Carbon tax 4 questions.

by Jimboot on March 8, 2011

So our current federal Government wants to introduce a carbon tax so we can reduce CO2 and thus reduce “global warming”

So much of this debate seems to be about what side of politics you’re on. For the record I’m on neither. I like to think my personal principles override that of any politician i may vote for. For the record I consider myself an environmentalist but I think the global warming debate has very little to do with what I would consider real environmentalism

As is my way, I’ve got involved in a few squabbles online the last couple of days re the carbon tax hysteria. So here are a few questions I’d like answered to understand how an Australian tax can save our planet.

1. How will a tax modify behaviour?
My understanding is that “working families” will be compensated for the tax so it will have nil effect. However that means they will not change their current co2 consumption patterns. So the net effect will be inflation as business passes the cost onto their consumers. If my business has higher electricity & petrol bills I will have to pass those costs on like every other business.

2. If co2 production is pollution why don’t we fine the polluters like other forms of pollution?

I’m not allowed to pollute the waterways or dump my garbage on the side of the road. Littering is fined, why not co2 production. My guess is that you have to prove it is actually pollution and that would be very difficult in a court of law as anyone who exhales will be polluting.

3. Why is so much data excluded in the “climate change” debate when we are talking about a tax that will fundamentally change how much money a government takes from it’s people.
The “climate gate” emails
Solar activity
A new ice age

4. And finally, from the Green Left, carbon trading is easily manipulated and profited from by corporations. CFC gases were said to hurt the ozone layer so we banned them in aerosols. We didn’t introduce a tax on them.

If you are serious about living in a cleaner greener world, reduce, reuse, recycle but don’t campaign for a carbon tax that will do nothing for the environment and hurt our economy and you’ll have less money in your wallet at the end of the week. I beg of you, don’t make this a left vs right issue. Research the data objectively, don’t shoot the messenger and make up your own mind. With the net, you have the power.

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

Dan Buzzard March 8, 2011 at 11:48 pm

Why are families getting compensated for the tax?

People who have children are contributing to the problem. More humans means more carbon output. If this tax had anything to do with lowering emissions it would be targeted towards people who raise the emission levels by reproducing more humans.

Also a person who walks “everywhere” (yes, the self righteous types). Well if they also own a dog that dog most likely has a bigger carbon footprint than a 4×4: http://www.physorg.com/news176582720.html

I generally dislike the environmental movement as a whole because it’s based on ideology rather than looking at scientific fact. If we must have another tax it should hit the people who have the biggest carbon foot-print. Not childless singles who (normally) have the smaller carbon footprint; at least I do.

Jimboot March 9, 2011 at 7:38 am

LOL There goes any green credentials I thought I had then. I own two dogs! Although I don’t feed them farmed meat so I think I’m ok. I live in the sticks because I prefer the air out there and I planted too many tres on my property because I love the native bird life. What I don’t understand is people who who want to “put a price on carbon” based on science that it strongest advocates say is “highly likely”. It used to highly likely that the earth was flat too.

Sou March 9, 2011 at 10:39 pm

A carbon price or tax is aimed at reducing the amount of power generated from sources that emit waste greenhouse gases to the air. It’s not necessarily aimed at reducing energy use per se, although this would be one benefit. The end result is intended to be that energy from clean sources will become more competitive with energy from carbon emitting sources, thus encouraging energy producers and industry and other energy users to shift more quickly to cleaner energy and reduce the amount of waste greenhouse gas shunted into the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases are harming the environment by warming the earth and changing climates, thereby reducing biodiversity, harming ecosystems (eg the droughts and fires in the Amazon), acidifying the ocean and creating ocean dead zones etc as well as making the earth too hot for comfort.

In regard to compensating households and coal miners, I agree. If the compensation to households is too high, the tax might not be as effective, although it should still help industry make the switch. Coal miners shouldn’t be compensated either. It makes a mockery of any attempt to lessen global warming.

Jimboot March 11, 2011 at 6:36 am

So Sou whilst NASA tells us the sun is the major influenced on our climate and that we’re headed for a cold period because of a solar minimum, doesnt it concern you that politicians and banks want to implement either a carbon tax or carbon trading? I’ve no issue about being kinder to the planet, just not the taxman.

Addinall April 2, 2012 at 10:26 pm

I agree Jimboot. Twenty years ago I was pretty much temperature agnostic until someone told me that catestrophic global warming has been PROVEN through the use of statistics. Now, not a climate scientist but I do know how to read a data set, and for two decades I have heard the mantra
“Greenhouse gases are harming the environment by warming the earth and changing climates, thereby reducing biodiversity, harming ecosystems (eg the droughts and fires in the Amazon), acidifying the ocean and creating ocean dead zones etc as well as making the earth too hot for comfort.”
But with absolutely no evidence. During 2009 I decided to run a little project of my own.
Australian Climate Analysis
Data Set One
25 November 2009
The first examination of all recorded Australian climate data firstly included the whole set of weather stations (this directory, text file, wstations). As a criteria to be included in this first set, the weather station:
1. Had to provide one hundred (100) years of recorded data,
2. That the data readings had been obtained in the same geographic location, and,
3. The location was not one of the capital cities of Australia.
This shows the temperature trends over a significant period of contiguous recordings, not affected (largely) by the Urban Heat Island effect of similar readings in high urban growth areas.
The data was gathered from
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
And was not subjected to further manipulations.
The statistical method is trivial. Actual temperature readings for the duration of the station have been plotted about the geometric mean of the data set. Data set two will contain the capital cities of Australia to compare the amount of the global warming ‘trend’ when compared to this data set, rural data.
Draw your own conclusions. These graphs are drawn using BoM computer programs available on line at the above address.
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural/

2012, something happened. The BoM site had a complete re-work and the tools and data I used have vanished. I have never been big on conspiracy theories, but something VERY ODD is happening to our data records. They are being “corrected” to show warming.
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural/bathurst.pdf
That was a 100 year data record available from BoM.
Here’s data I collect regarding Antarctica.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica/
The Carbon Tax is going to punish Australian businesses and energy users for no good scientific reason.

Addinall April 3, 2012 at 12:48 am
Jimboot April 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Ok that is weird.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: