What Carbon

[serfty]

Perhaps there's some related comment here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/carbon-tax-29438.html

 

[anat0l]

Perhaps there's some related comment here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/carbon-tax-29438.html

With that, I move that this thread be moved to Playground.

It is clearly going to be political or at least filled with politically charged slander; I believe it is not fit nor trusted to be civil enough to both remain in the mainline forums and to give posting credit to its participants.

 

[Limewood]

I'd still like to know how much our carbon tax has changed the climate.

 

[harvyk]

With that, I move that this thread be moved to Playground.

It is clearly going to be political or at least filled with politically charged slander; I believe it is not fit nor trusted to be civil enough to both remain in the mainline forums and to give posting credit to its participants.

I was going to suggest the exact same thing. This is not really a discussion about carbon pricing with airlines (which would be the only tenuous link to keeping it in the general discussion forum) but just an all out discussion about climate in general which doesn't really have a lot to do with travel.

So on topic, I am not convinced that climate change is not simply a naturally occurring event. However that said I have no problems with actual environmental initiatives, aka cleaning up rubbish, recycling, planting trees and developing cleaner technologies.

What I do have a problem with is the current obsession with the colour green. You see businesses slapping a bit of green paint over their logo and all of a sudden they have "green credentials", despite not actually lifting a single finger in support of environmental initiatives. I also have a problem with companies and individuals which have turned "the environment" into a money making scheme and almost made it a cult following.

In a tenuous link back to travel, if airlines did feel so strongly about the environment and actually doing positive things rather than simply flouting such credentials when it suits, they would make "carbon offsets" part of the base fare, and they would invest that money right into things like tree planting projects, none of this "optionally you can choose to support the environment" stuff, which supposedly gives them "green credentials" without really needing to lift a finger.

 

[opusman]

I'd still like to know how much our carbon tax has changed the climate.

Not a bit, but then it's not meant to. The climate isn't like the thermostat in your house where you can turn it up or down at will, simply by emitting more or less greenhouse gas.

The carbon tax was intended to reduce CO2 emissions, which over time will reduce the rate of rise in global average temperature.

These aren't really difficult concepts you know.

 

[harvyk]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Not a bit, but then it's not meant to. The climate isn't like the thermostat in your house where you can turn it up or down at will, simply by emitting more or less greenhouse gas.

The carbon tax was intended to reduce CO2 emissions, which over time will reduce the rate of rise in global average temperature.

These aren't really difficult concepts you know.

The carbon tax was intended to be another source of revenue disguised as an environmentally friendly concept. In reality the companies which produce the most CO2 simply pay a bit extra for the privilege. It provides some incentive to look at "green" tech, but in reality all they will do is pass the costs onto the customer and continue as if nothing has changed since typically all companies involved in the manufacture of the widgets which make the most carbon will be equally affected and where possible will move the manufacturing process overseas to places with even less oversight on environmental issues.

 

[drron]

It is about time the world had such a discussion though.
As rooflyer has said you don't have to deny the science to be sceptical of the predictions about the effects of warming.
As to the rate of increase of warming even the IPCC report released in April concedes this.The draft report was even more certain in it's acceptance but that was before the politicians got involved.There are now many who believe the IPCC is now more a political body rather than a scientific body as it's reports have to be signed of by politicians.here is another link that suggests that again by another lead author in IPCC reports-
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/

So when I hear Al Gore,President Obama,Tim Flannery or Christine Milne say the science is proven and that Cyclone Yasi,Tropical Storm sandy,Typhoon Hainan,wildfires or floods and droughts are the proof I know that they either are ignorant of or knowingly misleading in the science.
And before you all jump on me go and read the IPCC report of 2012 on Severe Weather events and see what the scientists say.North American and southwest Pacific hurricanes/typhoons or cyclones have become less frequent and are more likely to become marginally less frequent in the future.For droughts,floods and wilkdfires they say no evidence as yet but likely to become more frequent by mid century.

 

[Moody]

Was wondering how much carbon pollution has been saved by our (carbon) tax and have other polluting nations like China, India and USA done anything much to reduce as well?.

The factual answer is .... no one here cares. They're too busy celebrating the fact that the adults are now in charge.

[And I also vote that this thread be moved to the Playground - it's already overrun by 3-year-olds]

 

[Moody]

Oh - and here is the ubiquitous link for everyone to ignore .... Tony Abbott's government is 'recklessly endangering' the future on climate, says UK chief

 

[eastwest101]

Oh - and here is the ubiquitous link for everyone to ignore .... Tony Abbott's government is 'recklessly endangering' the future on climate, says UK chief

You mean The Abbott government is "recklessly endangering" Lord Deben's cosy little rent seeking cottage industry of windfarms and solar energy?

 

[Happy Trails]

You mean The Abbott government is "recklessly endangering" Lord Deben's cosy little rent seeking cottage industry of windfarms and solar energy?

Would that be the same Lord Deben, aka John Selwyn Gummer, who once admonished us to save electricity by brushing our teeth in the dark, while his own house was lit up like a Christmas tree?

 

[drron]

And of course Fairfax in that article on Lord Deben have a picture of flooding-no proof as yet due to global warming.Christine Milne going on about those vulnerable Pacific islands 80% of which are the same size or larger than they were 20-60 years ago-

Auckland University's Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.
"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.
"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.
"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years."

