Pretorian wrote:That's because they ARE the root of the world problems.
So they are the root from which your high level of consumption branches out? Yup. Makes sense.
Pretorian wrote:That's because they ARE the root of the world problems.
Sixstrings wrote: But you know, just throwing a word out isn't well-reasoned argument.
Could you expand on that? For the benefit of not only me but the the hundreds of lurkers who read this forum and who also probably don't know what externalities are?
Sixstrings wrote:
Well.. in my opinion the UK and Australia have done enough already. The US hasn't done any of this.. so why can't you guys just relax for a while and feel good for doing what you have.. is there no end to taxes needed to save the planet?
And let's face it, Australia has a population of 21 million. The future of the planet does NOT rest on your shoulders however much you tax yourselves. Rather than new tax and cap and trade schemes you ought to focus on how to pressure China into doing something.
The U.S. should consider imposing a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax and boosting average auto fuel economy to 50 miles a gallon to help avert a global energy crisis, the head of oil company Hess Corp. (HES) said.
“As demand grows in the next decade, we will not have the oil-production capacity we will need to meet demand,” Chief Executive Officer John B. Hess said in a speech today at CERAWeek, a Houston conference held by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. “The $140-per-barrel oil price of three years ago was not an aberration -- it was a warning.”
“Until the economy’s growing and people are put back to work, I would not encourage the country to have a debate on energy taxes,”
The U.S. also needs to “get serious about climate change once our economy recovers,” Hess said. Increasing the gasoline tax and levying a $10-a-ton tax on power-plant emissions would raise $200 billion a year to reduce deficits and fund alternative fuel research, he said.
Carbon taxes should be “introduced over a five-year period and only when other major industrial powers” do the same, Hess said.
Sixstrings wrote:scas wrote:
Scas, you're using a cumulative graph going all the way back to 1850. As of 2007, China is #1 in CO2 emissions along with all kinds of far worse environmental nightmares.
Pretorian wrote:That's because they ARE the root of the world problems.
scas wrote:Emissions don't go away after one year.
Arthur75 wrote:Wonder why Americans seem totally unable to grasp that ??
scas wrote:Pretorian wrote:That's because they ARE the root of the world problems.
You obviously have no clue. The worlds problems to date have been industrialized consumers: Climate change, fish depletion, ozone hole, nuclear war threat, deforestation, exported deforestation, WW1, WW2. You also have no clue about demographics. While world population is climbing, birth rates are dropping and flattening in many industrialized countries. Many are falling precipitously, Russia namely. USA, the biggest cumulative and present polluter, has a fast growing population. Maybe they should take care of both their problems.
Yup, poor people having too many babies are the root of all the worlds problems. Their numbers will be easily cut down by disease and famine. The industrialized world will keep burning coal to keep their air conditioners running. It is typical for big polluters to point at others in order to claim innocence.
Unfortunately the extermination of species and the conversion of the planet to something resembling Venus is not undoable. The P-T extinction took 30 million years for recovery, ours may not recover at all.
A report by consultants Deloittes, to be released today, says a price of $40 per tonne is needed to prompt the closure of coal power stations and the building of cleaner gas plants.
But Mr Combet said other power industry players had cited lower carbon prices for a switch between coal and gas. AGL has previously nominated $20 a tonne as the shift price.
The Deloittes modelling finds if there is continued policy uncertainty on carbon, up to $5 billion a year could be added to the nation's power bills.
Brown coal generators told Deloittes the government might ''buy out'' a substantial part of the emissions from plants like Hazelwood. If they were not bought out, they intended to keep their stations open well into the 2030s, the report says.
Under the Gillard government's proposed carbon tax, the revenue will be recycled to ensure that 90 per cent of households will be no worse off and that compensation will be paid to the most trade-exposed industries. This will hardly cause a blip in the inflationary radar
The Coalition opposes a carbon tax and has promised to spend $3.2 billion on carbon abatement projects over four years, financed by unspecified expenditure cuts. Per tonne, the Coalition cuts will be twice the cost of those under the Labor carbon tax and there will be no compensation.
But the Coalition has no mechanism to discourage new investment in high-emission industries such as coal-fired power stations, providing they adopt ''best practice'' in order to minimise emissions. The policy is neither cost effective compared to a carbon tax nor administratively feasible.
No wonder there is a huge gap between the science community and the political community. ............ the science which points to the conclusion that the carbon budget constraint would only allow 30 to 40 per cent of existing global reserves of coal, oil and gas to be consumed. ............... why does the world continue to pour billions of dollars of investment into expanding reserves of fossil fuels ........ if we can only afford to burn less than half the existing reserves?
Over the three years to 2013 the mining industry will have invested in the order of $150 billion in mainly fossil fuel-related developments which are ''crowding out'' industrial investment, including investment in renewable energy.
...if countries such as China continue their massive drive to reduce their reliance on carbon-intensive industries, most of the new mines on which Australia's present prosperity depends will become stranded assets within five years.
why does the world continue to pour billions of dollars of investment into expanding reserves of fossil fuels ........ if we can only afford to burn less than half the existing reserves?
Shaved Monkey wrote:..if countries such as China continue their massive drive to reduce their reliance on carbon-intensive industries, most of the new mines on which Australia's present prosperity depends will become stranded assets within five years.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests