Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Karlis

Govt eyes crippling climate-control measures

45 posts in this topic

So studies done by NASA are weak if they don't agree with you. OK.

Exactly, we don't even know how to figure our own planet out with 100% accuracy and its even harder to figure out what to believe and from who. Now we are supposed to know what's happening on mars, undoubtedly? I'm sure NASA is on to something though and I'll believe them over BrCornelius. He even eluded to holding that certain institute above in high regards but since they smashed his argument their publishing is now for loonies...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10-4 good buddy.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A carbon tax came into effect in either june or july in Australia, and all the economic doomsaying didn't come to pass. Tax increases are annoying but they aren't crippling to the economy.

The fact is we have to get off of fossil fuels. A carbon tax can help to achieve that goal, but only if the revenue gained is properly focussed. Ideally we should be building more nuclear reactors, and solar panels on every building we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A carbon tax came into effect in either june or july in Australia, and all the economic doomsaying didn't come to pass. Tax increases are annoying but they aren't crippling to the economy.

The fact is we have to get off of fossil fuels. A carbon tax can help to achieve that goal, but only if the revenue gained is properly focussed. Ideally we should be building more nuclear reactors, and solar panels on every building we can.

I don't know about Australia but the reason we hate new taxes so much is because the revenue is never properly focused.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas/oil is in dwindling supply.

be sure you put "fossil" in front of that. I personally think that we will be using oil long into the future but not by drilling it out of the ground.

(Sorry mr fess but there is little oil left in the US - you've been misled. Again by the conservamedia. And further, Climate Change more accurately describes the climate being forced by humans more quickly and greater than the natural cycles that we are well aware of).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Australia but the reason we hate new taxes so much is because the revenue is never properly focused.

Yep we spend way too much on defense. Nearly more than all other nations on earth combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A carbon tax came into effect in either june or july in Australia, and all the economic doomsaying didn't come to pass. Tax increases are annoying but they aren't crippling to the economy.

The Australian Carbon Dioxide tax [not a carbon tax] is a cumulative, snow-balling process. The effect of this tax will impact every aspect of Australia's economy in a domino effect, resulting in rolling, ever-increasing costs of virtually everything. As to how far Australia's economy will be crippled is yet to be seen in the future.

The fact is we have to get off of fossil fuels. A carbon tax can help to achieve that goal, but only if the revenue gained is properly focussed. Ideally we should be building more nuclear reactors, and solar panels on every building we can.

May I ask why "we have to get off of fossil fuels"? Australia has abundance of inexpensive fossil fuel reserves. That gave Australia inexpensive, cost-effective energy supply (until the Government siphoned off funds which should have been reserved for maintaining the infrastructure).

I can see no valid reason why Australia should "get off fossil fuels" in the near foreseeable future (say, the next ten years or so, at least).

I do agree that Australia should be building nuclear power plants. Consider the following article:

Australia has around 40% of the world’s uranium reserves – more than any other country – and exported nuclear fuel worth around $520 million last year. While we’re happy to sell uranium abroad, the idea of nuclear reactors being built here to provide our future energy needs doesn’t sit well with some.

Last year, the government appointed ex-Telstra chief Dr Ziggy Switkowski, a nuclear physicist and now chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), to head an inquiry into nuclear energy. His report, Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy – Opportunities for Australia?, recommended that Australia aim to have its first nuclear reactor operational by 2020, and a fleet of 25 reactors by 2050.

In April, the government announced it would start putting regulations in place to see this happen – a move that would mean a third of our electricity needs are met from nuclear power.

As far as solar panels on every building -- In my opinion there are both pros and cons to consider. It is not the ultimate answer at this present stage of solar technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you expecting the public to eat the costs of dealing with the consequences of climate change. Economists have calculated the costs of doing nothing about climate change will far outstrip those of investing in clean technologies.

The polluter pays principle is there to make certain that those who cause the pollution (the oil/gas companies) pay for the consequences and not the general public. This allows them the flexibility to choose the greener options which become cost competitive when all costs are accounted for and not just the costs of extraction.

Br Cornelius

BC I can remember the gas lines in '73 and the grumbling of people about the need for new technologies. Solar and wind were touted as being the answer. 40 years have passed and the same things are being said today. Why, in your opinion, has so little progress been made in advancing these technologies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep we spend way too much on defense. Nearly more than all other nations on earth combined.

Well then you can agree that if you ask any American if tax money is misappropriated the answer will be yes about something. And we have oil, lots of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Australian Carbon Dioxide tax [not a carbon tax] is a cumulative, snow-balling process. The effect of this tax will impact every aspect of Australia's economy in a domino effect, resulting in rolling, ever-increasing costs of virtually everything. As to how far Australia's economy will be crippled is yet to be seen in the future.

So it might not be crippled at all. And I doubt if Tony Abbott leads the Coalition to victory next year that he'll try to repeal it. A lot of the arguments I heard against it were similar to those against the GST, and that didn't cripple us.

May I ask why "we have to get off of fossil fuels"? Australia has abundance of inexpensive fossil fuel reserves. That gave Australia inexpensive, cost-effective energy supply (until the Government siphoned off funds which should have been reserved for maintaining the infrastructure).

