What Benefit Carbon trading?
Hi Ya,
Got sent this today and thought it made intersting reading.
This makes interesting reading. Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary. Australians showed sense in resisting the govt pressure to agree to a carbon tax the before the Copenhagen Conference - which seems years ago now.
Are you sitting down? Okay, here's the bombshell. The current volcanic eruption going on in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know, I know.... (group hug)...it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.
Oh, I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
I'm so sorry. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down. And just keep in mind that if that same government is re-elected, you will have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But hey, grab a Coke, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
Cheers.
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Hahahahahaha
Hahahahahaha your right, it was very interesting reading.
Might have to go start pluging some volcano's to save the planet :)
New occupation 'Volcano Plugger'
cuthbad
Posts: 1266
Date Joined: 22/04/09
mate almost the exact same
mate almost the exact same post was made on here a while ago. Every point you have made regarding volcanic eruptions has been thoroughly and completely refuted by science.
check out the old post and get the real facts
all the best mate,
Adam
cuthbad
Posts: 1266
Date Joined: 22/04/09
http://fishwrecked.com/forum/
http://fishwrecked.com/forum/reality-over
seems the email has been expanded a bit, but i suspect its still total fiction
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Aside from the fact you
Aside from the fact you would have to be 101% brain dead to argue that because something happens thats outside of your control, you shouldn't try and fix whats within in your control.
cuthbad
Posts: 1266
Date Joined: 22/04/09
yea exactly till, even if
yea exactly till, even if the above points were true, which they are not, it doesnt mean we shouldnt try to help ourselves.
this one cracks me up though
"the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century"
97% of scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is significantly contributing to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
(Yes its wikki, but im not going searching for some huge review of meta-analyses)
cant believe bs like that makes its way into liberal propaganda, pretty funny really, scary thing is people believe it
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Many, many things wrong with
Many, many things wrong with that article (well, practically all of it)
1. "Just negated every effort you did". Well, we've made some pretty crap efforts. I'm not sure how accurate those figures even are. However, even if they are, we're still ahead whatever it is we saved. We woulda been even more stuffed if we hadnt.
2. Just because CO2 is a vital chemical compound does not mean elevated levels are good. E.g. You could probably overdose on anything you wanted. Drink too much water and you can die (and water is pretty vital for life). Though, its not the amount of CO2, its how quickly its increasing.
3. volcanic ash does not cause warming. If it does, then once it settles the effect is gone.
4. The amount of CO2 pumped out by Eyjafjallajokull was 150,000 tonnes-300,000 tonnes per day. Source. But aviation in Europe is 440,000 tonnes/day. So the net effect was saving of CO2. (though that last link missed a zero, but net is still more saved per those days). Though, some would CO2 saved would just be delayed, but was still a saving from not flying as much.
"Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount -- less than a third of one percentage point -- of global emissions of greenhouse gases."
Source.
5. Pinnatubo statement is COMPLETELY wrong. I can quote numbers, but lets just show a pretty graph from here.
6. Cosmic heating and cooling? I dont know what he's going on about with 800 year cycles. Its a myth the sun is causing the observed warming. Its not cosmic rays. Its not the sun.
7. The earth did not cool by 0.7 degrees.
8. Bush fire season. Well, again, I doubt the numbers, but still we're better off doing something. Its simple maths (beyond the the guy who wrote thats grasp apparently :p). Say i save 1 and bushfires add 3:
Save: 3 - 1 = 2
Dont save: 3 - 0 = 3
Which is better? lol.
9. We definitely are causing it. If you think its bogus, read some more. Make it simple, click here.
10. They called it climate change for two reasons. One, various stuff happens (you can actually get localised cooling even if the whole globe is warming as a whole, plus you get other climate effects like rain, clouds, drought, etc). Heres 10 climate indicators. The climate change we are experiencing is global warming. And two, for beaurocratic reasons (i think they called it that to actually make it sound not so bad so ppl would listen :p).
11. Carbon tax will do stuff all. Well, I can agree on this one. I dont necessarily agree with the way governments are going about with reducing CO2 emissions (and they are being pretty slack and slow), but warming is happening, we are causing it and we need to do something about it. What? Well, i'm not sure, but I think its important people know its happening and we caused it. Didnt Tony Abbott say he doesnt even believe we are causing warming
If you're interested, its worth reading these (cause they summarize it nice and short so you dont have to read lots of technical crap).
Skeptical science and New Scientist.
Also see
Wiki and RealClimate
Anyways, long post, but why the effort? Cause its important. (and hopefully someone will find it useful, and cause I researched it a while ago as I was deciding for myself)
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
stuffin hell professor hlokk,
WTF is this shit???
fair enough if the statement is incorrect, but i signed up to a fishing website, not a stuffin science lecture or essay class.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
No-ones forcing you to read
No-ones forcing you to read it
. Didnt the thread title give it away that it wasnt directly about fishing? :p
Some people might be interested though, so hence I provided some links for those that are (most wont of course)
iana
Posts: 652
Date Joined: 21/09/09
Sounds to me like another anti labour thread.
Been a few come up on this forum lately. Keep politics and religion off this forum!
Jacko
Posts: 72
Date Joined: 15/10/08
I still fail to see how
I still fail to see how taxing me more is going to help the climate.
If you can read this thank a teacher. If you can read it in English thank a Soldier.
hlokk
Posts: 4290
Date Joined: 04/04/08
I'm not necessarily one for
I'm not necessarily one for the idea myself, but how its generally supposed to work is that if you're pumping out lots of CO2 it cost you more, so you can save money if you cut down on CO2 output. With credits, then if you need more you can buy them from someone who doesnt (who uses less CO2 and hence can sell some). Theoretically, the tax raised could be used to subsidise 'green' energy sources (but when did that ever happen, *cough* fishing, roads, fuel, gst *cough*). Carbon credits are like doing the same thing though (cost CO2 emitters more, which in tern subsidises the greener emitters).
The point is to shift the balance, so CO2 emissions are more costly, evening up 'green' technologies that dont put out much CO2 but cost more, so overall 'green' sources should cost less (because compared to before, they cost less, and alternate polluting sources cost more).
Well, thats the idea. Whether its the best way to go about it i'm not sure. TBH, I think the government (whoever it is) needs to wake up, and give it a kick instead of sitting back making minor changes. Making things cost more doesnt help when the alternatives arent that viable. Ok, electricity in petrol costs more, what are you going to use instead? Its the government that needs to push from a top level to allow people to be able to use 'green' technologies. Grassroots efforts are good too, but you need it combined. It doesnt matter if everyone wants to use green but its just not available. Everyday people arent responsible for things like choosing which power plants are allowed to run, introducing legislation to encourage greener technologies via infrastructure, planning, campaigns, etc.
The problem is everyone is just waiting for other people to do something, and nothing substantial will get done. And still, there are some people who refuse to believe that we can actually f*** up the planet.
It doesnt really matter who gets into government, but whoever does needs to do something, not just sit around doing nothing, or piddly little efforts.
cuthbad
Posts: 1266
Date Joined: 22/04/09
I dont mind the political
I dont mind the political posts, so long as they go under general discussion, not fishing discussion. n cheers for that info hlokk, makes it pretty clear.