Carbon Tax

[dfcatch]

As noted above, i would have no problem whatsoever with a climate skeptic who is willing to put some skin in the game but i'm yet to meet anyone who is actually happy to do it. The reality is that many who advocate for what i would argue is essentially a reckless approach (in an actuarial risk sense) do so largely because they no they can scoop up the benefits of it now and leave the costs for others.

The thing is - this works two ways.....

IF, and only IF, the doom and gloom happens as predicted (to some degree at least), and IF and only IF mitigation efforts (the carbon tax) actually will make a difference, then your approach has merit.

The problem as I see it is that I don't have faith in the predictions of doom and gloom (this is not being skeptical of recorded observations).
Secondly, as I've said before, if man ceased to exist tomorrow (together with all emissions), then I'm not sure that the warming would actually be arrested.
If my last point is accurate then it follows that any costs borne in the pursuit of stopping the unstoppable are sunk costs with a zero ROI.

So rather than being guilty of "passing the buck to the next generation" as you imply..... My perspective is that it is sheer stupidity to place lead in the saddlebags of the economy, when a strong unbridled economy is what we will require in the future to fund adaptation requirements.

It's all a subjective perspective about priority weighting. Not to mention probabilities and possibilities.

And my view is that the current legislated approach is like saying you can run faster if you shoot yourself in the foot.

That's how I see it IMHO...... And it has nothing to do with passing the buck, sticking one's head in the sand or dodging responsibility.

 

[drron]

Of course you obviously didn't read my reference where the IPCC's lowest estimate of emissions required an increase of 10% of per capita emissions even though that level has been steady now for 30 years.
Second I really take exception to the remarks that because I am older I dont have any skin in the game.I do have grandchildren.
I could also say those that are younger have less experience but my mentor in medicine put it better when confronted by people having the belief that they knew best-
"Ron,the only people who are certain of themselves are those that are very,very young or whose experience doesn't contradict themselves."

 

[Moody]

Of course you obviously didn't read my reference where the IPCC's lowest estimate of emissions required an increase of 10% of per capita emissions even though that level has been steady now for 30 years.

Sorry? Are you saying that the global CO2 emissions per capita have been steady the past 30 years??

 

[drron]

Sorry? Are you saying that the global CO2 emissions per capita have been steady the past 30 years??

Yes,read the paper quoted.

 

[Moody]

Yes,read the paper quoted.

Found the "paper". Tried to understand the convoluted maths. Failed. Then realised I had been wasting my time as the stats were based on the period 1970-2000.

Found more recent stats, that state in part :- "We observed a growth of 50% in global anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the 20 years since 1992."

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf

Maybe the world's population has also increased 50% in the past 20 years .... could you check that for me?

 

[drron]

Found the "paper". Tried to understand the convoluted maths. Failed. Then realised I had been wasting my time as the stats were based on the period 1970-2000.

Found more recent stats, that state in part :- "We observed a growth of 50% in global anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the 20 years since 1992."

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf

Maybe the world's population has also increased 50% in the past 20 years .... could you check that for me?

Well it has doubled in the last 40 years-
File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approx 3.5 billion in 1970 and passed 7 billion between Oct 2011 and March 2012 depending on whether you use US or UN figures.

 

[medhead]

It seems to me that if the per capita emission rate has not changed but the "capita", the population, has doubled then the emission rate must have also doubled. That would suggest a reduction in the per capita emission is actually important for all countries to try to reduce.

Not to mention that the total emission is increasing all the time.

 

[drron]

It seems to me that if the per capita emission rate has not changed but the "capita", the population, has doubled then the emission rate must have also doubled. That would suggest a reduction in the per capita emission is actually important for all countries to try to reduce.

Not to mention that the total emission is increasing all the time.

That is true but therein lies the rub.If population increases at the median of UN predictions then CO2 emissions will increase by just over 40%.If at the high range well over 100%.And which of the predictions are used to regularly trot out the doom and gloom scenarios by 2100?

 

[Moody]

That is true but therein lies the rub.If population increases at the median of UN predictions then CO2 emissions will increase by just over 40%.If at the high range well over 100%.And which of the predictions are used to regularly trot out the doom and gloom scenarios by 2100?

Why do you keep using selective and misleading stats - are you trying to out-do the IPCC??? (Joke)

The population growth has been declining of late and is currently around 1.1% per annum. For the period 1990 - 2010 the population grew from around 5.3 billion to 6.8 billion, which is an increase of around 28%. At the same time (as stated previously) the global emissions have gone up 50%. So the assertion that per-capita emissions are flat is not backed up by the facts.

By my simple calculations per-capita emissions have increased by around 17% in the past 2 decades - mostly fueled by countries like China catching up with the rest of us. I personally agree with climate scientists that this is a bad thing, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

[drron]

Though for the period 1970-2000 China's per capita CO2 emissions did not increase,nor did Nigerias.
The science of Global warming may be proven but the computer modelling and predictions sure aren't.

 

[james4321]

This is a very long thread, and I have read most of it. Just an observation - I think it comes through in the thread, but is also common in general conversations about carbon tax/emissions that there is a generation "split" ie the older members of the community (both AFF and general population) seem mostly to be "anti", while the younger generation are quite often very seriously concerned about the impact on their own and future generations. There does seem also to be an economic factor which is also generationally split - in short the older generation seem to be more concerned with potential costs that they may have to bear (and so maybe prefer to refute and/or ignore the issue), while the younger population recognise that there is a problem and just want the problem brought under control.

 

[medhead]

IAEA told me that China are back into full production on new nuclear reactors some time during the last few months. Only Gen 3 reactors. They really don't need to do that with their coal resources and I think it is wrong to assume their doing nothing.

Sorry I can't find a link right now.

 

[777]

Though for the period 1970-2000 China's per capita CO2 emissions did not increase,nor did Nigerias.
The science of Global warming may be proven but the computer modelling and predictions sure aren't.

Given the exponential nature of China's economic growth over the last decade and the rapid changes in chinese society and economy, the last 12 years my be worth factoring in to the equation.

 

[drron]

This is a very long thread, and I have read most of it. Just an observation - I think it comes through in the thread, but is also common in general conversations about carbon tax/emissions that there is a generation "split" ie the older members of the community (both AFF and general population) seem mostly to be "anti", while the younger generation are quite often very seriously concerned about the impact on their own and future generations. There does seem also to be an economic factor which is also generationally split - in short the older generation seem to be more concerned with potential costs that they may have to bear (and so maybe prefer to refute and/or ignore the issue), while the younger population recognise that there is a problem and just want the problem brought under control.

There is a grain of truth in that but a far too simplified view.Most of the older generation I know are concerned with what life will be like for their grandchildren far more than their own cost of living.
On top of that there are some of us that have reservations about scientists that are absolutely confident they are right.In the late 60s and 70s there was much environmental discussion triggered by the Club Of Rome warning of overpopulation and environmental catastrophe-but it was global cooling then.I still hold their other premise to be wise though and that was limiting world population growth.Here are a few links-
Fair Warning?: The Club of Rome Revisited, by Keith Suter
History of The Club of Rome - 3

Some observers believe on the major issues such as energy and economics the Club of Rome had it very right-
Revisiting The Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?
This again is a 2000 publication but does give a lot of tables showing even then the energy mix of the world was changing from oil and coal.

Some are even more ardent supporters but a lot in this is way out-
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/ConvergingCrisis.pdf

And then you have the skeptics who dont believe a thing-
Club of Rome | Illuminati Conspiracy Archive Blog
The Daily Bell - Club of Rome

Although the Global cooling hypothesis is now painted as being believed by very few it was a hot topic of discussion in the 60s.As Paul Erlich in his 60s book reported the Greenhouse effect of CO2 was well known then but it-
'is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."
By the mid 70s the obvious effects of particle and sulphur pollution were being ameliorated and hence the global warming theory.

In the 60s I was a young fellow at University.I read Paul Erlich,Rachel Carson and the Limits of Growth.I even edited a Sydney university publication that could only have been titled by a Uni student-Ravaged And Polluted Environment.

Rather than Global Warming I believe that the greatest threat to the world-as was predicted by the Club of Rome-is a world economic collapse.It may well be the results of that will be the end of man induced global warming.The USA has run a policy of weakening the US dollar with a massive program of money printing.One effect of this is to increase the nominal price of those commodities priced in US dollars.there are some who believe that this effect on wheat and other grains was a graet stimulus to the "Arab Spring"

So some of us oldies are not motivated by greed but rather a distrust of those who are very certain of their case due to our experiences.

But here I will agree with Medhead-if you really believe in global warming then the nuclear option must be on the table.Nuclear sceptics are even worse than warming skeptics.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

But here I will agree with Medhead-if you really believe in global warming then the nuclear option must be on the table. Nuclear sceptics are even worse than warming skeptics.

I agree, except when something goes wrong with nuclear.

