Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
From the IPCC to dinosaurs climate
Extreme weather events around the globe: manifestations of runaway climate change
Dr Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate science
Just before 2 a.m. on February 19, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.
Some examples of the “rationale” in the background of this vote:
Representative Luetkemeyer (Missouri):
“Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”
US Congress Representative John Shimkus (Illinois):
“Today we have about 388 parts per million [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere.”... “I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” … “The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
The Representative is correct in pointing to the wealth of fauna and flora in the age of the dinosaurs.
Figure 1. The difference between atmospheric conditions in terms of CO2 levels (parts per million), greenhouse Earth conditions and glacial eras. (After Royer et al., 2004).
The only error he makes is in overlooking the fact that humans, as a part of nature, are the product of environment changes associated with cooling of the Earth since the mid-Pliocene about 3 million years ago, followed by the glacial-interglacial eras during which H. sapiens and civilization arose. The other error is that rapid shifts between climate states result in mass extinctions.
But then it’s not clear how many of the new House majority accept Darwinian evolution.
Representative Joe Barton (Texas), who is competing for the position of chairman of the Congress Energy and commerce Committee states:
“Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about.”
Never mind that in nature winds move air from cold high pressure to warm low pressure zones, such as in onshore sea breeze or the polar vortices.
E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, argued that because the
"biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God, humankind couldn't possibly be affecting the climate”.
Some are happy with ongoing carbon emissions, among other as “plant food”, in what some of them regard as a “carbon starved world”.
A new kind of “science” is being invented, free of data and unrelated to the basic laws of physics and chemistry.
Just in case those who reject the science may not be correct, at least Congress continues to support space research programs. In search of habitable planets when Earth is no longer suitable for human life?
Defenders of the IPCC are in retreat. Representative Waxman (California) states:
“The US contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without US support.”
In Noam Chomsky’s view:
“All of this combines the latest election a couple of days ago” … “You could almost interpret it (the Republicans victory in the Congress elections) a kind of a death knell for the species.”
How consistent is Noam Chomsky’s prediction with climate science projections?
With rising global and in particular polar temperatures
Figure 2. Arctic warming 1981-2009 NASA/AFP
and the acceleration of extreme weather events, predicted by the IPCC,the rise in energy levels of the atmosphere-ocean system, evaporation and precipitation, are increasingly expressed by a series of extreme weather events - cyclones, floods, snow storms, heat waves.
The emission of >320 Gigaton carbon over the last two centuries leads to a shift in state of the climate (>2 Watt/m2; +0.8C mean temperature; ~2 ppm CO2/year) on a scale unknown from former interglacial periods and the last 3 million years of geological history.
How should Noam Chomsky’s claim the return of the Republicans constitutes “a kind of a death knell for the species” be interpreted?
Is Chomsky referring to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the “rapture” by fundamentalists? Is it the ideology of human mastery over nature, vested fossil fuel interests, well-funded “conservative” think tanks, media cover-up, cowardly politicians, the basic reluctance of people to face global issues beyond human power, or all of these factors combined?
Figure 4. From an inconvenient truth to a reassuring lie (Christian Science Monitor).
Hopefully the Representatives are correct and Chomsky is mistaken. As “internet science” tells, the world is not warming or, at least, not due to human factors, and climate research organizations (Hadley-Met, NASA-GISS, Colorado-NSIDC, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM) and peer reviewed science are all in error.
Should this not be the case and the future lie in the hands of those who reject the scientific method, claiming authority to speak in God’s name, this would herald the end of the enlightenment, an era of intellectual, scientific and cultural life emerging from the 18th century where evidence and reason are the basis for legitimacy and authority.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Yes Sirree
Fiona Reynolds: "Paul Morrella, something I have been meaning to ask you for a long long time is, "Are you a libertarian"?"
Yes.
Although the term "Libertarian" is a very broad term.
Poison
If carbon is a pollutant then what about cyanide?
I reckon the home team up in PNG are far less afraid of carbon and very afraid of a toxic food chain.
what's for dinner?
It's alright Justin, white people don't have to eat it.
Apology for what?
Fiona Reynolds
I have as much control over the climate as any tax does or will. Zilch.
Western ideas of environment taxes won't help the environment. Of course my argument is that it's not really about the environment. For example: is there one measure we will judge any of these taxes successes or failures against? I've never heard of one.
I don't have a problem with large scale monetary reforms put forward for consideration, it's a not very well kept secret most western governments are living way beyond their means, and this will very soon need be addressed.
The simple fact is traditional taxation sources are shrinking. The simple fact is this shrinking will continue. The simple fact is a flat broad based user pays type tax is the best out available. The simple fact is there are much better taxes of this type available, taxes that don't or at least limit damage to production. Talking such things would though require honesty, and lets face it, honesty just don't cut it in democracy.
In most western nations the ratio of net tax payers is only slightly above 50% and it's declining. That's a shit load of votes that don't want to talk flat tax. Hence the need to scare the absolute shit out of the villagers. Pay or die so to speak.
It's a total failure of democracy, the type of structural failure in the democratic system, that happily allowed me to turn my back on it years ago.
Fe-y
Paul Morrella, something I have been meaning to ask you for a long long time is, "Are you a libertarian"?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
Tax on pollution
Paul, every time I go the the local rubbish tip I expect to be charged a dump fee. Most people accept this fee as a price to keep our streets clean.
What is so hard about charging a fee to big polluters that want to dump their rubbish into the atmosphere, so we can keep our atmosphere clean?
User pays you're a big fan of that, what is the problem?
Use the money raised as seed money for new green energy and to compensate those that may have to pay more for energy.
All makes sense to me.
The alternative is to use tax payers money to develop green energy. Using tax payers money must mean we will all have to pay more tax.
The tax on common sense
A clear description Paul, if that was all it was, I'd be happy with it. But let me expand it a bit to more accurately describe what Labor is proposing.
Firstly, while I pay a tax to use our rubbish dump, a resident in the neighboring county is quite free to come over and use our dump without paying a tax.
Secondly, the Mayor's pals pay the tax, and then drop in at the Mayor's house, where she gives them a rebate.
Total Agreement
Jay, it's a ridiculous tax for the apparent reasons it's needed.
Lies only ever compound into further lies (problems). In a democratic system this only ever eventuates in "patch up work". The ridiculousness (how's that for a word?) of this work will differ from country to country, however the tax is broadly the same everywhere.
The Great Disruption
Paul Gilding's new book looks interesting. I agree that we are not going to avoid some of the worst of climate change, but like it or not we will change.
"Life after shopping" - my wife is still not convinced.
Missed the Point David
No David, you missed the point. The point is that we are reaching the limits to growth, and the climate change mitigation response resides within this context. In the IPCC world, however, there are no limits to growth, so their policy prescriptions are along the lines of "put a price on carbon, technology will fix it, and we will get back on the path to perpetual growth". Back in the real world, the onset of peak oil has already triggered the third oil shock, aka "global financial crisis" and is now on the cusp of the fourth oil shock. But after two decades the best that the climate change activists have achieved is a market-based "put a price on carbon" mantra, assuming stable energy markets and price signals for the next four decades, even though global energy markets are already in turmoil, exhibiting boom-bust cycles every several years for the foreseeable future that completely dwarf any carbon price signal. No reasonable person can give any climate change response that ignores the implications of peak oil any credibility.
We're above the curve
Our problem right now is that the actual outcome in the first decade of this century is well above the trend in the IPCC worst-case scenarios. It has always been true that the highest emissions scenarios are highly leptokurtic (I just love being able to semi-legitimately get words like that into a comment), and lead to a big big crash somewhere along the line.
Whatever you might think, seven years of studying this stuff (and peak oil, coal, everything) leads me to believe that;
Misguided
This is pretty misguided David. I will write a full post over the weekend that explains why trying to tackle climate change while ignoring peak energy as a "side issue" will (continue to) fail.
IPCC Ignores Peer Reviewed Science
Andrew, the IPCC has completely ignored, and continues to ignore, the entire body of peer reviewed literature on resource depletion. Its future scenarios for energy, economic growth and emissions are implausible, and its policy recommendations therefore have no credibility.
Man, the clever beast
My bets are with technology, Stuart, that we will both find more fossil fuels to burn , and less harmful ways to burn it. There will definitely be some suffering, but hopefully the suffering will make us wiser.
Clever Maybe, but "Technology" does not equal "Energy"
The problem with oil shale, Jay, isn't so much "technology", but marginal energy return, indeed in some cases negative energy return.
Technology does equal energy
What technology does, Stuart, is create processes that are more energy efficient. I presume that with shale, what has happened is that the energy and other costs of production have dropped, making the shale in Israel commercially viable.
Technology might equal wishful thinking, but not energy
Jay, presumably the "commercially viable" oil shale in Israel you are referring to is the Shfela basin mentioned in a recent article in The Australian? I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is commercially viable, because the proponents are stating that "an appraisal (is) now under way (which) would be followed by an 18-month pilot stage", and are "hop(ing) to begin production on a commercial basis by the end of the decade".
Oil shale has been touted as the next-big-thing for decades, but the Shfela project, while it might very likely be technologically viable, is very unlikely to be commercially or economically viable, and even if successful will have only a negligible impact on global oil production.
Technology does not change the laws of thermodynamics. A given shale deposit, at a given depth, with given physical characteristics and a given amount of energy, requires a given amount of energy to extract regardless of the extraction technology. Even the highest quality oil shale deposits have an energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of about 5:1, while most are much lower or even negative (i.e. the energy used in the extraction process would be greater than the energy yielded from the extracted oil). This falls even further when emission reduction processes are applied.
Even if you ignore EROEI, proposals such as this one usually fall down on economics alone. The claimed marginal production costs are highly optimistic to say the least, but alternative oil (e.g. shale oil, tar sands) typically make two logical errors. Firstly, their estimates of marginal production cost ignore the compounding impact of high energy prices (including the electricity needed to extract the shale) on capital, finance, labour and other inputs. Secondly, their assumptions about high sale price for their product ignore the broader economic consequences of high oil prices. The high oil prices needed to make them "viable" have a tendency to tip the global economy into recession (historically, oil prices reaching 5-6% of global GDP trigger recession), which destroys demand and collapses prices.
The massive capital required is also very unlikely to eventuate when you consider the ongoing impact of global recession on the finance industry and the huge risk premium.
In terms of scale, even if the Shfela project successfully goes into full production of 50,000 barrels/day, this would be equivalent to 0.06% of current global oil production. This from what is touted to be the world's second largest shale oil deposit, equivalent to Saudi Arabia's current oil reserves.
Don't hold your breath.
There's enough energy resource for dinosaurs
Stuart, there's no problem in finding enough energy resources to get to the IPCC scenarios - which do, anyway, take account of resource depletion where it matters. In fact, if nice easy light oils do start to run down, we get to the IPCC worst-case scenarios much more quickly by using more coal and tar sands - unless, of course we actually decide to do something other than energy-dependent economic growth, but don't hold your breath on that one.
Let's Check Some of the Peer Reviewed Literature Shall We?
M. Höök, A. Sivertsson, K.Aleklett, “Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios”, Natural Resources Research, 2 February 2010.
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/IPCC_article.pdf
Abstract:
so, you think peak oil will save us?
... and we just won't in the end be able to burn enough fossil fuels to make a big difference to the planet?
Well, thank the sky-bully that they aren't listening to you.
US Navy report warns of flood, droughts and intense storms
The US Navy recently commissioned a report into the security issues intensifying in a warming world. This is an extract:
Living in Cairns I have noticed an increase in floods and intense storms (Cairns is at the moment cut off from the south due to floods).
How could we possibly put our faith in a Liberal government whose senior members believe the world is cooling?
The Liberal party is a risk to Australia's security that I believe we should all be aware of.
Climate
John, Assuming Cairns is hit with a huge flood (I certainly hope this is not the case) and you need assistance from the US navy, would Bob Brown and the Greens allow a nuclear aircraft carrier or any other nuclear ship into Cairns.
You certainly could not rely on a Labor government to send a ship to help you, Tobruk is a rust bucket and not seaworthy.
I know you keep abreast with all the plans the Greens have for us to use Green energy, how long will it take Bob Brown and Labor to phase out all coal fired power stations in Australia and what will they be replaced with.
As for the time frame, to the nearest 100 years will do.
By the way watch the NSW election to see how The Greens will get a pounding, their standard of candidates is abysmal.
Greens win Balmain!
Alan, the Greens have won their first seat in NSW. I hope there are more poundings to come.
By the way Coal Power could be replaced by Wave Power.
No need to worry - Nick says the climate is cooling
It is a sad state of affairs when we have powerful people in Canberra that can't read a thermometer.
No need to worry - Nick says it's all crap.
More crap.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.
More crap.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.
Even the Met Bureau is crap.
The Bureau of Meteorology says figures showing Australia has experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910 are clear evidence of climate change.
