You are currently paying polluters to pollute – they should be paying you.

Kicking it old school. Pic: AP

Did you know that your tax dollars are currently paying polluters to pollute?

A carbon price is part of a vitally important process of turning that around – making sure that the big polluters pay for their pollution and some of that money comes back to you to help build a cleaner, healthier, happier community. A carbon price, teamed with policies like a feed-in tariff, means we can drive investment towards the solar future while making sure that governments have the funds to help people struggling to make ends meet.

This summer we’ve seen a terrible warning of what climate change-fuelled disruption will look like.

With scientific projections of more frequent and severe droughts, floods, fires and storms already coming true, climate change will not only drive prices for food, water and insurance through the roof, but it will risk the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the globe including here in Australia. We cannot simply sit back and let that happen.

To prevent the climate crisis, we need to transform our economy away from the dead end of coal to the exciting opportunities of baseload solar and other renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. We need to redesign our cities around people instead of cars. We need to protect our magnificent forest carbon stores.

All that activity will stimulate our economy. It will create jobs and investment in new industries, many of which need the same skills that people in the coal sector already have.

Economists around the world agree with the Greens and the government that it is economically sensible to use a carbon price and a suite of industry policies to drive that job-creating transformation.

And they agree that Tony Abbott’s policies would be far more expensive, far less successful and only end up costing us all more in taxes or reduced services. The scare campaign is economic nonsense.

What most people don’t realise is that, far from supporting the transition to a solar economy, our governments are handing billions of dollars of your money every year to the companies digging up, selling and burning coal, oil and gas – companies already making multi-billion dollar profits out of polluting our planet.

A carbon price is an important part of turning that around, as is a feed-in tariff to see baseload solar power plants built, as is an energy efficiency target scheme, as is cutting subsidies like the one that means that the trucks digging coal out of the ground don’t pay the fuel excise that you and every other motorist does when you fill up at the bowser when taking the kids to school or doing the shopping.

When we go to the supermarket, most of us want to buy the healthier or greener options available, but we think twice if they are more expensive. The same goes for industry and investors – they currently use coal because it is the cheapest alternative.

But coal is only cheaper than renewables because we don’t factor in the impacts on all of us of its air pollution and of climate change. We don’t factor in the costs of childhood asthma. We ignore the fact that food and water will become hugely more expensive if we let climate change happen.

A carbon price, teamed with industry policies, will mean that, when industry and investors make choices – coal or solar, a petrol car fleet or new electric vehicles – they will now see clean options as the cheaper alternative.

Now: A carbon price will make some things more expensive – we must not shy away from that fact.

But the great thing is that we can compensate people for the impacts of a carbon price, handing money back to people struggling to make ends meet to help them put food on the table and buy shoes for their kids while still encouraging everyone to buy less polluting goods and services. Instead of us paying the big polluters with billion dollar subsidies, the polluters will pay you.

And the Greens, the government and the Independents are all 100 per cent committed to making that happen.

We can compensate people for the impacts of a carbon price. But we cannot compensate anyone for the impacts of climate change.

Tony Abbott thinks he can raise a people’s revolt to stop this sensible policy change from happening. But everywhere I travel around Australia, I hear from people worrying about what future they are leaving their children and grandchildren and desperate for this exciting change.

As a nation, we are smart enough and mature enough to put our children’s future first, reject the scare campaign and embrace this exciting future.

386 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • JIm says:

      04:45am | 04/03/11

      Of course conomists agree with the Greens Christine, they WANT carbon trading! It’s their new gold.

      How can you sleep at night knowing you are lying to the people of this country? You are using this as a wealth redistribution technique (even Bandt said this) as you and your Labor lapdogs march us toward a failed socialist model, and playing on peoples emotions by using the environment to push your lie.

      The planet is not warming, it’s flatlining. There is no evidence of CO2 causing a greenhouse effect. We are at the lowest temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the history of this planet, by a long way.

    • Oxnard says:

      09:26am | 04/03/11

      umm…Ice Age?

      I believe what you wanted to say was there was no evidence of man causing the greenhouse effect….(we can just wait 10,000 years for the result of that test) Everyone has accepted that temps are rising, what no-one can agree on is the cause.

    • ZSRenn says:

      10:01am | 04/03/11

      @ Oxnard. Everybody? Besides this tax will be lucky if it helps reduce world carbon emissions by 0.015%. So it is obviously not about carbon and can only be about money, power and stupidity. But it is defiantly not about carbon with such a minuscule effect.

    • James says:

      10:07am | 04/03/11

      Ah wrong, all relavent scientist agree that man is heating the globe by loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Only uneducated people are debating this.

    • Jim says:

      10:10am | 04/03/11

      No Oxnard, sorry dude.

      There is NO evidence that increasing the CO2 levels will lead to more heat being trapped. The absorption is at it’s limit…any more CO2 molecules will be ‘unemployed’ essentially.

      And since satellites started looking at mean surface temps in 2001 there has been no increase. There were certainly increases seen in some ground based stations, but when dissected these were influenced by things like sticking an airconditioning exhaust right next to it, or putting generators next to it, even building a freeway aroung it.

      From ice core samples and other techniques, there is a thousand year lag between increased global temperatures and increased CO2. That is, the rise in temps come first…by 1000 years. The reason for that is simple - as ocean water warms up it releases more dissolved CO2. Something is driving temperature changes over spans of millions of years, but it isn’t CO2.

    • Jim says:

      10:58am | 04/03/11

      James; by ‘relevant scientists’ you of course only mean those psuedo-scientists funded by big corporations to filter out mountains of data until they have enough ‘facts’ to spin to a gullible government, don’t you?

      What about all those climate-change warriors who are now jumping ship to tell the real story behind this fraud? Guess they are ‘uneducated’ too (gee, you love throwing that word out!)

      Or is ‘uneducated’ Jamesspeak for “doesn’t agree with me’?

    • James says:

      11:38am | 04/03/11

      Jim, whatever your on please don’t put it in our water supply.

    • ZSRenn says:

      12:13pm | 04/03/11

      @ James Way to be condescending and typical of the argument by the true believers. If you don’t believe you must be stupid uneducated. I believe and therefore I am better than you. Sheesh!

      I want to know how a 0.015% reduction of global emissions is going to solve the problem but not one smart educated believer has been able to tell me and I have been asking since the tax was introduced.

    • Jim says:

      12:25pm | 04/03/11

      Actually ZSRenn, the tide is turning full circle on the AGW myth and the carbon based cash grab….soon it’ll be the non-believers calling the warmists sceptics smile

    • ZSRenn says:

      12:37pm | 04/03/11

      @ Jim Well it better be quick because we are about to get a brand new tax for no gains except maybe to pay off the $50 billion dollar hole labor has dug us into.

    • James says:

      12:38pm | 04/03/11

      And we will all eat moon pie and chocolate rainbows

    • DryBlower says:

      12:45pm | 04/03/11

      “the tide is turning full circle on the AGW”

      Only in the minds of the weak minded blind political junkies.
      The science doesn’t change. That’s the great thing about science it remains constant in a sea of politics.

    • Jim says:

      01:13pm | 04/03/11

      Blowjobber - science by definition, is an ever-changing and evolving beast. You are so far off the mark there.

      Politics has very little to do with…in fact, after such a successful propoganda campaign by the real drivers behind carbon trading (banks) political parties around the world are loathe to be seen as the ‘denying’ type. Politics (and the media) has been a hindrance to getting the truth out there.

      The tide is turning and it’s the weight of numbers within the scientific community turning against the AGW theories that is turning it. Hundreds of scientists engaged by big business and governments to prove AGW are now speaking out against it….very damning wouldn’t you say?

      How will YOU feel when you wake up one day and realise your ideologies have been taken advantage of by multi-trillion dollar global giants that are doing nothing more than trading air?

