Readers have their say on ETS

John
Fri 14 Aug 09

Evidence-based political consensus?  Fine.  The only conclusion that can be reached on the evidence is that on a global scale human activity has no discernible influence on temperature.  The IPCC didn’t prove it but relied on computer software and the opinions of those who wrote that software.  In its farcical reports the CSIRO has never come anywhere close to proving it.  And Wong and her advisors couldn’t provide satisfactory proof to senator Fielding.

The evidence to justify Rudd’s hare-brained scheme simply does not exist.

Mudjanau

 

That is exactly what it is all about - it is a tax plus the unabashed hubris of the PM to want to impress the world!  He is costing us.  When are journalists (or someone) going to put it all together for Australians to see what he is doing?

Bitrich

 

So keen have the Government, and their media urgers, been to exploit Coalition division that is they who allowed popular ignorance to remain. And guess what? The Coalition will make merry hay with a scare campaign against Rudd’s ETS. By standing up to the government, and their media urgers, the Coalition have bought time, time to demonstrate to voters just how dumb it is to get ahead of the rest of the world when we are dependent on resource exports, and time to demonstrate how ordinary consumers will pay dearly, for food especially.

Howard jophnson

 

i just cannot see how Australia is going to pay this tax without going bankrupt and maybe even starve. please explain.

mbh

 

The ETS is a carbon tax or, more to the point a consumption tax.  It will have the same effect as raising the GST by up to 50pc or 100pc.  Certainly household power bills are set to double in the next 5 years.  Power generators now are having difficulty refinancing their infrastucture loans due to the mixed messages coming out of Canberra.  What lender is going to provide finance if the industry being lent to will be a bad risk due to bad uncosted government legislation a la ETS.
By the way, have a look on the fed government website for the National Pollutant Inventory (link:http://www.npi.gov.au/about/list_of_subst.html).  Carbon dioxide, of which is “the great moral imperative of our time” to eliminate, is not even listed.  There is carbon monoxide and carbon disulfide (well, duh, no-one wants to breathe that crap) but no carbon dioxide.  KRudd and Wong have slipped up a bit there.  That’s because the world actually needs carbon as a vital component for life.  Next!!! Its Plant food for Christs Sake.

Simon

 

Its Plant food fer Christs Sake.

Finally the Government lands the trifecta and we are taxed on Land we own, Water we use, and now the air we breath. How proud they must feel.
Seems we dont feel quite right unless being punished by a tax on the things we do.

Team Bozo

 

The problem is for Wrong and Krudd- there is no evidence.
Latest predictions now have the world entering a new 100 year cooling cycle.This was a nothing more than a Western World tax grab scam and Team Krudd are into it up to their necks.

Philip Machanick

 

All this hand-wringing over how hard it is doesn’t impress me. If we had started with a modest low-impact scheme 10 years ago, we’d have all the data we needed to go forward. Procrastination is what has put us where we are now, and you are now proposing further procrastination as a solution?

John Nicol

 

The debate as to whether farming should be included in the ETS is a nonsense - as of course is the ETS itself.  Put aside the second comment for the moment and concentrate on arming.  70% of the farm emissions is from the belching of ruminants which is largely methane, an unstable gas that breaks down with a half life in the atmosphere of 8.4 years. Thus methane produced today is only relacing methane prodced about 30 years ago which is why the measured levels of methane in the atmosphere are unstable and even cycle up and down.  The numbers of ruminants in Australia has not changed on a weight for weight basis which determines methane production, for about or over 100 years.  Thus there has been no net increase in the methane produced by our animals in that time.  Secondly of course, the methane and the subsequently more stable carbon dioxide comes from already biosequestered carbon in the grass and grain consumed by the cattle/sheep/goats, no more and no less than that in the much heralded biofuels.  If the grass and grain were grown and not eaten, it would still rot to return the CO2 back to the atmosphere in no less quantities than do the cattle! Farmers are very conscious of the need to increase the carbon in soils simply because this aids in production of better crops.  In this process, the husk and stalks from the wheat, the annually developed root system, which contain more carbon that the which is eaten by the livestock, is eturned to the soil.  There is thus a net benefit in terms of carbon dioxide reduction in having farmers growing crops and feeding cattle.  There is no new carbon dioxide produced but additional carbon is deivered to the soil.  Could someone please try to demonstrate to me why farm production should b included in the ETS unless it is to account for the carbon sequestered in the soil providing a significant carbon credit to the farm sector as a whole and hopefully an annual payment from the electricity industry and city car drivers, to the farmers.
John Nicol

Anthony

 

Isn’t Turnbull’s ‘proposal’ the model that Canada dumped?  Why should we want it if they don’t??

Ronald Reagun

 

A carbon tax is NOT needed.
More carbon dioxide is needed in the air to attain higher yields from plant crops and better quality produce. 20% increase in yields are being attained right now in glass houses where the CO2 level is maintained at 1,000 ppm. Elsewise, millions of people in the third world will starve to death.
The Greens are smart enough to know that this will happen when CO2 levels stall. So they are now proposing that the number of humans on Earth should be capped. Saving their own skins, so to speak.
As expert climatologist, JAY Lehr, sums up the situation, as reported in the CM newspaper 12 August 2009; “It is an unarguable fact that the portion of the Earth’s greenhouse gas envelope contributed by humans is barely ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of the total”.
Australians can stop this nonsense by voting for professionally selected anti-ETS candidates in the upcoming Senate election.

George

 

Michael, a fairly moderate Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong experienced Australian “politics” at the hands of the Liberal and National parties, which included months of often relentless personal, aggressive and mindless attacks to “test” his resilience. Well Michael, it looks like he learnt his lesson well and has been returning the favour since.... They made him personally the target Michael, they shamelessly went directly for the man himself, tried to smear his character for months, questioned his honesty and integrity, including whether he was truthful about his upbringing and father, in order to try and bring him down. The tried their darndest to generate division and predjudice with Rudd as the target. So what in the heck do you expect from him now as a reaction? Of course he plays politics Michael, and he will continue to do so, thanks very much to the ongoing attempts by the Opposition to simply bring him down. Not build the country, no, the Opposition relentlessly targets Rudd the man and his office. Witness Turnbull day in, day out, witness Abbott day in day out… Disparaging, attacking the office and integrity of the man Rudd. Bring him down. Simple. Theyu make every issue a question of when Rudd will resign and go down Michael, so what else do you really expect thatn that Rudd keeps going for the jugular to keep these politically spitting opponents in their kennels…
Thus you have your politics Michael, best you give Malcolm Turnbull a call and ask him if he can propose a policy without concurrently demanding that Rudd resign for his evil actions…