Australian Politics Forum - Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action' (Read 995 times)

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action' Reply #15 - Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:42am Whats wrong with forcing the people and industries that would use our atmosphere as an open sewer to pay for their actions? Its simple...polluters should always pay...no matter what that pollution is.
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action' Reply #16 - Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:56am Direct action is an expansion of corporate welfare. It has to be funded somehow. Who pays for it? We all do. It is just as much a tax on carbon as Labor's scheme except the mechanism by which we all pay is far less transparent.
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62415
Here
Gender: male

Re: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'
Reply #17 - Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:04am

adelcrow wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

Whats wrong with forcing the people and industries that would use our atmosphere as an open sewer to pay for their actions?
Its simple...polluters should always pay...no matter what that pollution is.

It was all explained by Tony when he was running around like chicken little - Whyalla will crumble and fall and the sky will come crashing down if we charge the polluters.

« Last Edit: Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:45am by Dnarever »

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'
Reply #18 - Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:07am

adelcrow wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

Indeed. Tax pollution and the polluters will reduce it. England taxed windows. People blocked them up. Amsterdam tax houses by the width of their street frontage. People built houses long and narrow. If pollution is taxed it will be reduced.

Taxing carbon emissions is sensible, although I favour a floating-price ETS. A properly-implemented ETS will automatically (by market) reduce in price when the economy is weak and increase in price when we can afford it. Interest rates would be more stable. No more kicking the mortgage holders and businesses with overdrafts whenever the economy needs to be reined in; an ETS would moderate the economy automatically and be more broadly based.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'
Reply #19 - Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:42am

60% of the proposed reductions in the Coalitions Direct Action policy will come from soil carbons.....

1. Soil carbons are NOT counted in the protocol.

2. The amount of reductions the Coalition claim they will achieve has been questioned by the CSIRO and other scientists.

3. Soil carbon has not been proven to work.

4. The price the Coalition have proposed for soil carbon has been rejected by farmers as inadequate.

Roll Eyes

Quote:

The conclusions of the CSIRO report are worth reporting at length:

When [soil carbon] stocks were followed through time, the majority of studies indicated that there was an actual decrease in the quantity of carbon stored in the soil. These seemingly contradictory results suggest that much of Australia's agricultural soils may still be responding to initial land clearing and that many management improvements are just slowing the rate of loss [soil carbon]... it may be extremely difficult to project these findings out into the future where the soil carbon condition is unknown.

In other words: the CSIRO's soil carbon trials actually showed a decrease in the amount of carbon stored in the soil! Not only this, but the report says it is "extremely difficult" to predict whether soil carbon farming practices will work in the future

.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

Google soil carbons and find out about this con for yourself!!!

Angry

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'
Reply #20 - Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:49am

The denialists are not even worth acknowledging these days as they are so much in the minority that no one takes them seriously anymore.
The question is...why direct inaction over the most effective form of discouraging polluting and encouraging clean, green sustainable alternatives...which is a simple tax on the polluters.

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page