    • Bilby says:

      01:13pm | 04/03/11

      DryBlower - Science remains constant? After it’s settled I guess. I wonder why scientists bother going to work every day, considering we already know everything.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      01:16pm | 04/03/11

      James

      You seem totally sure of your views. Can you provide any details on what your area of expertise actually is? I’m sure it would be of great benefit to the good readers of The Punch replying to your comments in the future.

      After reading your posts so far (229comments), it could be any of the following:

      Engineer (both chemical and mechanical), Climatologist, Nuclear scientist, Economist, Solar energy expert, Renewables expert, Politician, Geologist, Hydrologist or Biologist.

    • Tim says:

      02:00pm | 04/03/11

      DryBlower: heh, yeah, because scientific consensus never changes, and has never been wrong.

    • Mayday says:

      02:15pm | 04/03/11

      If Ms Milne does not understand that all costs imposed on business will be passed on to the consumer then her economic credentials are very green and that is a major concern.

    • john says:

      02:38pm | 04/03/11

      Global warming means that the heat generated isn’t escaping the atmosphere fast enough, hence there is a net gain of heat in the biosphere. EVEN IF WE SWITCH TO CLEAN ENERGY we are only going to create MORE and MORE heat. The only way to fix warming is to treat heat as pollution and use evaporative cooling to counterbalance anything that creates heat.
      for example:
      Cumulative temperature of 6.8 billion people= 244.8 billion degrees.
      600 million cars say 1/3 are operating at any one time cumulative temperature at say 200 degrees each engine = 40 billion degrees.
      animals?

      Inevitably even if we reduce C02, we will still heat up the planet.

    • ZSRenn says:

      02:47pm | 04/03/11

      @ Dry Blower No science doesn’t change that’s why in the 70’s we were talking about global cooling due to CO2 emissions and then in the 90’s Global warming and now Climate Change.  I wont even start with Galileo. Nice to see you throw in a personal insult too. You would have disappointed me if you didn’t.

      @ James That is about all we are going to have to eat if your want of $3.00 / liter of fuel is met for a 0.015% reduction in Global carbon emissions

    • James says:

      02:48pm | 04/03/11

      @Dot Joiner, Degree in physics (actually taught by Ian Plimer in first year), Masters (Energy studies) including climate science studies, currently working in the energy industry.  I am sure of what I am saying becuase I have worked bloody hard to build up my knowledge enough to be able to say it, unlike many people on the punch.

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:03pm | 04/03/11

      @ James that’s great! And so you say. That’s the good thing about the net you can be anyone you want. No resume required but I always expect the best from people so with all this knowledge could you please answer my question or did I miss the degree in Rhetoric there.

    • mel says:

      03:27pm | 04/03/11

      james all i need now is for you to be an accountant because i just can not afford what they might ask me to give.  there is no fat to cut.  i am simply scared of what this will mean to me and mine.  i want to be good and try to do what i can.

    • James says:

      03:30pm | 04/03/11

      ZSRenn the point is that petrol will probably be heading that way anyway, so what you really want to do is get off it now and move to non oil based or lower consumption transport which also happens to be better from a greenhouse perspective. 

      If we wait till it is too late to make the switch it is game over, people need a poke in the right direction.

      You are just going to have to believe me on the qualificaions.

    • Jim says:

      03:51pm | 04/03/11

      A few weeks ago James you were a mathematics major….now scientist?

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      04:16pm | 04/03/11

      James

      Thanks for the candour in your response, though there is no way of checking of course, but I will take it at face value (ie I trust what you are saying)

      I have noticed you often mention a ‘new economy’ in your posts. On that note, should the economics of climate change best be left to economists or to the scientists? From what I hear economists are also known to ‘work bloody hard’ to build up their knowledge in that particular field.

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:19pm | 04/03/11

      I’m done with you James you have made a truck load of comments to find more ways to dodge a direct answer to any question asked of you except to tell me petrol was going to $3.00 / liter with this tax.

      You either can’t or wont answer the question why should we be paying this tax when we get no benefit from it world wide.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      06:47pm | 04/03/11

      James

      I have to admit, I’m having trouble keeping up with you and your qualifications.

      I just read your comments on the most efficient commuter mode - rally cars, driving and commuting on dirt roads, using diesel (or non diesel) and German automotive reliability.

    • James says:

      10:27am | 05/03/11

      Well at least you admit it but seriously I have spent much time and effort studying climate science etc and I have a strong desire to pass on the true facts to anyone I can because it is a very serious stiuation.

      ZSRann my point is 3 dollar per litre petrol would be economy ending so better people are encouraged off petrol as much as possible before that happens.

    • Sherekahn says:

      10:46am | 05/03/11

      I have just read a portion of a British ‘paper’ on climate change called:  “Engineering the Future.”
      The contributors are worthies from most Engineering Institutes in the UK recommended by willstewart.
      http://www.raeng.org.uk/adaptation

      Basically it is recommending changes that may have to be made to all Infrastructure in Britain to cope with expected changes to the environment due to “CLIMATE CHANGE” by the year 2060.

      If the expense of these proposals, including the cost of this ‘paper’ is to be accounted for, (an impossible prediction) then it would be a figure that I do not believe we yet have LEXICON for.

      The paper also does not say for what population figures their proposals are accounting for.
      I have always said that Population Control of a maximum two children per couple would not only arrest population expansion, it would within 40 to 50 years, reduce population.  The amount of reduction could be to 25% to 50% of Britains’ present count.
      This would render the changes in this “paper” unwarranted.

    • Brian says:

      09:22am | 06/03/11

      I think James is what we would call Google educated, I have noticed he NEVER provides facts or even links to support his case.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      07:14pm | 06/03/11

      Dear Jim,

      There is actually no direct link between CO2 and temperature (T). On its own CO2, does nothing.

      The CO2 molecule must first absorb a photon of long wave infrared radiation (LWIP). The photons primarily absorbed by CO2 are of wavelength 14.99 microns, and their principle source is the earth and water, not ice or the sun. As the earth warms up and as ice melts, more are emitted.

      When a photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule it causes the molecule to assume a bending vibration which injects extra thermal kinetic energy into each subsequent collision between the CO2 molecule and other molecules in the air.

      This process increases the amount of thermal kinetic energy in the atmosphere. Some of this energy is diverted into other processes such as atmospheric expansion, evaporating water, holding more water vapour in the air, melting ice, warming the oceans, and some of it is realised as a rise in atmospheric temperature.

      Eventually the CO2 molecule emits this photon back into the air, in any direction, where it can be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule (either CH4, CO2 or H2O) and the process begins all over again. This is called scattering.

      So when the CO2 concentration rises, more photons are available to be absorbed by the extra CO2, both through increased availability due to the warming earth and melting ice, and through the scattering process, which increases as CO2 levels increase.

      We see throughout geological history in times of deglaciation that global T lags CO2 rise due to the limited availability of these photons, as ice emits very few.

      Also, a warming earth, which can be caused by other factors such as variations in the earth‘s orbit and solar output, releases CO2 into the air, so CO2 levels can lag the T rise for a time.

      Thus, it is true to say, CO2 levels and T are both feedbacks of each other.

    • Erick says:

      04:48am | 04/03/11

      If the Greens were really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, they would support nuclear power. It’s a proven technology with baseload capacity. Australia is one of the best-placed countries in the world to implement and develop nuclear power industries with huge export potential.

      Of course, this will take time. But then, so would creating any sort of viable solar alternative - if it’s even possible, which is unproven. Why damage our economy for uncertain gains, when we could boost it instead with massive development of well-known, clean and safe nuclear energy?

    • acotrel says:

      07:16am | 04/03/11

      @Erick - ’ they would support nuclear power. It’s a proven technology with baseload capacity’

      It’s also been proven to be dangerous in the wrong hands.  Who are you suggesting should control and run it in Australia - private industry?  Or perhaps a consortium of mechanical engineers with their limitted education?

