase emissions.


Quote:

if the govt was genuine about saving the planet.. they would have stopped the manufacturing of these power/petrol driven machines.....

That sounds a bit extreme.


Quote:

look this isnt a nice thing to say but some members of my family do not own a house broom... they use the vacuum cleaner all the time.. I shake my head when I think any of the younger generation giving up anything!!! I hope I live to see it.

There you go cods - you've found some changes already that can be made. I hope you offer them lots of advice when they complain about their electricity bill.

Also cods, if you really have done all you can to reduce GHG emissions, chances are you will end up better off.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:52pm:

Also cods, if you really have done all you can to reduce GHG emissions, chances are you will end up better off.

yeah right... I should live so long.. they told us that when we got the $30 pw rise..we will see who is the best judge out of all this..if gillard hadnt been such a coward we should have had the details of this policy long ago...

btw fd now I have your attention how about doing something about those that persist  in spoiling the topics..there are a couple on here who are just hell bent on proving how stupid they are.. yet they get away with it..

There is no rule against being stupid.

Be careful what you wish for.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

But it does work Maqqa. You are just incapable of telling the difference. My example was not 100%. It was between 0% and 100%. It is not hypothetical.

It is hypothetical because there are NO instances or example you can offer in practical terms that will reduce carbon emissions by 99%

you can't even offer a solution that cuts emissions by 20% let alone 10% therefore it's ALL hypothetical

the only reality is the difference will be alot closer to 0%

I still think a tax like this is the wrong way to go about things...

Why not do it like they did for toxic fumes and soot??
Set a reasonable limit on emissions from the processes, tell the companies how it will measured.....and tell them they have x months to get compliant or face huge fines...

That way, the only ones punished will be the ones who aren't already doing everything possible to reduce their emissions...

Maqqa wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 9:19pm: But it does work Maqqa. You are just incapable of telling the difference. My example was not 100%. It was between 0% and 100%. It is not hypothetical. It is hypothetical because there are NO instances or example you can offer in practical terms that will reduce carbon emissions by 99% you can't even offer a solution that cuts emissions by 20% let alone 10% therefore it's ALL hypothetical the only reality is the difference will be alot closer to 0%

No mechanism has cut emissions by that much. Not due to any failure of the mechamisms, but only due to politics. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Maqqa. Do you think we are limited to what we have done before?

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:37pm:

Please delete wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 3:00pm: "Australia's leading climate change economist Warwick McKibbin" LMAO. Talk about BIAS. Why? Because he says the tax won't work?? "Warwick McKibbin (born 21 April 1957 in Sydney) is an Australian Professor of Economics at the Australian National University who works across a wide range of areas in applied policy. He has published more than 200 scholarly articles and several books and is internationally known for his contribution to global economic modeling." That sounds like he might know..He has about the same qualifications as Ross Garnaut..

did he predict the greatest financial meltdown in our history?..

that just happened to be staring him in the face[ in hindsight]

I cant quite grapple with what the economy has to do with being an EXPERT ON CLIMATE CHANGE to be honest..

more and more we are being quoted economists on this topic..

is it because the scientists are now past their use by date?

Quote:

did he predict the greatest financial meltdown in our history?..

Greater than the Great Depression?

Most economists predicted it, acted on it, and significantly reduced it's impact on our quality of life. That is why interest rates were so high for so long beforehand.

Can you explain why people expect economists to be able to predict the future?


Quote:

I cant quite grapple with what the economy has to do with being an EXPERT ON CLIMATE CHANGE to be honest..

Economics matters in considering the economic implications of our response. Do you think we should ignore the cost?

FD, it remains however true, that the ETS has failed in the EU to reduce emissions. and evrywhere else it has been tried it has had the same spectacular lack of results.

so why try a tax that we already know will fail?

Quote:

FD, it remains however true, that the ETS has failed in the EU to reduce emissions.

Duh. If you establish a trading scheme that keeps the emissions constant, they will remain constant, rather than reducing. This is not a failure. Rather, it is a good example of an ETS doing exactly what is expected of it.

Does a 100 km/h zone fail if it does not keep speeds below 60 km/h?

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:43pm:

No mechanism has cut emissions by that much. Not due to any failure of the mechamisms, but only due to politics. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Maqqa. Do you think we are limited to what we have done before?

since no mechanism to get close to it therefore discussing it is simply a hypothesis

its like talking about man traveling at the speed of light

in theory you can do it but in reality there are no mechanism to allow you to do it.

I am driving at the point that by giving a range of up to 100% without qualification that there is no mechanism to achieve it suggests that the government's policies are capable - NOT BY A LONG SHOT

No Maqqa it is not like that. It is quite easy to achieve.