I can see no valid reason why Australia should "get off fossil fuels" in the near foreseeable future (say, the next ten years or so, at least).

We as a species have to get off of it. Australia is nowhere near the biggest polluter in the world, but still we should be striving to lower our emissions. We have everything we need to be a self-sustaining country, yet we don't have the will to put it all into action.

I do agree that Australia should be building nuclear power plants. Consider the following article:

Australia has around 40% of the world’s uranium reserves – more than any other country – and exported nuclear fuel worth around $520 million last year. While we’re happy to sell uranium abroad, the idea of nuclear reactors being built here to provide our future energy needs doesn’t sit well with some.

Last year, the government appointed ex-Telstra chief Dr Ziggy Switkowski, a nuclear physicist and now chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), to head an inquiry into nuclear energy. His report, Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy – Opportunities for Australia?, recommended that Australia aim to have its first nuclear reactor operational by 2020, and a fleet of 25 reactors by 2050.

In April, the government announced it would start putting regulations in place to see this happen – a move that would mean a third of our electricity needs are met from nuclear power.

When I did a study on uranium mining in this country I was amazed to find out that we sell it raw to India, Russia and China, three nations with nuclear weapons. At the very least we should be refining it so Australian uranium and selling fuel rods. I think we're not only squandering our resources but also our knowledge and technology. We could have the absolute highest safety standards and the safest reactors in the world but people are more concerned about riding the resource boom(which is slowing down I might add). One day we'll be out of minerals and then what do we do?

As far as solar panels on every building -- In my opinion there are both pros and cons to consider. It is not the ultimate answer at this present stage of solar technology.

Thats true, they aren't as efficient as they could be, but the more houses that have them the less reliance we have on fossil fuels and I see that as a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So studies done by NASA are weak if they don't agree with you. OK.

The NASA study doesn't suggest that the solar system is warming it is only Heartland which is misrepresenting the study to say so.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no climatologist so you aren't getting any of that from me but I would guess the same thing that made the planet so warm during the dinosaur age and the same thing that made it so cold during the ice age. It's called nature and there is nothing you can do to stop it. All I know is that in the 70's we were supposed to enter an ice age within 20 years and that never happened and then we were supposed to get unbearably warm from global warming and that never happened and now to save face for any possible scenario it's simply called climate change. It's a farce set forth by enviro-whackos and politicians to tax and tax and tax and scare and scare and acre to get the sheep to agree with the taxes. It always was and always will be about getting more money into government hands, here and overseas.

you think possibly oil prices would go down, at least in America, if we could drill for more. It's said that we've got exponentially more oil on our land than all of the Middle East. Wether that's accurate or not who knows but we sure to have a lot of untapped resources and when the price of oil drops so does every conceivable thing that requires oil to produce or move from point a-b. why not do us all a favor and save us buttloads of money and create buttloads of jobs? Or is some stupid mouse, plant or bird that lives near these oil rich areas more important?

The provious warming events and ice ages were attributable to Milankovich cycles (various orbital cycles of the planet), and the warm period of the dinosaur era was attributable to continental drift. None of these influences are at play at the moment. In fact no external forcing can be found to account for current warming. Do not assume that Climate scientists do not understand what influences historic climate in good detail, they do. This is what allows them to establish that what is happening now is not natural.

The deep water horizon disaster was caused by attempting to get at that American reserves of oil. Its inaccessable and expensive and intrinsically dangerous to get that oil. This is what peak oil is all about - not that the oil isn't there, simply that its very expensive to extract. Same result - rising cost of oil. Your two major suppliers of cheap oil have recently seen their production fall off a cliff (Mexico and Saudi - wikileaks had a nice bit of evidence on this). Oil will continue to rise in price regardless of how much more America chooses to drill for, its all down to cost of production.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, we don't even know how to figure our own planet out with 100% accuracy and its even harder to figure out what to believe and from who. Now we are supposed to know what's happening on mars, undoubtedly? I'm sure NASA is on to something though and I'll believe them over BrCornelius. He even eluded to holding that certain institute above in high regards but since they smashed his argument their publishing is now for loonies...

This piece of evidence is not deniable - but it doesn't actually support your argument.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BC I can remember the gas lines in '73 and the grumbling of people about the need for new technologies. Solar and wind were touted as being the answer. 40 years have passed and the same things are being said today. Why, in your opinion, has so little progress been made in advancing these technologies?

The 1970's was a politically driven oil crisis - entirely manipulated by OPEC. They subsequently crashed the price of oil and killed the fledgling alternative sector cold.

The current situation is entirely different.

Alternative technologies restarted in about the 1980's in a serious way, but developement didn't gather momentum until the mid 90's. We are still in the very early stages of developing renewable technologies - but the surprising thing is that they are already cost competitive in many areas (wind). It is the heavy investment in infrastructure which is is costly and why the "markets" will not sink serious money into it until their investment in fossil fuels is worn out. This is why Governments are using subsidies to distort the market to encourage the up front investment in renewables. Exactly the same process happens with all new technologies.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1970's was a politically driven oil crisis - entirely manipulated by OPEC. They subsequently crashed the price of oil and killed the fledgling alternative sector cold.

