|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 13, 2011 11:12:47 GMT -5
So, yeah.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 11:17:04 GMT -5
Will it slow down this?  Or this?  If it does, then I support it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 13, 2011 11:36:49 GMT -5
Well, frankly, I can't see how it will.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 13, 2011 11:39:52 GMT -5
Now, if only other countries will do something like this. Chop chop, everybody!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 11:44:32 GMT -5
Well, frankly, I can't see how it will. Do you have any analysis of the bill? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 13, 2011 11:52:31 GMT -5
Well, frankly, I can't see how it will. Do you have any analysis of the bill? Not to hand, although there's a tonne of it on the net, if you are interested. The reason I doubt its effectiveness, though, first and foremost, is because Australia produces 1.3% of the world's carbon emissions, so even if we cold turkey stopped ALL our carbon emissions, the effect would be negligible. The carbon tax is supposed to contribute to Australia reducing emissions by 10% by 2020 (IIRC) and 20% of 1.3% is, technically, sweet fuck all. Meanwhile the US, China, and India will keep producing more and more. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 12:01:04 GMT -5
I do kind of wonder how that would effect the influx of water by the Great Barrier Reef, even if Australia has a small impact globally, the extra CO2 that goes into the Reef is going to cause a lot of damage. I'll have to look up the actual biogeochemistry of the region to be sure, however. Either way, that small reduction (10-20%) actually does fulfill the criterion I set out in my earlier post.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 13, 2011 12:02:15 GMT -5
Do you have any analysis of the bill? Not to hand, although there's a tonne of it on the net, if you are interested. The reason I doubt its effectiveness, though, first and foremost, is because Australia produces 1.3% of the world's carbon emissions, so even if we cold turkey stopped ALL our carbon emissions, the effect would be negligible. The carbon tax is supposed to contribute to Australia reducing emissions by 10% by 2020 (IIRC) and 20% of 1.3% is, technically, sweet fuck all. Meanwhile the US, China, and India will keep producing more and more. Would be useful if Australia were a trend-setter in these matters. Then, at least, it would get the likes of US, China, and India thinking about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 13, 2011 19:36:55 GMT -5
Hey get rid of 1.3% and that's 1.3% you don't have to worry about. In cases of this, it's really just how much you can get down as quickly as possible.
Ironbite-bravo Australia...now can ya do something personal for me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 21:22:35 GMT -5
Judging from this the flux of CO 2 is fast enough for it to be localized. Which means that this will slow down the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. It has my support. |
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Oct 13, 2011 21:53:25 GMT -5
I'm 'meh' about it. It's great if it cuts down carbon emissions but the bitching and moaning from the conservatives and the fact Australian politics is swinging towards the Mad Monk being in power is gonna make me wish I lived in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 14, 2011 2:42:41 GMT -5
I agree with Australia cutting its carbon emissions. As ironbite said, that is 1.3% you don't have to worry about. Starting at the end of November South Africa will be hosting the COP17 Summit about climate change and stuff. I assume ti will be the usual America, China and India patting each other on the back and then refusing to actually do anything to change. However it is nice to see Australia getting ahead of the game. Here is a link to a local political cartoonist's impression of one of the previous summits about carbon emissions.  |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 5:44:54 GMT -5
Do you have any analysis of the bill? Not to hand, although there's a tonne of it on the net, if you are interested. The reason I doubt its effectiveness, though, first and foremost, is because Australia produces 1.3% of the world's carbon emissions, so even if we cold turkey stopped ALL our carbon emissions, the effect would be negligible. The carbon tax is supposed to contribute to Australia reducing emissions by 10% by 2020 (IIRC) and 20% of 1.3% is, technically, sweet fuck all. Meanwhile the US, China, and India will keep producing more and more. Everyone will have to contribute, including Australians, if we are to reverse climate change. We can't dodge our more than equal* responsibility just because there are more Chinese than there are of us. * Australians are 1) the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth 2) wealthier than China and other developing countries and 3) better able to reform our economy because we aren't in recession like the rest of the first world. This is exactly the right time to fight climate change, and good on the government for starting that fight. |
|
|
|
Post by dietcokewithlemon on Oct 14, 2011 5:54:01 GMT -5
"Australians are 1) the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth"
I was about to point that out myself - glad someone said it first. Our friends down under love to pretend they are a nation of nature loving greenies but they actually have a worse record than the US. Oz will have to go a long way to make any difference.
As for the whole "China produces more CO2" argument.
1) There are a lot of Chinese. 20% of the human race.
2) Their factories are pumping CO2 into the air making shit for us rich white people. You can't buy mass produced chinese goods then smugly blame them for polluting the atmosphere doing so. What next, blaming tobacco plantation slaves for lung cancer?
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 6:03:15 GMT -5
"Australians are 1) the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth" Lies, damn lies, and statistics. |
|