Pacific islands growing, not sinking - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Then end the report ends with a report that CO2 will cause an acceleration of circumpolar winds which will accelerate the melting of the Antarctic sea ice-except the Antarctic sea ice isn't melting and this year it's extent is the greatest on record.Of course some have attributed that to the increasing force of winds trying to explain why this is occurring-

The extent of sea ice around the Antarctic has been growing steadily at a rate of around 2.6 per cent per decade, according to NSIDC data. This contrasts with the long term decline in Arctic sea ice. The mystery of increasing Antarctic sea ice during an era of record high global surface temperatures has puzzled climate scientists.
There are some suggestions from computer model research and evidence from satellite tracking of ice that Antarctic sea ice growth in recent years may be due to wind intensification and ocean circulation changes.

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits A New Record

Some who sprout non scientific prognostications have said that penguin numbers in Antarctica will plummet with global warming.contrary to this it is now revealed that Adelie penguin numbers are up by 50% in the last 20 years-

Rather than declining as feared due to warming temperatures that altered their habitats in some areas, the Adélie population generally is on the rise, the scientists said Thursday.
"What we found surprised everyone," said ecologist Heather Lynch at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y., who led the penguin census. "We found a 53% increase in abundance globally."
Counting the birds by satellite, Dr. Lynch and imaging specialist Michelle LaRue at the University of Minnesota found that the Adélie penguin population now numbers 3.79 million breeding pairs—about 1.1 million more pairs than 20 years ago. In all, they identified 251 penguin colonies and surveyed 41 of them for the first time, including 17 apparently new colonies.

Adélie Penguin Census Shows Seabirds Are Thriving - WSJ

One of the reasons postulated for this is the Japanese harvesting of Minke whales the Adelie's competitor for food.

And to back up rooflyer's initial post there have been more rapid periods of warming in the past.The most recent 11700 years ago.the Adelies as well as polar bears survived that one.

The same ice cores also showed that the spatial extent of sea ice decreased, atmospheric-circulation patterns changed, and the size of the world's wetlands increased. Many of these shifts in parameters, including at least a 4-degree Celsius increase in the average annual air temperature, happened in less than 10 years. These changes were not restricted to Greenland; the global nature of many of these ice-core records showed that low-latitude, continental-scale regions rapidly got warmer and wetter. The most dramatic change occurred 11,700 years ago.

Rapid Climate Change » American Scientist

 

[jamesD]

Seems to me to be a political debate more than anything. Lefties automatically think the world is going to burn itself into oblivion tomorrow if we don't pay a tax on carbon dioxide and conservatives think it's all a load of hogwash.

Could be wrong on that thought though.

 

[james4321]

Seems to me to be a political debate more than anything. Lefties automatically think the world is going to burn itself into oblivion tomorrow if we don't pay a tax on carbon dioxide and conservatives think it's all a load of hogwash.

Could be wrong on that thought though.

Its not about whether or not to pay a carbon tax .. the issue is whether or not to take action, and if so using what mechanism. The carbon tax - which is intended to become an ETS - is simply the current Australian strategy aimed at adressing the problem. ETS seems to be the preferred strategy globally and so it seems that in Australia we are looking at the somewhat farcical situation whereby Abbott intends to dismantle this strategy (primarily to satisfy his own inflated ego ?), and then we will sometime in the future reinstate the principles of an ETS once Abbott has departed.

 

[Moody]

Would that be the same Lord Deben, aka John Selwyn Gummer, who once admonished us to save electricity by brushing our teeth in the dark, while his own house was lit up like a Christmas tree?

Oohhhhh! This is great proof that global waring is cough! And don't forget that Al Gore urges us to take action on climate change while travelling the world using polluting aeroplanes!!!!!!

[The irony of this from a forum that promotes status runs is lost on many here ....]

But don't worry - the "Toxic Tax" that you all would rather not pay (go figure) will be gone as soon as the adults can work out how to pull the "pollution is back in the game" lever. And industries can breath a sigh of relief that they can pollute for profit again, and we will all pay less for our power bills. Ha ha.

 

[cambriamarsh]

The issue to me re global warming is that the science IS persuasive but not definitive. However trying to fix the possible problems is a bit like paying insurance.
I'm reasonably sure I won't cause an accident / have a fire etc. However if I'm wrong the downside is very bad.
Denying the possibility of climate change in the presence of do much evidence is ideological not pragmatic.

//Thick Flame suit on!

 

[drron]

The issue to me re global warming is that the science IS persuasive but not definitive. However trying to fix the possible problems is a bit like paying insurance.
I'm reasonably sure I won't cause an accident / have a fire etc. However if I'm wrong the downside is very bad.
Denying the possibility of climate change in the presence of do much evidence is ideological not pragmatic.

//Thick Flame suit on!

Definitely not denying the presence of climate change.
The argument for me is what consequences that will have for us.
That is where I disagree with the Al Gores etc of the world.
A little warming will actually be good for a lot of people.Today more people still die of cold events rather than warm events.Look up the mortality statistics at ABS.For every State of Australia the months that have the highest number of deaths are the winter months.The least is in summer.

 

[Moody]

A little warming will actually be good for a lot of people.Today more people still die of cold events rather than warm events.Look up the mortality statistics at ABS.For every State of Australia the months that have the highest number of deaths are the winter months.The least is in summer.

This is a send-up, isn't it? I mean of all the most ludicrous denialist statements, this one is pure gold!

 

[straitman]

Moody,

Are you saying that anyone who has an opinion different to yours is ludicrous :?:

There is a huge proportion of the scientific community that do not agree with the doom and gloom prognosis attributed to climate change.

 

[Happy Trails]

Oohhhhh! This is great proof that global waring is cough!

No, just proof that Deben is a hypocrite.