Can kicking goodness... that's all it is about, reduce emissions by 5% get to that same destination 5% slower. The oil WILL be burnt the CO2 WILL be released, when and where is the only question. If we reduce emissions by 5% and china increases by 10% who gives a flying rats arse. It is all a lie... and not a terribly well thought out one at that
Yeah, and the problem is the rate at which the CO2 is released. The earth is able to constantly absorb a certain amount of carbon. This is the "plant food" people keep going on about, so obviously the amount of carbon that can be absorbed is related to the amount of plants on the earth. If we emit carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it, the carbon builds up in the atmosphere and creates problems with the global climate. We have in fact been emitting carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it and the resultant build up of carbon in the atmosphere has started to create problems with the global climate.
And we end up at the same place, we can never reduce the rate of world carbon doixide release to under that of world carbon dioxide sequestration. So reducing the rate of only kicks the can down the road. To solve the "Problem" (not that there is one that is not imaginary) we as a planet would need to reduce carbon emissions to BELOW sequestration and then the "problem" would not be "can kicked", but solved. So no this carbon tax is not a solution but a slight delay
I think the carbon tax is being sold as though it will prevent climate change, even though when the figures are put to politicians they quickly change the subject, but the real reason for it is to adapt to the impacts of climate change. These impacts have yet to be seen after 20 years of warmism, but models do predict future catastrophe. As for 20% of the tax revenue to the UN I have not seen any reports on that, I don't think that will be a problem.
They may as well have called it a Vaseline tax and there will still be those ready to defend it .......
Er, yes, mostly correct. (You might be looking for the world "equilibrium" to describe the optimal ratio of emissions to sequestration.) Well, no, not really. The carbon tax is a first step towards reducing emissions. It's quite possible that we can go from simply slowing the growth of emissions to achieving a negative rate of emissions. A negative rate would mean that the earth would start absorbing our backlog to CO2 that is currently floating around in the atmosphere.
U.N. Climate Organization Wants Diplomatic & Legal Immunity Against Charges It has just been reported that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "the organization responsible for managing a global cap-and-trade system worth billions of dollars for carbon emissions projects around the world is trying to get sweeping legal immunities for its actions": Internal UNFCCC documents, examined by Fox News, show that among other things, top officials hope to use those immunities to avoid challenges in the future based on such things as: possible conflicts of interest in their duties, breaches of confidentiality in their work, violations of the due process rights of those affected by UNFCCC actions, making decisions or actions that are beyond the legal mandate of the organization or its subsidiaries. The Bonn-based UNFCCC is responsible, among other things, for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the cap and trade emissions system created by the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. has not ratified. In the wake of Rio + 20, UNFCCC also hopes to manage a mammoth Green Climate Fund, intended to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year for projects to lower global greenhouse gases. CDM-Watch, a Brussles Based NGO has looked into some of the work of the UNFCCC and discovered: Anywhere from 40 percent to 70 percent of CDM projects removed no additional carbon from the atmosphere, that CDM projects "have been known to cause social and environmental harm," and that only the say-so of governments that host UNFCCC projects is involved in declaring whether the projects actually contribute to "sustainable development." As Australian taxpayers are about to be slugged with a carbon tax to support international green initiatives, I'm sure it's a great reassurance to know that those administering these activities consider themselves above the law and want to prevent taxpayers from scrutinising their activities. http://www.taxpayers.org.au/u-n-cli...ts-diplomatic-legal-immunity-against-charges/ i rest my case ....
So this is just the start of this BS and it's going to get MUCH worse?!?! Pray tell, what is the replacement for said fossil fuels or are we just expected to live in a more energy impoverished world? Say Amish style?
This is a big assumption based on blind faith with no substance, and I don't believe it for a second. The only way we will reduce emissions is when the resources to emit run dry. Meanwhile, the current government are kidding themselves for the purpose of another stream of tax revenue, whilst they continue to support coal burning power stations, collect millions in corporate tax from coal and gas exports, subsidise Australian-built petrol guzzling cars, and compensate Australia's steel and aluminium industries. Where is the first step towards reducing emissions?
Well, sorta kinda, and sorta kinda not. Certainly plants use the CO2 in photosynthesis, and kindly provide oxygen as a result. But certainly rainfall, snowfall, and ocean surfaces absorb large amounts of CO2 also. The amount of carbon that can be absorbed by water is actually temperature related, so as the oceans rise in temperature, so their capacity for CO2 absorption increases. In fact human input is responsible for 3% to 5% (depending on who you get your result from) of the total weight of CO2. The rest (over 95%) occurs as a part of a natural geological cycle and would appear even if humanity was wiped from the face of the earth. So if Julia's going to tax the top 500 "polluters", she'd better send a bill to God.