    • Beck of Kenso says:

      07:34am | 04/03/11

      Are you offering to have that nuclear power plant in your back yard Erick? I guarantee that there is no suburb or town or area in Australia that is going to want a Chernobyl in their back yard. And until you can tell me that nuclear power is 100% safe - which is impossible, considering that nothing is 100% safe - then I’m not going to be prepared to listen to any argument about why we should have nuclear power. The potential cost if something goes wrong is just too high.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:12am | 04/03/11

      @alcotrel, speaking of scare-mongering… countries in Europe have been running nuclear for decades, and it’s perfectly safe. We have bright minds in Australia.  Lucas Heights seems to be just dandy.  How hard can it be?

      This ‘What about Chernobyl??” antiquated opinion need to stop.

    • Denny Crane says:

      08:30am | 04/03/11

      acotrel - other than in communist russia, where have there been problems. I suppose you do draw a valid comparison. The current green-labor government is probably as dysfunctional and inept as communist russia.

    • Erick says:

      08:33am | 04/03/11

      @acotrel - Let’s just run it with private industry under government supervision, as has been done successfully in other countries for decades.

      As for Australian engineers, they are as good as any in the world. Present company excepted, if you insist.

    • Bilby says:

      09:00am | 04/03/11

      acotrel - Why not the same people that currently run the reactor at Lucas Heights? Or is nuclear safe as houses when it saves lives through research and the production of radioisotopes, but dangerous when used for electricity generation?

    • EFermi says:

      09:25am | 04/03/11

      @acotrel & @erick

      Actually, the real issue with nuclear is cost. Well, cost in the short, medium and long term, and peak uranium in the long term.

      Dateline covered a lot of these issues pretty comprehensively in 2007, see: http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/130817/n/The-Nuclear-Renaissance

      To talk about the nuclear safety issue is a bit of a red-herring because (1) we know (from the French and Scandinavian experience) that it can be managed safely; (2) the design of reactors and their safety systems have changed significantly (so Chernobyl can’t happen); and (3) we (in Australia) probably have a greater capacity to secure the inevitable nuclear waste in long term storage than most other countries because we have big remote deserts that are surrounded by large bodies of water (making them hard to get to).

    • Engo says:

      09:34am | 04/03/11

      @ acotrel - What are you implying by saying “a consortium of mechanical engineers with their limited education”? Who would you charge with building a reactor? Art graduates?

    • Sherlock says:

      09:51am | 04/03/11

      Beck of Kenso says: Are you offering to have that nuclear power plant in your back yard Erick? I guarantee that there is no suburb or town or area in Australia that is going to want a Chernobyl in their back yard

      There’s a spare block down the end of my street. If it fits they can put it there. People have been living safely next to nuclear power plants for decades. There are hundred of them operating quite safely all over the world. Chernobyl was a failure of the communist party not a failure of nuclear energy

    • Elphaba says:

      09:58am | 04/03/11

      @EFermi, no one is saying it won’t cost money to implement, but it clearly is a sound investment (I feel), for all the points you outline.

      The coal is going to run out, and we need a baseload power that is consistant, which things like solar just can’t provide.  I don’t know if there’s any other option. A carbon tax is a joke, and other green energy is still in infant stages.  Why not go with something that we know works, and kick the coal dependancy once and for all?

    • ZSRenn says:

      10:04am | 04/03/11

      @actoral For once I agree with you Nuclear is dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. Imagine if the Greens did ever come to power and we had Nuclear Power. Shudder!

    • James says:

      10:10am | 04/03/11

      Erick, Thorium reactors maybe but uranium is old world now.  We need to develop thorium reactor technology but in the mean time renewables must be first cab off the rank.  Coal, oil and gas are economic suicide (especially imported oil)

    • Elphaba says:

      10:13am | 04/03/11

      @Beck, thanks for proving my point.  You ought to join the Green Party, you have scare-mongering all sorted out.

      “Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh, what about Chernobyl?” FFS, read about modern nuclear power once in a while, then form an opinion.

    • Sam says:

      10:51am | 04/03/11

      Nuclear power is hugely expensive (without even factoring in the cost of decommissioning which is disingenuous) and has lead times of 8 to 10 years.

    • Jim says:

      11:03am | 04/03/11

      @Engo - old acotrel, god bless his little cotton socks, has an ongoing issue with certain types of people. He will swing from hating engineers - possibly because as an industrial chemist he cannot fit in with either the science community or the engineering profession.

      Then he goes on week-long rants about employers. Grubs he calls them, sorry, GRUBS (always capitalised)....maybe as a former safety professional with strong union views and a deep seated hatred towards the evil bosses he was marched off-site too many times.

      Who knows? Who cares?

    • LC says:

      12:58pm | 04/03/11

      “If the Greens were really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, they would support nuclear power.”

      Nuclear waste? Heard of it?
      Chernobyl? Heard of it?

      They have a very good reason to be against it.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:34pm | 04/03/11

      @LC, again, thank you also for proving my point.

      Read EFermi’s excellent points on why nuclear is a good idea for a country like Australia - oh, and any article on modern nuclear power, since you clearly know jack all about it.

    • Ben81 says:

      02:16pm | 04/03/11

      LC - “Nuclear waste? Heard of it?”
      Yes, it’s collected and you bury it and you could live in a house on top of a dump of it for 100 years and you would be exposed to more radiation by getting on a plane.  Meanwhile, things like Coal and Gas plants spew their waste into the air where it actually harms and kills people, and release far more radiation than a nuclear plant ever will.

      “Chernobyl? Heard of it?”
      yes, a steam explosion during an experiment in a reactor that didn’t even have any kind of containment vessel (completely unheard of now) dispersed nuclear fuel over a large area and killed a few thousand people.  A terrible accident, but a drop in the ocean.  Just Coal power alone kills many thousands of people every year and causes more thousands of respiratory illnesses, compared to zero every year for nuclear.  The safety record of the nuclear power industry is incredible.
      But never mind that, nuclear is more scary right?

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:18pm | 04/03/11

      @Erick and LC It was WA Green Senator Scott Ludlum who introduced a bill loosening the laws regarding Nuclear waste by giving discretion to the Minister and has allowed the Nuclear waste dump bill to go through. Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory which has had no seismic survey done or has and the result are buried for some reason has been targeted as most likely.

      I find this interesting considering the greens now want changes mad to the Territories Act.

    • ZSrenn says:

      03:30pm | 05/03/11

      Further on my comment above. As I said WA Green Senator Scott Ludlam has moved to weaken the restrictions on nuclear waste by giving the minister the final say. They have also cited Mukaty Station near Tennant Creek as a possible dumping ground.

      The Greens are also at the moment fiddling with the Territories Act to give the territories the same rights as states when it comes to mandates given to their governments. The reasons cited and discussed are gay marriage and euthanasia. However could there be other reasons that are not being discussed. A Northern Territory that can see massive expansion of jobs, growth and wealth within its borders would be happy to approve any new industry.

      Others have also argued successfully elsewhere in the forum that there is no proven base power generation method other than nuclear available. James an obvious true green believer has said that nuclear will not work as a base power generator as we need better technology which uses Thorium. Yet worldwide nuclear generation as a base power supply has been successful if you delete Chernobyl from the equation. Is this distraction.

      Cost has been cited as a restriction by Sam and EFermi as a reason not to build nuclear generation plants and I have asked on 100’s of occasions why this tax when I can see no gain at this time from it. Not because I am obstinate but because I wanted to know how this tax was going to be spent to make a worthwhile reduction in our CO2 emissions and still meet our generating needs. I therefore suspected that this money was only going to be used to pay off our deficit.

      However, when I put it all together I have to ask myself. Why if the Greens and Labor are so against nuclear power are they dabbling in this legislation? Why are they loosening the stop gaps which will make the construction of a nuclear waste dump easier?

      What is the Greens and Labor’s nuclear plan?

      They will have the money raised from this tax to build nuclear plants.

      They will have the legislation in place to be able to build operate the plants and dispose of the waste.

      If this is not the case why are they using so much resource to make it possible?