Quote:

I am driving at the point that by giving a range of up to 100% without qualification that there is no mechanism to achieve it

But there is a quite simple mechanism. Taxes have been used in the past to achieve a 100% reduction.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

Quote: FD, it remains however true, that the ETS has failed in the EU to reduce emissions. Duh. If you establish a trading scheme that keeps the emissions constant, they will remain constant, rather than reducing. This is not a failure. Rather, it is a good example of an ETS doing exactly what is expected of it. Does a 100 km/h zone fail if it does not keep speeds below 60 km/h?

Dont be a moron FD. the EU itselfs says that the ETS has FAILED in its stated targets regarding emissions. I know that you LIVE for the pedantic splitting of hairs but the EU itself has made that determination - a significantly more credible voice than yours.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:47am:

No Maqqa it is not like that. It is quite easy to achieve. Quote: I am driving at the point that by giving a range of up to 100% without qualification that there is no mechanism to achieve it But there is a quite simple mechanism. Taxes have been used in the past to achieve a 100% reduction.

what???????????????

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:54am:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:44am: Quote: FD, it remains however true, that the ETS has failed in the EU to reduce emissions. Duh. If you establish a trading scheme that keeps the emissions constant, they will remain constant, rather than reducing. This is not a failure. Rather, it is a good example of an ETS doing exactly what is expected of it. Does a 100 km/h zone fail if it does not keep speeds below 60 km/h? Dont be a moron FD. the EU itselfs says that the ETS has FAILED in its stated targets regarding emissions. I know that you LIVE for the pedantic splitting of hairs but the EU itself has made that determination - a significantly more credible voice than yours.

OK then longy, give me the numbers.

can't really say for certain. Some things may get really expensive. Also, long term I probably will. Finally, the carbon tax has already made a difference because many people have made adjustments already in anticipation of higher prices. For example, anyone buying a house in the last five years or so would have considered that the cost of commuting a long distance is going to go up significantly.




x



doesnt matter how many arguments you come with for.. there are as many against.. as you say.... above.. people are now looking at the distance from where they work... I am thinking people that live in Wollongong and work in Sydney some during the hours when there is not public transport..or even in the outer burbs of Sydney...

as it is.. to move closer to place of work is also dearer..and the way Sydney is growing its ugliness and dysfunctional roads would mean more people more disaster..if they think people are going to go to and from work by bicycle.. and shop at the same time I think they are in for a rude shock..

so where does that leave the govt who are at the end of the day... demanding we find better way of getting by without power and petrol..

you seem to think its easy for people to move and live closer to their place of work..you must have a very good life.. thats all I can say.

you seem to have a great insight into what people are doing already... in which case we must have already made a significant difference to out 1.5% emmissions..so thats good news..

but like you I have cut back as far as I beleive I am able..so where does that leave us when the CARBON TAX increases everything beyond.. well at least my ability to pay for it.

Quote:

as it is.. to move closer to place of work is also dearer..and the way Sydney is growing its ugliness and dysfunctional roads would mean more people more disaster..

So living closer to work would make congestion worse?


Quote:

you seem to think its easy for people to move and live closer to their place of work..

No. I think there are a lot of tough decisions to be made. And the best way to go about it is with a carbon tax.


Quote:

so where does that leave the govt who are at the end of the day... demanding we find better way of getting by without power and petrol..

No. It leaves them with higher petrol prices, not demands.


Quote:

but like you I have cut back as far as I beleive I am able..so where does that leave us when the CARBON TAX increases everything beyond.. well at least my ability to pay for it.

I think it will leave you better off.

you say you dont use your aircon... but you havent got rid of it...

It does not emit GHG's just by sitting there in the wall. In fact getting rid of it would probably increase emissions.




THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS.... YOU CAN TURN IT ON AT ANY TIME AND MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR YOURSELF  " ITS DAMN HOT."

if the govt was genuine about saving the planet.. they would have stopped the manufacturing of these power/petrol driven machines.....

That sounds a bit extreme.



YET YOU DONT THINK ITS EXTREME THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO LIVE CLOSER TO THEIR WORK EVEN THOUGH THE COST IS HORENDOUS..AND QUALITY OF LIFE IS LOUSY..



if this was as big a deal as you keep promoting then the govt should make some EXTREME decisions..and not just leave it up to the poor people to have to choose what to do without..


I am all for GOVTS leading by example.

and that means booby giving up his plane... and rowing across the bite.. do him bloody good.. well I would allow a balloon

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:54am: freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:44am: Quote: FD, it remains however true, that the ETS has failed in the EU to reduce emissions. Duh. If you establish a trading scheme that keeps the emissions constant, they will remain constant, rather than reducing. This is not a failure. Rather, it is a good example of an ETS doing exactly what is expected of it. Does a 100 km/h zone fail if it does not keep speeds below 60 km/h? Dont be a moron FD. the EU itselfs says that the ETS has FAILED in its stated targets regarding emissions. I know that you LIVE for the pedantic splitting of hairs but the EU itself has made that determination - a significantly more credible voice than yours. OK then longy, give me the numbers.

Look them up yourself. the report came out earlier this year. After all if the ETS was such a success dont you think Gillard would be trumpeting it? Dont you think that with the major argument against it being that it doesnt work that she would trot out all the examples of success to counter it? Well she has! NONE. carbon taxes and ETS dont work. it is an idiotic idea in the first place. using a market-based system to counter a market-based problem was always going to be an expensive exercise in failure.

How did we reduce the massive air pollution problem predominatly from cars in the 70s? a tax? no. regulation. in australia after 1976 you simply couldnt buy cars that didnt pass certain limits. and it has become more stringent ever since. REGULATION and penalty is the only system that has ever worked in such matters.

Quote:

THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS.... YOU CAN TURN IT ON AT ANY TIME AND MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR YOURSELF  " ITS DAMN HOT."

Not sure what you are trying to say cods. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?


Quote:

YET YOU DONT THINK ITS EXTREME THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO

No-one ios being forced to do anything. This is the big advantage of a tax.

Quote:

After all if the ETS was such a success dont you think Gillard would be trumpeting it?

By trumpeting, do you mean promising you will give us one?

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:47am: No Maqqa it is not like that. It is quite easy to achieve. Quote: I am driving at the point that by giving a range of up to 100% without qualification that there is no mechanism to achieve it But there is a quite simple mechanism. Taxes have been used in the past to achieve a 100% reduction. what???????????????

EXACTLY what I said when I read it!

Can any name a tax system in the world that has achieve 100% in reduction or change in habits

In singapore they hang you for importing drugs and has that "death tax" reduced importation by 100%

I hear they have a few Aussies in Bali for the same thing

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

Quote: After all if the ETS was such a success dont you think Gillard would be trumpeting it? By trumpeting, do you mean promising you will give us one?

You truly are obtuse at times and lately, all of the time. getting support for the carbon tax would be breathtakingly easy. just show us all the examples of how it works overseas. but there ARE no examples. the EU is now deciding to move to level 2 of their plan because their ETS has failed to have any impact on emissions whatsoever. not one iota.

so find us some examples of success - if you can.

Quote:

Can any name a tax system in the world that has achieve 100% in reduction or change in habits

A tax was used to achieve a 100% reduction in the use of white phosphorous in match sticks. A tax can easily achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction. I am still not sure why this is so hard to understand.


Quote:

the EU is now deciding to move to level 2 of their plan

Which is?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

Quote: Can any name a tax system in the world that has achieve 100% in reduction or change in habits A tax was used to achieve a 100% reduction in the use of white phosphorous in match sticks. A tax can easily achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction. I am still not sure why this is so hard to understand. [quote]the EU is now deciding to move to level 2 of their plan

Which is?[/quote]


that was REGULATION - not tax. seriously, do you know the difference between BANNING something and taxing it???

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

Quote: Can any name a tax system in the world that has achieve 100% in reduction or change in habits A tax was used to achieve a 100% reduction in the use of white phosphorous in match sticks. A tax can easily achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction. I am still not sure why this is so hard to understand.

we are talking about 100% carbon reduction in every thing that man uses

so using a match stick example is irrelevant

What are the Coalition promising???

Scientists question Coalition's climate change policy

JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: We're going to have a system where they can get a new stream of income through carbon credits, through things like soil carbon.

STEVE CANNANE: But the Gillard Government doesn't count soil carbon in its targets because it's not Kyoto compliant.

The Coalition does count soil carbon. They're banking on it to deliver 60 per cent of their targets, up to 85 million tonnes in the year 2020.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres.

Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares.

But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.

But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

GREG HUNT: Well there is a debate, and what we're seeing is that people such as Christine Jones, probably the pre-eminent soil carbon scientist in Australia and one of the world's leading soil carbon scientists, has a very different view. Her view is that Australia can capture an extraordinary part of its overall emissions, far greater than we've proposed. We've been very conservative in our estimates of what Australia as a whole through incentives to farmers could absorb.

STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO does not take into consideration the field work of Dr Christine Jones because it's yet to be peer reviewed.

Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target.

PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press.

CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished.

philperth2010 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

What are the Coalition promising??? Scientists question Coalition's climate change policy JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: We're going to have a system where they can get a new stream of income through carbon credits, through things like soil carbon. STEVE CANNANE: But the Gillard Government doesn't count soil carbon in its targets because it's not Kyoto compliant. The Coalition does count soil carbon. They're banking on it to deliver 60 per cent of their targets, up to 85 million tonnes in the year 2020. STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres. Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares. But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia. But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures. GREG HUNT: Well there is a debate, and what we're seeing is that people such as Christine Jones, probably the pre-eminent soil carbon scientist in Australia and one of the world's leading soil carbon scientists, has a very different view. Her view is that Australia can capture an extraordinary part of its overall emissions, far greater than we've proposed. We've been very conservative in our estimates of what Australia as a whole through incentives to farmers could absorb. STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO does not take into consideration the field work of Dr Christine Jones because it's yet to be peer reviewed. Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target. PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

REASON

If Rudd hadn't ratified Kyoto then we would not be in this mess

Any solution to fix Rudd's mess will be ineffective at best and damaging to the Aust economy at worse eg Carbon Tax

So instead of focusing on which side is more effective we should be looking at

(1) Punishing the party that created this mess - LABOR & Greens

(2) Vote out the Party that will do maximum damage to the economy - LABOR

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press. CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished.

The research is not peer reviewed and therefore cannot be considered by an official report.....However as soil carbon is not officially counted towards targets I fail to see how this is a credible policy from the opposition!!!

philperth2010 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 11:49am: while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press. CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished. The research is not peer reviewed and therefore cannot be considered by an official report.....However as soil carbon is not officially counted towards targets I fail to see how this is a credible policy from the opposition!!!

we've seen how the peer review system has been undermined of recent days. But just because something has not been peer-reviewed does not automatically exclude its value as this has been. And given that it is significantly different from CSIRO's convenient position that is also interesting.

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 11:49am: while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press. CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished. The research is not peer reviewed and therefore cannot be considered by an official report.....However as soil carbon is not officially counted towards targets I fail to see how this is a credible policy from the opposition!!! we've seen how the peer review system has been undermined of recent days. But just because something has not been peer-reviewed does not automatically exclude its value as this has been. And given that it is significantly different from CSIRO's convenient position that is also interesting.

Yes it does.....it cannot be considered in an official report if it has not been peer reviewed.....It is up to the author to submit there research for peer review.....It is peer review that exposes flaws in the data.....Without analysis the research is still a theory!!!

This still does not answer the fact that soil carbon is not counted towards emission targets!!!

philperth2010 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:19pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 11:49am: while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press. CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished. The research is not peer reviewed and therefore cannot be considered by an official report.....However as soil carbon is not officially counted towards targets I fail to see how this is a credible policy from the opposition!!! we've seen how the peer review system has been undermined of recent days. But just because something has not been peer-reviewed does not automatically exclude its value as this has been. And given that it is significantly different from CSIRO's convenient position that is also interesting. Yes it does.....it cannot be considered in an official report if it has not been peer reviewed.....It is up to the author to submit there research for peer review.....It is peer review that exposes flaws in the data.....Without analysis the research is still a theory!!! This still does not answer the fact that soil carbon is not counted towards emission targets!!!

that is only relevant if you are seeking a target rather than a solution. I thought this whole CO2 hysteria was about SOLUTIONS??? Or am I wrong somehow?

Maqqa wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:41am:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 11:27am: Quote: Can any name a tax system in the world that has achieve 100% in reduction or change in habits A tax was used to achieve a 100% reduction in the use of white phosphorous in match sticks. A tax can easily achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction. I am still not sure why this is so hard to understand. we are talking about 100% carbon reduction in every thing that man uses so using a match stick example is irrelevant

You may be. I was talking about anywhere between 0% and 100%. It is simple enough to understand.

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press. CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished.

;) ;)

philperth2010 wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 11:49am: while not denying the value of peer-review, to utterly exclude the work of one of the top scientists in the field that is signifcantly at odds to CSIRO's position is hardly a credible position to take. See this is what happens so often in this whole carbon debate. the hysterics ask 'where are the scientists' and son as they step up, their opinions are either riduculed or denied press. CSIRO has become increasingly politicised over the last 10-20 years and their value as an independent scientific organisation greatly diminished. The research is not peer reviewed and therefore cannot be considered by an official report.....However as soil carbon is not officially counted towards targets I fail to see how this is a credible policy from the opposition!!!

oh, yeh..... Greg Hunt anticipates like a mad man... vote for him!!!!

C'mon Tony Abbott: you don't want to throw it all away because of a freak like Greg Hunt do ya!??!   ::) ::)