If the Scientists like it, then so do I

[Halcyon Daze]

Worldwide, carbon taxes are seen as the gold standard at reducing CO2 emissions. They are very simple compared with the more complicated emission trading schemes which are more of a 'free pass' for polluters to keep polluting. The 'Polluter Pays' schemes (such as the carbon tax) are preferred by scientists and environmentalists alike as the only way to set a level playing field and allow our all-conquering market forces to overcome the hurdles.

There will be a direct incentive for electricity companies to buy/ generate their power from cleaner sources, and a direct incentive for technology to advance sooner, i.e., the people who make the break-through innovations will really be able to cash-in with their new technologies. Somewhere in the middle the two will meet and we will be actually begin reducing our CO2 emissions, GO SCIENCE!

Personally I support pulling our finger out and DOING something. If the scientists like it then so do I.

We can't dump oil into the sea etc so why should anyone be allowed to dump CO2 into the air? Obviously we can't change this practice over night but a carbon tax allows for a smoooooth transition.

I can't believe how long the deniers, sceptics and 'head in the sand-ers' have prevented progress on fighting climate change, it's rapidly changing though.

There's really no point trying to convince the average denier these days because even when 95 % of the science is 95% sure of something, these deniers still choose to ignore it because they simply don't want to face facts. The average denier these days falls into the "Lost Cause" category, they are just a waste of time.

Anyway, merely putting in the framework won't completely guarantee a reduction of CO2, there will still be politics at play, and the blame game, etc etc. What I'd really like to see is more people taking action in their own personal lives and more public funds invested in developing renewable technologies, neither of which seem very likely prospects.

I guess the carbon tax makes it easy for us to do something about climate change without having to actually DO anything at all. That's the Aussie spirit right there baby.

[tripsis]

There's really no point trying to convince the average denier these days because even when 95 % of the science is 95% sure of something, these deniers still choose to ignore it because they simply don't want to face facts. The average denier these days falls into the "Lost Cause" category, they are just a waste of time.

You hit the nail on the head there.

I guess the carbon tax makes it easy for us to do something about climate change without having to actually DO anything at all. That's the Aussie spirit right there baby.

And there.

[WoodDragon]

Good onya for saying something, HD.

The simple fact is that CO₂is warming the planet, and that the only way to stop humans using too much fosil fuel carbon is via the good old capitalist price signal. Asking people nicely to cut down on their emissions, and hoping that they will, is like expecting them to cut down on shagging: most will just tell you to get stuffed...

I'm not sure that the Gillard tax is the best way to go (I'm a scientist, not an economist, so I don't pretend to be expert in markets), but it's better than nothing, and it helps to get an international ball rolling.

One thing I am sure about though is that you're about to be flamed mightily for your post. I hope that you're not wearing a fluoro jacket and a cap...

[mac]

WD is there Data on large scale controlled experiments, Biosphere type experiments done with co2 & methane or other Greenhouse gases

along the lines of the mythbuster episode

 

 

im sure to be flamed for watching mythbusters

Edited March 21, 2011 by mac

[synchromesh]

Denier this, denier that!

Who ya gonna call? Denier busters!

Clive Hamilton: offensive article equates "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers

Reframing Global Warming While Equating Skeptics with Holocaust Deniers

CBS 'Global Warming Special' Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers

[unseen4ce]

and a direct incentive for technology to advance sooner

Thorium Reactor (never heard of them, thought so).

Cold Fusion, now called LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) This was confirmed by the American Navy, so feel free to try and argue with me; you're wrong.

Sonoluminescence (my fav by far) hitting a bubble suspended in a special liquid with a specific sound frequency will eventually cause the bubble to collapse on itself and produce a small nuclear reaction (I do not have an interest in chemistry or nuclear physics) which was confirmed and then suppressed by half-wits of the status quo.

Tesla Technologies, these relate to the Hutchison Effect, and zero-point, a bit too controversial for the stupid.