    • Paul H says:

      05:02am | 04/03/11

      Christine, you poor deluded fool. You probably believe Bob’s rants about the coal industry being the cause of the Queensland floods. How can we just shut down one of our major income sources and replace it with solar? Solar panels are still not reliable enough to supply one household 7 days a week, so how can they supply industry? All this debate about a Carbon Tax is just proping up a lie and trying to hide the real Green’s agenda. You are out to destroy our nation and our economy with your communist policies. Even the infamous Carl Marx stated that the way to invade a country, is to destroy it from within. Your rants and policies are focused in that direction. I pray that the next Federal Election will see the Greens consigned to the compost heap.

    • Not Paul H says:

      08:01am | 04/03/11

      Sorry, Paul H, but you actually think that a political party has as its goal the destruction of our nation and our economy?

      Quite apart from differing opinions on politics, that doesn’t strike me as constructive discourse.

      What direction are your rants focused in?

    • Oxnard says:

      09:39am | 04/03/11

      @Not Paul H….I’m guessing Paul is a Future Cat Lady in making.

      Poor deluded fool is right! Just applied to the wrong person Paul. Christine can at least string together an argument…rather than relying on what I’m going to call Faux-intelligence which seems to be rife on the Punch

    • James says:

      10:12am | 04/03/11

      Paul you sound like a the deluded one, infact you sound like that looney paranoid cold war warrior from Dr Strangelove.

      Don’t worry Paul the commies are not out to contaminate your precious bodily fluids.

    • Jim says:

      10:19am | 04/03/11

      Not Paul H - I suggest you read the Greens policies in detail, then try to figure out the ramifications to each individual.

    • Adrian says:

      02:41pm | 04/03/11

      That’s right Paul H, Commies hiding in the bushes, hiding in your tea cup, hiding in your bathroom, hiding under your bed, hiding in your shoe box… Watch out, there goes one now, those damnable Reds…

      Are you aware of the condition we call paranoia Paul? Hatred of Communist sympathizers reached a zenith during the sixties in America. If you fall over and hurt yourself in the States, say maybe you’ve made a clean fracture of your tibia, something minor like that, and oh no you don’t have health insurance, well they’ll leave you sitting in the triage room until your leg heals itself, or alternatively you’ll get the minor procedure done, a touch of plaster for your relatively minor, non life-threatening injury and then be paying the cost of the operation off over the next thirty odd years.  What’s my point? I hope your bright enough to have a vague sense of what I’m alluding to. If not, think about the last time you hurt yourself and went to Hospital…

    • ZSRenn says:

      02:58pm | 04/03/11

      @ James here you are again totally ignoring the question. Rather than sprout rhetoric why not tell Paul how you are going to supply enough power to replace the amount of energy needed to make a real difference.

      Why not give the reasons why you are so hell bent on the introduction of this tax and increase fuel costs to $3.00 / liter for a mere 0.015% saving of Global carbon emissions.

      This is not the first time I have heard this claim by Paul. Others have expressed such concerns and it is a growing fear amongst voters as they are not getting any answers but just rhetoric.

      @ Paul H I am saying I don’t agree with you but calling someone deluded just gives them an opportunity to attack your stance.

    • James says:

      10:31am | 05/03/11

      ZSRann a combination of: concentrating solar thermal, smart grid, wind power, electric cars, HVDC links, small scale generation, geothermal, hydro and energy efficiency.  The details are in a plan called the ZCA Stationary Energy Plan and various other documents.

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:36pm | 05/03/11

      Again James the links please. You can sprout this stuff for all eternity but until you provide some proof. I am not listening I’m sorry.

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:20pm | 05/03/11

      Ok James I decided to do a search myself on the ZCA Stationary Energy Plan and various other documents.  And found this web page

      http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Synopsis_v1.pdf

      The site promised affordable renewable energy for just $8AU / week / household and in only 10 years which I thought OK James might be onto something here. University of Melbourne site looks like it’s strongly backed. According to this plan we need to build 23 wind farms and 12 Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST). And we can do this in 10 years. Nice!

      So I scrolled down through the myriad of pages and found that we would need to invest $190,000,000,000AU to build the plants and the required grid. Ouch! That’s a spend! What about projected maintenance costs but I couldn’t find those. I thought I might just look at the math and see.

