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
This person is our finance minister (Read 10962 times)
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 15932
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #15 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 6:26pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 6:18pm:
Sorry Maqqa. Given your inability to understand a simple statement from Flannery I am not going to take your word for it.

Quote 'them'.



I wonder - who is this Tim Flannery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Professor Tim Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist.



hardly unbiased views
Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35538
I like fish
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #16 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 6:49pm
 
Before we get to his alleged bias, lets first address whether you can comprehend a simple statement he made. If you fail that I don't see much point in debating more subtle concepts like bias with you.

Or we could address the 'admission' that the EU carbon taxes made no difference.
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
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #17 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:20pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:58pm:
[quote author=astro_surf link=1302418527/0#5 date=1302421171]

and pigs will fly. you can bet big time that households will NOT be compensated in full and frankly that woudl defeat the purpose anyhow. carbon schemes are already in place in the EU and they already admit they have changed emissions by 0%.


A. They have reduced emissions in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme#Overall_emis...)

B. The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.
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
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35538
I like fish
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #18 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:25pm
 
Quote:
The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.


You have that backwards. It is exactly about reducing emissions the cheapest way possible, even if that means simply being less wasteful rather than huge investments.
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
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48948
Gender: male
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #19 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:26pm
 
astro_surf wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:20pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:58pm:
[quote author=astro_surf link=1302418527/0#5 date=1302421171]

and pigs will fly. you can bet big time that households will NOT be compensated in full and frankly that woudl defeat the purpose anyhow. carbon schemes are already in place in the EU and they already admit they have changed emissions by 0%.


A. They have reduced emissions in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme#Overall_emis...)

B. The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.


your arguments are idiotic.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57530
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #20 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm
 
In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years
While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that:

•Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt.
So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling.

That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures.

And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions.

That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears.

This leaves us with two realistic and supporting options: adaptation and research. Because it seems the world is hoping for a miracle cure which will arrest CO2 emissions.  Over the timeframe Flannery posits – 1000 years – I’m pretty confident that human society will find a way of producing zero emission energy cheaply, efficiently and plentifully. Compare the world now to the world in 1011 AD and there have been stark changes that no one in 1011 AD could have predicted (this is well before Nostradamus was born).

Let’s be clear: the carbon ta a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).
[highlight]Let’s be clear
Global emissions trading schemes

The Government also tries to argue that we are following rather than leading the world on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Helpfully the Climate Change Department provides a list of the various schemes around the world. There are 30 countries using the EU scheme, then a Swiss ETS, NZ ETS, Japanese ETS, Korean trial ETS and various ones in the United States that are already falling apart. But treating the EU countries as if they have separate ETSs is disingenuous as the countries of the EU do not have individual country targets for emissions reductions – instead they have a collective target which is hardly challenging compared with what Australia is being asked to achieve. In reality, most schemes are ineffective and have just resulted in windfall gains to some successful rent seekers and traders.

When the government tells us that it has a market system – don’t forget that it is a market that exists only because of Government decree. A carbon trading scheme has never, and will never, exist except by government fiat. Most markets in the world exist despite government regulation – they self form to allow a mutual gain from trade and do not require government regulation to create a market (except for the enforcement of property rights).




Let’s be clear: the carbon tax a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 57530
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #21 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 6:18pm:
Sorry Maqqa. Given your inability to understand a simple statement from Flannery I am not going to take your word for it.

Quote 'them'.




Tim Flannery..lol.

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #22 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:40pm
 


Yo Cods!

To be clear, could you kindly tidy up this post - and include sources, quotation marks, etc., ta!?

Hint: there is a ... button to be found at the top right hand corner of your post.

cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm:
In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years
While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that:

•Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt.
So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling.

That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures.

And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions.

That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears.

This leaves us with two realistic and supporting options: adaptation and research. Because it seems the world is hoping for a miracle cure which will arrest CO2 emissions.  Over the timeframe Flannery posits – 1000 years – I’m pretty confident that human society will find a way of producing zero emission energy cheaply, efficiently and plentifully. Compare the world now to the world in 1011 AD and there have been stark changes that no one in 1011 AD could have predicted (this is well before Nostradamus was born).

Let’s be clear: the carbon ta a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).
[highlight]Let’s be clear
Global emissions trading schemes

The Government also tries to argue that we are following rather than leading the world on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Helpfully the Climate Change Department provides a list of the various schemes around the world. There are 30 countries using the EU scheme, then a Swiss ETS, NZ ETS, Japanese ETS, Korean trial ETS and various ones in the United States that are already falling apart. But treating the EU countries as if they have separate ETSs is disingenuous as the countries of the EU do not have individual country targets for emissions reductions – instead they have a collective target which is hardly challenging compared with what Australia is being asked to achieve. In reality, most schemes are ineffective and have just resulted in windfall gains to some successful rent seekers and traders.

When the government tells us that it has a market system – don’t forget that it is a market that exists only because of Government decree. A carbon trading scheme has never, and will never, exist except by government fiat. Most markets in the world exist despite government regulation – they self form to allow a mutual gain from trade and do not require government regulation to create a market (except for the enforcement of property rights).




Let’s be clear: the carbon tax a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).


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
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #23 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:40pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:25pm:
Quote:
The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.


You have that backwards. It is exactly about reducing emissions the cheapest way possible, even if that means simply being less wasteful rather than huge investments.


It's only cheap because it puts more expensive renewable energy sources on a more even playing field with fossil fuels, it is the investment in large scale energy production that will reduce emissions, not punishing households by increasing their costs; hence the plans for household compensation.
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
 
buzzanddidj
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11279
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #24 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:46pm
 
salad in wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 4:55pm:
Quote:
Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11

PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm


If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year.

Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce.






EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce



And Penny Wong is CORRECT !
Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes

They are penalties on
heavy, polluting industries

Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs

Contrary to all the spin,  
NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document
- as is the case with GST

And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of
COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS


MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay
NO carbon tax
- and on the introduction of the ETS will
SELL it's credits
to coal fired electricity producers

Who will YOU invest with ?






Back to top
 

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'


- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #25 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:47pm
 
cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm:
if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years


And if we don't cut emissions then temperatures continue to climb and climb for considerably longer than a thousand years, a subtle nuance in what Flannery was actually saying that went way over the head of the deniers. The point of reducing emissions isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop temperatures from going up.
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
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57530
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #26 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:56pm
 
astro_surf wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:47pm:
cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm:
if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years


And if we don't cut emissions then temperatures continue to climb and climb for considerably longer than a thousand years, a subtle nuance in what Flannery was actually saying that went way over the head of the deniers. The point of reducing emissions isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop temperatures from going up.




tell me astro if we can stop them going UP why cant we bring them down?.


you see usually when something gets hot like a bushfire it takes a long long time for it to cool down long after the flame has gone out that fire is still red hot.

so emmissions all round the world stop tomorrow... how long before the temperature stops rising??

you do have  a guarantee on the timing of course?

the brains behind all this would have all that data I am sure.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #27 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:11pm
 
cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:56pm:
astro_surf wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:47pm:
[quote author=cods link=1302418527/15#20 date=1302428040]

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years


And if we don't cut emissions then temperatures continue to climb and climb for considerably longer than a thousand years, a subtle nuance in what Flannery was actually saying that went way over the head of the deniers. The point of reducing emissions isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop temperatures from going up.




Quote:
tell me astro if we can stop them going UP why cant we bring them down?.


We can... In several hundred to a thousand years, which is exactly the point Flannery was making.


Quote:
you see usually when something gets hot like a bushfire it takes a long long time for it to cool down long after the flame has gone out that fire is still red hot.


Yeah... OK... You don't get the physics behind AGW at all.

Quote:
so emmissions all round the world stop tomorrow... how long before the temperature stops rising??


As long as it takes for the planet to absorb the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, a geological process that can take up to a thousand years to complete.

Quote:
you do have  a guarantee on the timing of course?

the brains behind all this would have all that data I am sure.


Yes, the data on the timescale that the carbon cycle works is widely available, try picking up a first year geology textbook for starters, or an encyclopedia even:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
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
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35538
I like fish
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #28 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:28pm
 
Quote:
In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years


Cods are you really still this confused about what Flannery said?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301394442

Quote:
It's only cheap because it puts more expensive renewable energy sources on a more even playing field with fossil fuels


Not true. It is cheap because it puts all options on a level playing field. This means that the options that are actually cheaper will be implimented first. That is, people will reduce consumption of energy intensive products. Renewable energy is a long way down the track because it is one of the more expensive options.

Quote:
tell me astro if we can stop them going UP why cant we bring them down?.


We can, but given all the whinging from the denialist camp about merely slowing the rate of increase, why would we want to take it even further?
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
 
nichy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female
Re: This person is our finance minister
Reply #29 - Apr 10th, 2011 at 10:08pm
 
So,  Is Penny wight or is she WONG ???? 







Back to top
 

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print