No doubt unwanted, but I feel obliged to add my two cents. I don't think it's that hard to follow the money, and see our healthy Australian population of furious climate sceptics as a direct result of the biggest money in these parts funding truck-loads of propaganda in order to protect their bottom line. To some this seems blindingly obvious, for others there appears to be more logic in a worldwide evil (and oh so powerful) climate scientist cartel conspiracy. As someone who has just a little insight into scientific research (not climate science) my own opinion is: 1. My impression is that most people around here have absolutely no idea how qualified a specialised career scientist actually is. Many of us simply are not capable of pursuing such a career, and the money really isn't that great compared to what these people could be doing - they do it for interest, prestige, and maybe a little Asperger's). Even if you think you're smart, if you do research you quickly learn that's not enough, you need to spend a matter of decades immersed in a speciality to really know what you're talking about. It's not uncommon for experts in one field to make fools of themselves in a new area while their ego is writing checks their expertise can't yet cash. I'm nowhere near qualified enough to argue with a climate scientist - I don't think anyone on here is. If you really want to spend your time pretending to something that only a change of career will truly achieve, check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (though yes, I know fantastically rich polluter corporations know how to make websites too). 2. Scientists who are funded by one vested interest might only be allowed to follow a particular political line. Scientists are not funded by one vested interest internationally. If a scientist makes a valid discovery (eg. something that could be interpreted politically as a flaw in the accepted theory of global warming) it is in their immense personal interest to publish this, pointing out any oversights and sloppiness of others, thereby getting a ton of citations to forward their own career goals and personal prestige. Personal rivalries and animosities are common. To discover something that turns a research area on it's head thereby making one a household name is what every scientist wants. There is no global scientific happy family - no cartel - no conspiracy. If global warming really was a lie it have been squashed decades ago by tons of dirty cash from big powerful 'polluters'. As for the carbon tax: On a global scale we are a rich nation, we emit heaps of greenhouse gasses per person, and unlike the third or developing world we have absolutely no excuse to be doing this - nobody is starving here. I am pretty much resigned to global environmental catastrophe in the coming decades due to inaction on global warming, but if by some miracle we are going to avoid it, rich countries like Aus should be first movers on reducing emissions. Australia is (perhaps by nature) a global political impediment to emissions abatement, the carbon tax will not reduce global emissions by much, it won't reduce Australian emissions by much, it's laughably weak vapid political lip service and of course the biggest polluters have already bullied their way out of it. This ongoing debate may be the carbon tax's most important achievement. On the other hand, it's not going to ruin the economy either. If ever Australia and the world do anything effective to avoid ruining the earth's environment for millions of years, it has to start somewhere. I support it in the vain hope that it might allow something real to happen in future - of course I'm hardly holding my breath.
All of this manmade CO2 and yet no rise in global temperatures in 16 years according to global temperature records and verified by the head of the UEA Climate Research unit. Kind of makes alarmists look like they are basing their claims on ideological agendas rather than science.
Didnt you hear, its not called Global Warming any more, Its Climate Change. Well to be more accurate it was first called global cooling in the 90's, global warming in the early 2000's and now its climate change. Because when the weather gets hot or cold its due to humans. There were never ever 4 seasons or natural disasters before humans got electricity and started driving cars. Give me a break dude. You act like just becuase these super human god-like scientists have been studying the climate that they should not be questioned and we are all too dumb and incompetant to comprehend mathematical equations and scientifit theorys. I can see inconsistencies when they are presented. Your god al-gore has made every prediction of climate wrong, USA and EUROPE expierenced their heaviest snow fall in the past years while your god said there would be no more snow by 2010; and his move 'the inconvinient truth' was banned in court from being shown to UK students due to it being so factually incorrect. You fail togetherwe, On another note welcome to the forum.
And yet the largest open, transparent meta-study of the all the data analyzed by other climate change studies indicates that temperatures have been increasing steadily as the world has industrialized: Source: berkeleyearth.org
Yes, due to a natural cycle which has now topped out. CO2 has never in the history of the planet been a climate temperature driver. Even the alarmists are not permitted to say "global warming" any more because the globe is not warming. Your graph is about to start falling. The global temperature bull market has met it's Global Credibility Crisis. Al Gore was also prone to using creatively scaled graphs to hide reality. For some reaon all of this CO2 that we are releasing has stopped causing any warming. How Inconvenient.