The current situation is entirely different.

Alternative technologies restarted in about the 1980's in a serious way, but developement didn't gather momentum until the mid 90's. We are still in the very early stages of developing renewable technologies - but the surprising thing is that they are already cost competitive in many areas (wind). It is the heavy investment in infrastructure which is is costly and why the "markets" will not sink serious money into it until their investment in fossil fuels is worn out. This is why Governments are using subsidies to distort the market to encourage the up front investment in renewables. Exactly the same process happens with all new technologies.

Br Cornelius

Hey I read your other posts, I am not very passionate about environmental issues but I've seen you around and I know you are so I'll digress from further argument there.

About this post, You are right about why the market won't adopt these green energies yet. Cost, ROI's. However that's why government shouldn't be investing so much money into it or forcing the market to do so. Who the hell wants to make a bad investment? That, and the government has no business investing in private markets with tax payer money which is all they have anyways. Before you get too mad I do think it's a good idea for the government to do some organized research on things that may benefit our future but dumping hundreds of millions, no, billions of dollars into freshman green companies or any private business at all is not within their duties. They pretty much gave certain companies $500M of money that isn't truly theirs with no strings attached other than a 'at-a-boy go get 'em and make daddy proud. Well, daddy never got his proud moment which is usually what happens when you give money to someone who doesn't know what to do or how to handle it.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I read your other posts, I am not very passionate about environmental issues but I've seen you around and I know you are so I'll digress from further argument there.

About this post, You are right about why the market won't adopt these green energies yet. Cost, ROI's. However that's why government shouldn't be investing so much money into it or forcing the market to do so. Who the hell wants to make a bad investment? That, and the government has no business investing in private markets with tax payer money which is all they have anyways. Before you get too mad I do think it's a good idea for the government to do some organized research on things that may benefit our future but dumping hundreds of millions, no, billions of dollars into freshman green companies or any private business at all is not within their duties. They pretty much gave certain companies $500M of money that isn't truly theirs with no strings attached other than a 'at-a-boy go get 'em and make daddy proud. Well, daddy never got his proud moment which is usually what happens when you give money to someone who doesn't know what to do or how to handle it.

All new infrastructure of national strategic interest has been subsidized and underwritten by Government - thats just how things get done.

Alternatives are cost competitive once in production mode - but the oil industry has a substantial infrastructural headstart which the taxes and subsides are designed to balance out and allow the infrastructure to be built.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and if you hate mega-oil companies just wait until green energy is the standard. Do you not think there will be greedy capitalistic CEO's controlling those companies? Do you think that Shell and Exxon will just be replaced. I think they'll be the first big names in green energy once it becomes profitable.

Which means if it's as necessary to move to green/renewable energy as a lot of the research seems to suggest, then what needs to happen is governments need to make it profitable to do so and not what we've done in Oz and try and make it unprofitable to stay with fossil fuels, all that does as you say is punish the consumer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas/oil is in dwindling supply. It has already gone up by three fold in the last 5years. You may not want to pay more for your energy - but if you stick with fossil fuels expect to spend an increasing proportion of your direct salary on fuel.

You will certainly get stuffed if the economy fails to divest of oil/gas as its primary source of energy. I give it about 10years at most before you will be making some very hard choices about what you spend your cash on - and you maybe learning to walk a lot more and getting used to the hot/cold.

Only forward planning can prevent these outcomes.

Br Cornelius

Well, exactly. surely it only makes sense, even if one doesn't believe in Climate change, to develop fuels and sources of energy that can take over when the supply which we reply on currently, which we know to be finite, begins to run out. That way there needn't be a crisis, and costs need not rocket. Surely planning before this needs to happen is only common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ready to unleash its first wave of carbon-dioxide regulations.

Some members of Congress want to tax hydrocarbon use and carbon-dioxide emissions. Moreover, United Nations climate alarmists are trying to devise a new treaty to regulate energy use at the international level. Even one of these government actions would send shock waves through the economy. If all three are imposed (or worse, imposed in conjunction with Obamacare and other tax increases on job and wealth creators) the impacts will be devastating.

These actions are intended to increase the cost of the hydrocarbon energy that powers our economy. Yet raising the cost of transportation fuels, electricity, lighting, heating and air conditioning will raise the price of food, materials and equipment. This will severely impact the bottom line for factories, utilities, offices, farms, shops, airlines, shippers, hospitals, schools, churches, charities and government offices. The poorest families may get rebates for their increased energy costs, but institutions will not. They will be forced to reduce wages, hours and benefits, hire fewer full-time employees, lay off people, outsource operations to countries where energy costs are lower or even close their doors.

Of course they do... it's a great cash cow............. AGW is a scam.... tell me.. would you bet your paycheck on the weather tomorrow?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they do... it's a great cash cow............. AGW is a scam.... tell me.. would you bet your paycheck on the weather tomorrow?

It all boils down to - "I know better than the scientists - because I just do".

Funny.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.