muso wrote on Dec 8^th, 2009 at 11:45am:


No, you were calling to action ("so can we"). As if there was an easy parallel between France and us and copying the French was just a matter of wanting to something good, like loving your mum.

Every nation will have it's own unique issues to deal with, but what can be agreed upon is that they all need to address their individual issues with an earnest desire to contribute to improving their own carbon emmissions reductions as rapidly, and comprehensively, as those individual issues allow.

The Denialist argument of saying that nobody should do anything, until everybody does everything, is merely another stalling tactic devised by big polluters who are attempting to avoid being held responsible for their own Carbon emmissions for as long as they possibly can.

The time has come to demand these big polluters stop adding their self serving, sponsored, confusionalist lies, to the issue, in seeking to avoid addressing their already irresponsible emmission levels, and begin taking the steps they know they will eventually be forced to, and the sooner the better.

If you have emitted more CO2 or its eqivalent than you have permits then you will need to buy more permits, through whichever means possible. You might buy them on the domestic market, or an overseas market that is integrated with the Australian scheme. There are all sorts of other mechanisms available to acquire emissions permits, such as via the Clean Development Mechanism which creates emission credits in return for reducing emissions in developing economies (where it is theoretically cheaper to reduce emisisons). If, for whatever reason, you can't get the permits through any of these means, then you get fined. But you may as well just buy the permits because it's cheaper. If you can't afford either you will get bankrupted, just like if you can't pay any other type of debt.

(By the way, the amount of the fine serves as a cap on the carbon price, because if the permit price went higher than the fine, emitters would keep their permits and pay the fine, thus reducing the demand for permits and hence the price of permits.)

There are also mechanisms allowing emitters to borrow permits from future years, but there are very specific limits on this.

Yes, I think the same reductions can be achieved by a carbon tax. As to whether it can do so as efficiently as a cap and trade system, well that depends on how much faith you have in financial markets. Until November last year, I'd have said that emissions trading was definitely the way to go, but I have really had my eyes opened as to just how badly markets can get it wrong.

No one asked me, but I'll venture my opinion on the best way to reduce emissions anyway. Look to the economy that has done the most to reduce its emissions so far: it's clearly China. Why have they done so well? Becuase China has a command economy. Now we can either go that way voluntarily (which we won't), or wait until there's a billion Northern Hemisphere refugees on our doorstep and introduce war-time style "emergency" measures. Either way, the result is the same. Only a command economy can solve this problem.

So goodbye democracy.   It was a really good idea, and it was fun for a long time, but it never really worked for its victims in the colonised lands, and in the longer term, it didn't work for us either.

Paella wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 5:15pm:


Apart from that, I think that there is a lot more scope for manipulation under an emissions trading scheme. I think that a carbon tax is by far the fairer system. It's just a question of an annual review of the rate to keep us on track.

I made the same comment about democracy a long time ago. In order to do what has to be done, the Chinese autocratic system has a lot going for it.

Democracy may be seen as a luxury we can't afford, especially with populations being so easily manipulated.

locutius wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 5:07pm:



Glad you are convinced.

AGM is still crap. Carbon trading is a colossal con.

ANd your children's happiness lies elsewhere.

Great to see some posts from our old friend Locutius.

I think his point to Soren is that while denialists make claims of scientific backing for their position, they stridently try and misrepresent the work of scientists, whilst absolutely and invariably avoiding all the most relevant scientific opinions, instead choosing to champion the extremist posturing from psuedo-science as the more valid choice to make.

That is why refuted lies, and debunked myths never die in the topsy turvy denialist world, where up is down, and hot is cooling.

locutius wrote on Jan 7^th, 2010 at 6:37am:


Here's one for starters:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1262739041/0#0




I have a political agenda?

But nice Mr Monbiot, for example, doesn't?? Or Mr Rudd? Gore? The peer-review nobbling scientists don't?



Aha!! It's only the 'deniers' that have political agendas! Zzzzzz..... Just one more instance of the unthinking, reflex 'gotcha' political stupidity from the people who are pleased to call themselves 'progressive'. Their moral preening and vanity have no limit.

Are you a 'progressive'?