Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's (Read 46400 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 21842
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #30 - Apr 17th, 2010 at 8:59am
 
you are the one advocating ZERO emissions fd...  not me.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #31 - Apr 17th, 2010 at 9:46am
 
What makes you think that Grendel?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 21842
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #32 - Apr 17th, 2010 at 10:16am
 
My error if you are not...  but I thought you advocated no emissions.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #33 - 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.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 21842
Gender: male
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #34 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #35 - 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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2010 at 12:21pm by freediver »  

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5931
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #36 - 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!!  Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #37 - 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?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5931
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #38 - 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  Shocked

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.













Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #39 - 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.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5931
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #40 - 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

Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2010 at 10:02am by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5931
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #41 - 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.





Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2010 at 9:51am by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #42 - 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.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 5931
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #43 - 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?  Cheesy
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.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36954
I like fish
Re: a sensible proposal from the GREENS on GHG's
Reply #44 - 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?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print