Japan is still having some issues after the Earthquake and Tsunami

Fukushima 'running out of space' to store dirty water

Fukushima fish unsafe for years

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

Just a couple of things I'll say

* Australia's oil trade deficit is currently around the $18 billion mark. By $2050 it's forecast to be $50-60 Billion (in todays $)

* I really hate the amount of money the western world gives countries that believe women should not been seen in public, are not capable of driving cars, and who have extremists that have no problem using mentally challenged people as mobile bomb transporters. Anything we can do at a reasonable cost to limit the amount of money we send these countries that can then be siphoned off to support these regimes is worth paying.

* Power stations should be built much closer to where the energy is used. This reduces the loss of power due to transmission, and also moves the pollution closer to the users. Currently power generation is generally concentrated in a certain area and the majority of negative effects are borne by a small number of people. Same goes for areas with coal mines bearing a lot of the negatives.

* Sulfur dioxide is a odourless gas (once released into the atmosphere and diluted) that was being released in small quantities that caused massive damage due to acid rain. Many of the arguments made to not reduce S02 emissions are now being made to not reduce carbon emissions.

* If the RET and renewable subsidies are bad, then ALL energy subsidies are bad. Read about the Cobbora mine and how the NSW Government is planning to sell coal to local power generators at around 1/3 of the export price.

* The world population is still growing fairly rapidly. We really have to start doing more with a lot less, or we will wipe ourselves out by depleting the natural environment either through over use or horrific wars in the struggle to get access to resources. There's a good chance the next major regional conflict will be over fresh water!

 

[Moody]

Given the exponential nature of China's economic growth over the last decade and the rapid changes in chinese society and economy, the last 12 years my be worth factoring in to the equation.

But not if you want to distort the facts!

 

[drron]

Given the exponential nature of China's economic growth over the last decade and the rapid changes in chinese society and economy, the last 12 years my be worth factoring in to the equation.

But not if you want to distort the facts!

Simple you just have to quote a source for your point of view.Just remember China's population growth has been slowing and predictions have been made that it may start to decline by the 2030s.
And the paper I quoted showed that the per capita CO2 emissions had not risen even in those countries that were industrialising quickly including China whose growth did not just start in the 2000s.
Chinese electricity consumption has actually fallen in the last 12 months.So things are not as simple as you think.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

The problem is without a global agreement on emissions, 1 country will move production to another and reap the "reduction" in emissions while chastising the other country for increasing theirs.

I would assume that over the next 12 months as some of the aluminium smelters close down there will be some dramatic falls in electricity use for Australia. The Tomago smelter in NSW was the states single largest energy user. IIRC aluminium smelters were around the 15% mark of electricity produced.

China is starting to become an expensive place to produce goods and production i smoving to vietnam, cabodia, bangladesh.

What needs to be done is to look at what is consumed in a country and then place the emissions burden on the consuming country, not the producer. I'm expecting to see flying pigs doing loop de loops outside my windows before that happens.

 

[medhead]

I agree, except when something goes wrong with nuclear.

Japan is still having some issues after the Earthquake and Tsunami

Fukushima 'running out of space' to store dirty water

Fukushima fish unsafe for years

Nuclear power is one of the safest industries in the world. There has been 3 accidents in civil nuclear power, ever. And no more than aout 130 people were killed as a direct consequence of those accidents. All of those people who have died were due to one accident where the operators caused the accident. We can compare that safety record with the chemical manufacturing inductry, for example. More people died due to the Bhopal accident allone than could reasonable be said to ahve died directly or indirectly due to the 3 nuclear power accidents. I think I also heard about another similar chemical manufacturing accident in the last week or 2.

More people have died related to Fukushima due to the debatable evacuation around the area than have died due to radiation in the accident (zero people in the later case). They evacuated people to save them from 20 mSv per year (this is the limit for radiation workers). There is a theoretical risk from that radiation exposure of cancer sometime in the next 50 years.Old people in nursing homes who could not be expected to live for 50 years died during the evacuation. Old people in high care units, or people in ICUs were also affected by the evacuation. There are a number of people who were literally killed to save them from a low level risk, in 50 years, that is acceptable for other people to face. Sorry to go on, just trying to get across that the situation isn't cut and dry like the news services would like us to belief.

As for the fish, I haven't read the report because it'll just make me angry. Needless to say the headline is wrong. The fish are not unsafe for years. There is a comprehensive testing program and many of the fish have just about no radioactive material in them from the reactor. Some have much higher levels, but still not high enough to make an individual fish unsafe to eat. Only unsafe if you were to eat that same fish all year. Yes, testing and controls are needed but fish can be eaten from Fukushima.