This should be seen as treason.
Australia and the world are facing a real threat and denying the enemy is tantamount to treason.
Fiona: At least we only have to put up with Senator Minchin (in his senatorial capacity, that is) for another 13 weeks, John.
The man who came for dinner
Fiona Reynolds: "At least we only have to put up with Senator Minchin... for another 13 weeks.".
Plenty more where that came from.
And that sort will move behind the scenes because he's a political addict and inveterate schemer.
BTW, on things ecological, can I congratulate the Gillard government on its farsighted decision to allow the Gunns pulp fiction, without further scientific input?
Cretins.
Climate Change causes storms (in teacups)
Quite happy to apologise, Fiona. My apologies.
Just to clarify, exactly what am I apologising for? What have I written that is a lie?
I'm the only one in my family that sorts out and fills the recycling bin. My family includes two young adults who were born and bred in the west. To be honest, I don't think recycling bins actually helps our environment - I think its one of those con jobs invented by industry and government to fleece the tax dollar....But I still do it and my kids don't, even though its their world.
I think your frustration with me is that I don't buy into extremism - by any faction.
For example, one of the things I learned from the article is that carbon levels were of an order of magnitude higher during the age of dinosaurs. I presume this means that temperatures were also higher. So lets cut the end of the world is nigh business.
What have I lied about, Fiona, exactly what do you take exception to?
And if you give me a decent answer, to my question, I'll answer your second question, though it seems more rhetorical than a question you really wanted an answer for.
those pesky dinosaurs
Yes, Jay, carbon levels have been higher in Earth's history, and in the time of the dinosaurs were between three and six times what they are now - that's part of how predictions are made of what it would be like if we went back there. As previously recommended, do get hold of Mark Lynas' SIx Degrees for more detail. Hint - the dinosaurs are in chapter six.
The key point - when the dinosaurs were here, sea levels were so high that 80% of the current landmass was under water - no problem with drought for Australian farms, because they'll all be underwater, as will essentially all of the arable land. If we repeat that, the (very few) humans around here will be living on the seashore up in the Blue Mountains, with mid-summer temperatures peaking well into the 50s.
Jigsaw
David, could you give me a source for the 20% number (ie that at the time of the dinasaurs, the earth only had 20% of its land mass)? I found the number surprising, but a Google did not give me any figures for earth's land area at the time of the dinasaurs (either for or against this number). What I did recall was school lessons that the theory of continental drift was discovered because existing continents fit into a giant jigsaw - ie that coastlines have not changed ergo there has been no substantial fall or rise in sea levels.
What I did find were these sets of pictures that suggest (for what they are worth) that land sizes haven't changed: http://geology.com/pangea.htm
Getting the drift
Jay, he is actually quite right. The earth was hotter at the time of the dinosaurs, with no water captured as ice and held in the Antarctic. No seasons either, apparently.
These days, when the Antarctic and Greenland melt every hundred thousand years, because of climatic cycles influenced by variations in the earth's orbit about the sun, sea levels rise by a couple of hundred feet, as occurred at the end of the last Ice Age. This is of course a feature only developing over the last twenty million years or so as Antarctica reached its current location through continental drift and in particular, the last three million years.
Lots of good stuff at Wiki.
btw, Jay, it's ok to apologise to Fiona, even if you haven't done anything wrong. It makes her feel better even if it doesn't make you feel any better and at least that way you get the privilege of speaking to her, some thing denied billions of other people, the world over.
Sea level rise of 10 or more metres
Jay does this help?
Imagine the cost of a sea level rise of 10 metres. That is the sort of future we will pass on to our children and their children unless we act now.
Climate exaggerators?
Thank you John and Paul, for your responses.
It is disappointing, though, that neither Fiona nor David R. responded to my specific questions challenging their statements. This would suggest that they are more interested in grandstanding than getting at the real truth.
John, flooding 25% of the US population strikes me as a very plausible scenario. However, this is nowhere near the 80% of the current landmass that David claimed.
Affected is a weasel word. Exactly what does this mean? To say that one cannot be precise about the future is another con. Science can precisely quantify how imprecise a measurement is.
As the West Antarctic shelf is below sea level, its melting shouldn't affect sea levels. The theory of Isostasy is also quite interesting.
I'm really not against the government tackling climate change. The problem I have is that the government is likely to cause more harm than good. My view is that the real problem is sustainability, of which climate change is just one symptom.