All have been suppressed, and all could have prevented the imaginary problem with our models modelling c02 causing warming, however in reality the greatest driver of weather is the sun *who woulda thought, my fukin god people are stupid.

Ad hoc explanations never made it, first there was the Positive Feedback theory, then the hot-spot theory, both of which failed.

So it was never a fact.

I am sure someone here has posted NZ's affair with them dropping AGW completely (known as kiwigate), after the NZ met was sued by upstanding citizens.

Wind power is for losers, they require a mass of rare earth metals and fail to produce more energy then they waste.

Edited March 21, 2011 by unseen4ce

[random]

I don't believe in anyone being put in the *lost cause* category, simply because its not in my character to ever give up on the idea that people will come to their senses eventually

What I do believe is that global warming appears to be real.

I'm open to any conspiracy theories also but in the end I always go with my instinctual feelings (right or wrong) and in this case I believe that climate change is real, and I support a carbon tax.

For the simple reason that money talks. Big business (the ones producing the majority of all these carbon emissions ) have only one goal in mind = profit.

Common sense would dictate that making them pay if they keep creating co2 pollution, is going to make them think twice into the way they do things, and subsequently clean up their act in an order to reduce costs and improve profit.

Makes sense to me anyway.

[synchromesh]

Conspiracy facts/theories > Blind trust in proven sociopaths

[random]

Whatever synchro, anything i've written on forum seems to be interpreted by you in a way to make me look retarded, ok so i'll clarify that what I meant is, i'm open to *strange sounding* theories does that make you happy?

[synchromesh]

You obviously missed my point. To clarify, my point was simply that it's more productive to invest in conspiracy research than "people" like Gillard.

[tripsis]

Gillard is not a climate scientist. It is better to invest in actual science than pseudoscience.

[IceCube]

Whilst I am not sure about the whole anthropogenic climate change, I support changing over to a greener economy. I don't think the tax is the way to do it though, rather an ETS and funding for programs to develop technologies so that money is directly invested in the technology rather than relying on market pressure to force companies to emit less. Think of the carbon sequesteration abilities of hemp!

[random]

I discovered a new thing today, hemp yarn

I agree with you there ^, hemp is the most versatile plant and its a shame that its so underutilised.

[Alice]

Worldwide, carbon taxes are seen as the gold standard at reducing CO2 emissions. They are very simple compared with the more complicated emission trading schemes which are more of a 'free pass' for polluters to keep polluting. The 'Polluter Pays' schemes (such as the carbon tax) are preferred by scientists and environmentalists alike as the only way to set a level playing field and allow our all-conquering market forces to overcome the hurdles.

There will be a direct incentive for electricity companies to buy/ generate their power from cleaner sources, and a direct incentive for technology to advance sooner, i.e., the people who make the break-through innovations will really be able to cash-in with their new technologies. Somewhere in the middle the two will meet and we will be actually begin reducing our CO2 emissions, GO SCIENCE!

Personally I support pulling our finger out and DOING something. If the scientists like it then so do I.

We can't dump oil into the sea etc so why should anyone be allowed to dump CO2 into the air? Obviously we can't change this practice over night but a carbon tax allows for a smoooooth transition.

I can't believe how long the deniers, sceptics and 'head in the sand-ers' have prevented progress on fighting climate change, it's rapidly changing though.

There's really no point trying to convince the average denier these days because even when 95 % of the science is 95% sure of something, these deniers still choose to ignore it because they simply don't want to face facts. The average denier these days falls into the "Lost Cause" category, they are just a waste of time.

Anyway, merely putting in the framework won't completely guarantee a reduction of CO2, there will still be politics at play, and the blame game, etc etc. What I'd really like to see is more people taking action in their own personal lives and more public funds invested in developing renewable technologies, neither of which seem very likely prospects.

I guess the carbon tax makes it easy for us to do something about climate change without having to actually DO anything at all. That's the Aussie spirit right there baby.

 

Well said brother.