Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 
Send Topic Print
Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM (Read 15602 times)
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9892
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #120 - Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm
 
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #121 - Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:25pm
 
Equitist wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:14pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...




It will also cost households far less than the current policy of the Libs...




Much, much less. In fact, I challenge the detractors outline a cheaper mechanism for reducing emissions.
Back to top
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 11:23am:
So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea nice person.&&
 
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #122 - Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm
 
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.




A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.
Back to top
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 11:23am:
So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea nice person.&&
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9892
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #123 - Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:56pm
 
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.




A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.


So, how are investments going now and how is the move away from petrol going arising from that, in lieu of the additional impost of the Fuel Tax?

You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2&cid=...

Let me provide a tip, there IS NO VIABLE SUBSTITUTION FOR OIL, IN TERMS OF MANY AREAS, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSPORT!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Foolosophy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #124 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 12:09am
 
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:56pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.




A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.


So, how are investments going now and how is the move away from petrol going arising from that, in lieu of the additional impost of the Fuel Tax?

You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2&cid=...

Let me provide a tip, there IS NO VIABLE SUBSTITUTION FOR OIL, IN TERMS OF MANY AREAS, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSPORT
!


This is not a tip - just standard fossil fuel industry propaganda.

You should become a lttle more familiar with the scientific and technological literature available. It is in the public record.

In fact the fossil fuel industry multi national corporations own most of the patents and control a lot of the technology in this area.

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



Posts: 20780
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #125 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:46am
 
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.




A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.



You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective.
Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9631
NSW
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #126 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:50am
 


Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:46am:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.




A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.



You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective.




If one factors in the billions of taxpayer-funded dollars injected into the coal and coal-fired-power industries to date, then renewables come out way in front in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as environmental responsibility and long-term economic sustainability...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20780
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #127 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 1:11pm
 
Renewables don't come out in front. They have to be made cost effective..

I am not aware of the billions of tax money invested in coal mines you talk about. If you factor in the tax paid by miners, transporters and users of coal based enrgy, the income is many times more than the outlay.
This is NOT the case with renewables.

Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #128 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 1:26pm
 
Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 1:11pm:
Renewables don't come out in front. They have to be made cost effective..

I am not aware of the billions of tax money invested in coal mines you talk about. If you factor in the tax paid by miners, transporters and users of coal based enrgy, the income is many times more than the outlay.
This is NOT the case with renewables.



Why? If the proposed renewable energy sector earns as much revenue, which is likely, they would pay as much tax.

I've never understood the argument that an industry is big, so it warrants tax breaks - sounds like porkbarrelling in the US Congress.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9892
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #129 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 2:00pm
 
Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:46am:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...


Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.




A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.



You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective.



Do you mean from where it was just after the turn of the century or where it is now?

One way, it's already more than tripled, the other way may take a short wait!


http://chart.apis.google.com/chartchtt=Coal,+Australia+price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||Feb-07|Aug-07|Feb-08|Aug-08|Feb-09|Aug-09|Feb-10|Aug-10|Feb-11|1:||1:|35.2|44.1|78.0|112.0|146.0|180.0&cht=lc&chd=t:26,24,26,28,28,29,31,31,31,34,38,39,38,42,47,51,51,73,66,68,73,89,100,88,83,60,51,44,44,42,34,35,36,40,41,40,38,39,44,46,54,52,52,56,56,55,53,50,53,54,57,66,74,70&chdl=($/mt)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0


Coal, Australian thermal coal Monthly Price
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=120
$25 Per tonne in May, 2003 - over $130 per tonne now.

Btw, if the charts remind you of something else, then look at the Crude Oil charts, around $10 a barrel early in this century and now around $105.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26855
I like fish
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #130 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 6:42pm
 
Quote:
There were very few Economists that Publicly said they saw the current GFC coming, before it started, as we have previously discussed.


You mean, as you previously insisted. They pretty much all saw it coming. You just weren't listening or couldn't understand. Or maybe you still confuse politicians with economists. That's what it means when the reserve bank pushes interest rate up artifically high. It means that mainstream economists see problems coming. Not only did they see it coming, but their actions before and after greatly reduced its impact. In any case, that is macroeconomics. A carbon tax is microeconomics at work and is even more well founded.

Quote:
Do you know of anyone who takes the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?


I do, when I buy a car, when I choose where to live etc. I already take expected future price increases into account.

Quote:
Do you take the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?
Has your use of Petrol gone down?
You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.


PN, this does not mean the tax has had no effect, as you claim. You need to get past the absurdly simplistic notion that there are only two possible outcomes - consumption goes up, or consumption goes down.

Quote:
Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits


Wrong again PN. Carbon habits and petrol consumption are not the same thing. In fact they are vastly different.
Back to top
 

"You can catch flies with Honey, but you can catch more honeys bein' fly" - Keegan Large.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9892
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #131 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 6:49pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 6:42pm:
Quote:
There were very few Economists that Publicly said they saw the current GFC coming, before it started, as we have previously discussed.


You mean, as you previously insisted. They pretty much all saw it coming. You just weren't listening or couldn't understand. Or maybe you still confuse politicians with economists. That's what it means when the reserve bank pushes interest rate up artifically high. It means that mainstream economists see problems coming. Not only did they see it coming, but their actions before and after greatly reduced its impact. In any case, that is macroeconomics. A carbon tax is microeconomics at work and is even more well founded.

Quote:
Do you know of anyone who takes the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?


I do, when I buy a car, when I choose where to live etc. I already take expected future price increases into account.

Quote:
Do you take the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?
Has your use of Petrol gone down?
You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.


PN, this does not mean the tax has had no effect, as you claim. You need to get past the absurdly simplistic notion that there are only two possible outcomes - consumption goes up, or consumption goes down.

Quote:
Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits


Wrong again PN. Carbon habits and petrol consumption are not the same thing. In fact they are vastly different.


FD,
I could go thru point by point, which would simply be a waste of my time, as your ideas are fixed and no amount of information will change your thoughts.

Suffice to say, you are WRONG!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26855
I like fish
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #132 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 6:58pm
 
Quote:
FD,
I could go thru point by point, which would simply be a waste of my time, as your ideas are fixed and no amount of information will change your thoughts.

Suffice to say, you are WRONG!


So you can't make a rational argument, but still think you are right anyway?
Back to top
 

"You can catch flies with Honey, but you can catch more honeys bein' fly" - Keegan Large.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #133 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:04pm
 
Simply reducing the billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry would make renewables viable. Fat chance of that as long as the Greenhouse Mafia control energy policy in this country  Undecided
Back to top
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 11:23am:
So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea nice person.&&
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8440
Perth
Gender: male
Re: Tim Flannery reveals AGW SCAM
Reply #134 - Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:20pm
 
I always wonder who was the first scientist to spruce this AGW scam before the rest of the scientific world jumped on board......If we are to believe the people who say AWG is a scam we must believe there is a conspiracy between the organizations who support AGW.....I would expect such a conspiracy would be highly improbable....The more plausible conclusion would be there is in fact a need to act on AGW!!!

Probability = Action.

Smiley

A good reputation is more valuable than money.
Publilius Syrus (~100 BC), Maxims
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 
Send Topic Print