What I abhor is when fear is used to drive people. When people talk at others rather than to them.
belated reply
Sorry, Jay, for not replying - hadn't actually noticed that there was a question, having been, at the time, in Adelaide Botanic Park for four days jumping up and down at WOMAD.
My source is in the original comment, ie Mark Lynas' Six Degrees. That is itself a compilation of just under 2,000 studies that look at particular impacts of warming at different levels. Almost everything from chapter 4 (4 degrees warming) on is from palaeontology, ie what actually happened when it was last that warm. Dinosaurs were at the 6 degrees warmer level, which we probably won't get to for several centuries. My point wasn't that it was likely, it was that saying the Earth survived being that warm isn't the same as saying humanity would survive it.
The West Antarctic shelf being on sub-sea-level rock doesn't mean it's floating, which is the only circumstance which would mean its melt would make no difference. The base is meters below sea level, the top is up to 3km above. Melting would give us around a 5 meter rise in sea level, Greenland around 7 meters, the East Antarctic shelf around 65-70 meters. Try looking at any contour map for the 80 meter contour and you'll get a reasonable view as to what would be under water in the six-degree ("dino") scenario, and what would be nice, dinosaur-friendly swamp. Then try to find agricultural land outside that.
Same difference
Thanks David, I suspect that, in mildly different ways, we are after the same goals: a sustainable, equitable earth.
little people and big RATS
David, if that be the case then my next incarnation better be amphibious. Now that's OK for wombats, but what will homo sapiens do?
Have you everthought of devolution?
I have, for a simple solution to our population/energy/polution problems would be to breed down the human race: that is to make us smaller.
We could do this by sterilising all tall people (lucky that, wombats aren't tall) and only allowing people under say 150cm to breed. Come the next generation we lower the bar and so on until the average height of homo-sapiens is around 45cms.
A cow could feed a whole suburb. An average flat could be redesigned to house a whole year's intake of refugees etc.etc.
Now you may think the above a little bit silly (OK stupid) but I have it on good authority that Mother Nature is already on the job (She's a clever bitch) or She took the liberty to read my mind. You see, it came as no surprise when iJustin happened upon this just the other day:
The devolution of man
So there ya go, all is not lost, Mum Nature is on the job, we will prevail, although rats and cockies are going to see us rather differently me thinks.
PS. Don't worry about wombats, we love ya, even if you do give us the mange.
Iniquity
Alan Curran, you are no doubt familiar with the Pentateuch. However, you seem in need of a reminder of two salient verses: Exodus 34:vii, and Numbers 14:xviii.
The alternative is that you are an adherent of Theodore de Bouville, who wrote:
Rome burns, (join dots) fiddles
Just a couple of points. Firstly tonight 4 Corners did a report on the hold ups Barnaby Joyce and agribusiness have thrown up at the Murray-Darling authority in pretty naked attempts to undermine its attempts to salvage the basin.
Another ecological issue; another attempt to align-self interest with reality fails.
Secondly, a reliable source tells me the Chinese are in the process of developing a more apt response to power generation, involving a downscaling of previous plans for coal-fired generation. Were this to be true, there would go the last substantative objection we in Australia could have in realigning our economy and lifestyle toward physical realities.
Fiona Reynolds, am glad you named the delinquents about the place. I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person here (apart from you, of course) who always apologises when he's wrong and doesn't tell lies...
Two simple questions
To you three fainéants, Alan Curran, Jay Somasundaram, and Paul Morrella (ordered alphabetically), will you promise those of us who frequent Webdiary and don't precisely hold your views:
1. If you are wrong and we are right, will you come back in whatever ectoplasmy form you can manage and say (and MEAN) "Sorry"?
2. Will you tell us (given that by that stage the atmosphere, and therefore life on earth as we know it at the moment, will be well and trully stuffed) how to fix up your almost criminally negligent treatment of the problem that we all should have started work on about 40 years ago (remembering, of course, that you insisted on being part of the problem, rather than part of the solution)?
With much love and kisses,
Your putative grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, not to mention all the other species on this planet (apart from the cockroaches, who will survive no matter what)
PS: "Sorry" would be nice, but not much good.
One simple answer
Fiona, I cannot speak for Jay and Paul, but I would like to tell you that I am never wrong, the only time I thought I was wrong I was right.
Unlike Justin Obodie and John Pratt who are wrong most of the time.
By the way, Justin, Bob Brown is funnier than you.
Papal Inflappability - or Alan's Vatican Invention
Hey Alan if you're never wrong then that would make you inflappable - you know, just like the Pope. Such a miracle no doubt makes you and Benny the most eunuchist pair (if there is such a thing) in the hole universe - best get used to having your ring kissed old mate - just like the Pope.
A cold hard truth
John Pratt: "Paul, taxes can be used to change peoples behaviour. The tax on tobacco caused me and millions of others to stop smoking. It is a great example of a good tax.
I'd suggest the tax is okay if one isn't addicted to tobacco. I also don't think something is so evil, we should earn more from it is a helpful outlook.
A person that can't afford something can look all they please. The end result is they won't be getting it. People will simply go without. They will go without many things we take for granted in a wealthy society. There's no getting away from that.
My point was that one nation doesn't base their taxation system on what benefits other nations. Taxation is a self interested past time.
What a government can do, and what a government will do, are different subjects. At least lowest fifty per cent of income earners in any society with this tax will lose. That's what the tax does, that's why the tax exists, that's the purpose of the tax!
In the next few years you'll be calling for fairness. No doubt you'll call for numerous taxes on numerous sections of society. You'll for an equalization of an unequal society. It'll never cross your (and your like) mind that the inequality your seeking to fix (without success) is something you created.
Low incomer earners are just that, low income earners. You pay income tax on income. A tax cut on income not earned isn't helpful. Hence why a consumption tax on essentials (carbon tax) is so insidious. It'll divide societies anywhere it is instituted.
The tax will also hurt lower income industries unevenly. Meaning many lower income earners will become even lower income earners - with the added bonus of a tax on top.
A carbon tax certainly won't be good for a country like Australia. It'll be a tax most will come to loath. Many involved with this tax now will be no doubt rewriting their histories with the tax in a few years time.
If the tax is noble it'll come to be with all the truth about it fully known. Pretending that large amounts of people, many of them without very little at all, won't be badly hurt is a lie. If I wanted this tax, I'd be fully frank about all the pros and cons. I guess that's why I look down my nose at most people involved in these things.
The evil some people do
John Pratt: "Not sure why there is such a panic about putting a tax on carbon."
The nature of the tax makes it probably the most regressive tax that's in existence.
I doubt most of the countries will ever use a carbon tax.
A nation uses taxation to meet economic and political objectives. A nations particular taxation mix is based on historical, cultural, and political reasons. I assure you it's never for the benefit of "others". Any politician claiming otherwise is lying.
Think of tax as bit like sex. When "you're doing it", its not for the benefit of the guy down the road.
Unless compensation is paid year on year, and it's indexed to inflation, it's not compensation. You probably mean a transition payment? Such a payment will act similar to a loan. The tax will operate as never ending high interest re-payments.
This tax is REGRESSIVE. It's designed to be REGRESSIVE. It's claimed objectives can only be met if it's REGRESSIVE. The poorer one is, the more it's going to hurt. The richer one is, the less it's going to matter - actually revenue raised will probably be to some extent used for other tax cuts resulting in added benefits for wealthy people.
The tax hits the basics of living such as oil and food. The lower the income the higher percentage these costs incur. The opposite of this is also the case. It's simply a fact.
I"m against such a tax because it's a lie. It limits and disadvantages a large section of society for absolutely no benefit to that society. It may not personally disadvantage me, and it may even advantage me, however I'm strongely against it. In the long run it badly disadvantages society and that ultimately will hurt us all.
This tax is a virulent anti-people curse. It's an economic evil for society. No good and only bad can ever come from such a thing.
A good tax
Paul, taxes can be used to change people's behaviour. The tax on tobacco caused me and millions of others to stop smoking. It is a great example of a good tax.
I believe that if carbon pollution was taxed many would look for cheaper and cleaner alternatives. If you believe in market forces there will be a price point where we change our behaviour.
You say tax is never for the benefit of others. Have a look around you: taxes pay for schools, hospitals, roads and libraries, as well as many other benefits we enjoy in a modern society.
It will be very easy for the government to compensate people on pensions - all they have to do is increase utility allowance for those on a pension.
They could also give tax cuts to low income earners.
A carbon tax will be good for our country and it will encourage us to move away from the use of fossil fuels which if left unabated will put enormous cost on future generations.
Another reason to put a tax on oil.
Another reason to put a tax on oil.
As the price of oil rises yet again it is about time we reduced our dependence on cheap fossil fuels. Haven't we learnt the lessons of the last 30 years? Whenever a crisis happens in the Middle East the global economy takes a nosedive. A high price for oil is going to be the norm.
We could even out the peaks and troughs by putting a tax on oil and using the revenue raised to help us move away from our addiction.
Carbon dioxide is a threat to marine ecosystems
Another reason to put a price on carbon.
How much will the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef cost us in tourism? How many people will be put out of work in our fishing industries?
Wake up Australia - we must put a price on carbon pollution before it costs us the Earth.
The proposed tax on carbon is just a first step.
Not sure why there is such a panic about putting a tax on carbon.
The Labor government has said that the carbon tax will be a temporary measure on the way to a market based price on carbon.
The world is going to put a price on carbon, and we will have to comply eventually.
The money raised by the tax will go back to those of us that cannot cope with the increased cost of living. Some of the money will go into seed money to enable newly emerging clean energy sources to be brought on line.
We need to move away from our addiction to oil and coal. To delay will only push the cost onto our children.
The Greens are the real threat
John Pratt, you say you are not sure why there is such a panic about putting a tax on carbon. Whilst our trading partners China and India are not going down this track our businesses in Australia are going to struggle to compete.
We all know that this will suit Barmy Bob Brown and his party of amateurs who are at this moment trying to get one of their barmy bills through the Senate.
You say: "The Labor government has said that the carbon tax will be a temporary measure on the way to a market based price on carbon".
How can you say that when you know that Barmy Bob has got Gillard by the short and curly and are running the show.
Australia is already struggling to compete.
Alan, I am not sure if you have noticed, but Australia is already struggling to compete with China and India: we have a distinct disadvantage due to our high labour costs. I know your solution is to move manufacturing to China but that does not solve our problem.
Name-calling is not going to win the argument either. Bob Brown has more power as the Greens hold the balance of power. I am excited about that: for the first time in my memory people like myself have a voice in parliament.
Get used to it, I am sure it is the likely future of our government, as the Greens go from strength to strength.
I believe that the industrial leaders in the next fifty years will be those that lead the world into the clean energy future.
The companies and nations that do not have the guts to make the tough decisions today will only face more economic chaos in the future.
NSW Election
John Pratt ,I don't know whether you have seen the results of the NSW election, but Labor got slaughtered and the Greens failed to win two seats that they were odds on to win.
Throughout the State the Greens failed to make any gains as the people of NSW sent a message to Gillard and Brown that they don't want a Carbon Tax, and they are not interested in Same Sex marriages.
You said "Bob Brown has more power as the Greens hold the balance of power. I am excited about that: for the first time in my memory people like myself have a voice in parliament.
Get used to it, I am sure it is the likely future of our government, as the Greens go from strength to strength.
Ïn my own electorate the Greens dropped their vote by 2% and Labor got smashed by a huge swing.
State Labor was a disaster and was always going lose, but when Gillard formed a coalition with Bob Brown that was the last straw.
Greens still growing
Alan, the Green vote increased by 1.4%.
I don't think this was a vote against a Carbon Tax. It was more a vote against a corrupt and stale state Labor party. A party run by a right wing faction of that party.
Brown or Gillard
John Pratt, it is not my solution to move manufacturing to China, I sold my business to two chinese business men.
However you will find that as time goes by you will see more Australian manufacturing going offsure or closing down due to the policies of the Greens.
You say, "I am excited about about the Greens holding the balance of power and for the first time in my memory people like myself have a voice in parliament". You have been conned by the Greens and their puppet Julia Gillard, you will never have a voice in parliament.
Gillard has lied to the people to get Barmy Bob onside and both Labor and the Greens will pay for that at the next election. You will see the Green vote drop at the coming NSW election.The Greens will not go from strength to strength the people will start to tell them what they think of fools.
Do remember Gillard saying "There will be no carbon tax during the life of her governement" and then Sen. Milne announcing there will be a carbon tax as if she is running the governement.
Don't you realise that people are more concerned about Education,Health Care and the Economy, and are not concerned about Same Sex marriages or Same Sex anything. I do support euthanasia providing Barmy Brown and his idiots try it out as soon as possibe.
However they are concerned about the cost of living if Labor adopts Barmy Bob's plans for a carbon tax and China and India take advantage of us.