Carbon Price announced today

Great first post Gino, welcome aboard.

 

They point to Turnbull supporting this.

Turnbull is one of those robber barrons deeply connected with Macquarie Bank that stands to gain from the new market this would create. He should be forced to declare his vested interests.

 

Gil Scott called it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ipWM3DWe4

Aint no mandates anymoe... 12% of the voters voted for the Greens... MANDATE BITCHES

All in favour? 12 hands
All opposed? 88 hands

ok it's settled then...

WHAT A FKED UP WORLD, WHERE THE FK IS THE PRESS

 

Talk about a leap of (non) logic! That makes about as much sense as the tea partiers protesting that socialised health care will lead to death panels and that "Stephen Hawking wouldn't stand a chance under British health care system".

 

Dwayne, can you please explain?

Gino has been quite clear:
* There will be a price on carbon emissions
* Humans emit carbon in the form of CO2
* The estimated amount of carbon emitted by a human over a lifetime can be calculated
* Therefore a carbon price can be attached to a human, i.e. a price on breathing

How is this a leap of non-logic? And how do your examples relate?

 

Humans engage in a number of more carbon intensive activities than breathing.

For example, driving a 4WD produces about 9000 times more CO2 per hour than a person does by just breathing.

The "breathing is actually killing us" argument was debunked quite a while ago.

 

Not wanting to put words in Gino's mouth here .....

I'm not saying "breathing is killing us". Where did I say that?

I am saying that if a carbon price is created, then a price, if wanted, could be attached to a carbon-emitting entity such as a human.

 

Yes, he's been clear however while those 4 points are technically true they are irrelevant as they bear absolutely no relation to the tax being proposed. Besides, if somebody wanted to tax all carbon emissions they would simply have to tax the inputs into the system - taxing assumed breathing for each individual would make no sense economically, or administratively.

As to how my examples relate? They're just another example of somebody using the slippery slope argument and taking something to the ridiculous extreme no matter how illogical that might be.

 

Yes it could, but given the unbelievably massive disparity between low-carbon activities such as breathing and high-carbon activities such as cruising around in a whacking great vehicle powered by an inefficient internal combustion engine, the only sensible way to impose a tax on carbon so as to reduce the volume of emissions is to tax high-carbon emission activities which have capacity to reduce those emissions.

Basically, don't stop breathing but ditch the Hummer and buy a Smart Fortwo instead.

 

To try and lighten the mood. If we get charged for breathing, would we also be taxed for the methane gas produced by flatulence as it contributes to global warming as well.

http://www.healthygreenlivingtoday....r-of-flatulence-as-a-green-energy-source.html

 

Sounds a bit like social conditioning. Or should that be socialism?

 

Wow. So that's the world the advocates for this tax live in. Silly peasants, just don't drive hummers, drive those hybrid thingies.

oh, and if your bread gets too expensive, why not just eat cake?

 

fly the friendly skies in a gas guzzling aeroplane

 

Good luck with your Hummer with $200+/barrel oil.

 

Well, when the government raised the tax on cigarettes, with the reasoning that it would reduce use the more expensive it is, I heard nothing from the general public. Now there is a pollution tax on something the majority use there is outrage.
As a smoker, i am delighted to see the public losing it's shit over this.
Both of these substances pollute the air, and humans are far more addicted to oil than smokes.
Now, many will say that smoking is a choice, and they'd be right (addiction issues aside), but so is driving in many instances. So is the use of dirty electricity.
At least this tax will effect everybody equally and those that manage to reduce their use of fossil fuels will benefit, while those that don't alter their behavior will pay more.

 

An important difference is that a link between cigarettes and cancer is proven.

AGW global warming via CO2 is not yet proven. There is evidence that climate change is part of a natural solar cycle.

Also, terming it a "pollution tax" is an overstretch: 1. CO2 is not really a pollutant. 2. They aren't taxing all the mercury, pesiticides, plastic containers, etc that finds its way into the enviro each day.

And somehow I think the chemtrails will continue. I'd rather take my chances with CO2 than barium, aluminium, and siliver-iodine particles in the air.

 

Actually the link between cancer and CO2 is even stronger. 100% of all cancer patients also emitted CO2 from their breath

In a carbon taxed Australia, who pays for the CO2 released in a bushfire? Further, if there's a fire in a building will people refuse to use CO2 fire extinguishers because the carbon tax would cost more than the repairs?

Who pays the tax on the CO2 that bubbles off from carbonated softdrinks, champagne and beer?

 

There is more than enough science to prove the emissions from coal fired power stations and vehicle emissions are responsible for rising rates of cancer.
Question, would you rather be in a standard sized bedroom for 20 minutes with the windows closed with a person smoking, or a car idling?

 

Carbon not to blame for that. We are carbon. Cancer link probably more to do with lead, particulates, and benzene-like compounds.

They are packaging this up as a solution for climate change not to combat cancer rates. In fact, looks like Mein Fuhrer Gillard will be increasing cancer rates with the announcement of new X-Ray airport scanners.

I'm all for more efficient use of petrochemicals, but can not justify a carbon tax cum ETS slavery system.

Personally I would love to see more bike riders (pedal or motorized). I wince every time I see a car with only 1 person in it.

The smoker. Question seems too contrived for me to extract a point though.

 

Tobacco has a tax of about $450,000 per ton, and people a bitching about a tax on carbon of $30 ton.
This carbon tax will encourage appliance makers to make them more efficient, same with auto makers and any process that is carbon intensive.
Anyone who puts our PM in the same class as hitler is about as smart as the Tea Partiers in the US. This nationalism bullshit is starting to invade Australia as it is in the US, and even our pollies are starting to use the same rhetoric as that used by the retard right over there.
At least our PM isn't getting her ideas from God, unlike the moron in opposition.