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?
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.