      22,000,000 Australians with Mum Dad and the 3.2 kids to every household is 4,230,769 households paying $8AU a week or $33,846,153 / week. $190,000,000,000 / $33,846,153 works out at 5613 weeks or 107 years. Talk about your black hole!

      Big difference to $80/ week / household or a whopping $4160 / year /household and that is just for the CST. I didn’t bother after that to look at the cost of the 23 wind farms required after discovering that small error.

      And the name is ZSRenn

    • James says:

      04:52pm | 06/03/11

      Unfortunately Renn there are about 8 million households, errors like that show that you are sloppy in analysis, as I suspected.

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:06pm | 06/03/11

      Ok James I am open for scrutiny and am only a humble blogger who makes mistakes unlike yourself with a multitude of degrees and doctorates etc.

      So i went to the 2006 Census and found 5,122,760 households counted. If we were on Price is right I would be playing.

      I have made the adjustment in the maths and found it is actually take only 89 years at an amount of $8 / week or over the ten years the site quotes $3708 / year / household or $71 / week.

      Remembering that this is only the cost of the CST’s and I have not yet added in the cost of the 23 wind farms and their respective grids to this cost.

      I thank you for your lesson in doing accurate research and take it as high praise that such a learned person would take the time to offer me such constructive critism. perhaps you might do the same for the University of Melbourne regarding their figures.


      http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=TLPD&method=Place of Usual Residence&subaction;=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Dwellings&action=404&productlabel=Dwelling Structure and Number of Bedrooms by Number of Persons Usually Resident for Family Households&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true&

    • James says:

      11:32am | 07/03/11

      Ah for crying out loud here it is http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3236.02006 to 2031?OpenDocument

      My point is sloppy analysis like yours will lead to very bad decisions being made, on an individual and collective level about climate change and fossil fuel depletion.  You owe it to people to research properly before you open your mouth.

    • Jack says:

      06:10am | 04/03/11

      Love the photo, did you choose it?

    • Phil says:

      07:09am | 04/03/11

      Its called photo shop

    • Denis says:

      08:06am | 04/03/11

      Photo is a lie as ususaL. It’s not pollutants coming from the towers it’s steam from the coolers. Suits greenies to have pics of these cooling towers trying to fool people into thinking it’s smoke. TV does it too. Shame!

    • Super D says:

      08:30am | 04/03/11

      Nothing like clouds of steam ie water vapour to provide suitable imagery for carbon propaganda.

      I guess its just that as a clear, odorless gas carbon dioxide doesn’t photograph too well.

      What I think is telling is that the propaganda production department would have loved to have shown images of factories belching out brown smoke but clearly struggles to find any.

    • MD says:

      08:49am | 04/03/11

      I wonder if she knows the cooling towers are letting off water vapour in that picture, like all nuclear power plants.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:11am | 04/03/11

      Yeah, all that nasty steam!

    • fairsfair says:

      09:35am | 04/03/11

      this is that water vapour one again isn’t it?

      Look at all that horrible water vapour! Oh the humanity. My eyes etc etc

    • Jim says:

      10:03am | 04/03/11

      Ahh, the power of the camera mixed with gullible people - always great! Like that guy a few years ago who took photos of dried dog pooh and tried to con people into believing there was titanium in dog food…

    • PTom says:

      10:10am | 04/03/11

      @Denis, Joel B1and fairsfair.

      Did you guys miss the fact there are at least 6 smoke stack in operation too, but then again you did not because it does not suite you veiw.

    • James says:

      10:16am | 04/03/11

      Ah it is actually steam and CO2 given that is a coal plant so what are you going on about.  Do you know how a coal plant works?

    • Peter says:

      11:08am | 04/03/11

      Very hard to photograph Carbon. However Coal is burnt to make steam. Steam comes from our drinking water, thats why governments charge us to build new dams. Coal fired electricity like in the picture is showing the millions of litres drinking water per day being evaporated to attmosphere creating more need for more dams so the people dont run out of water.

    • Jim says:

      11:10am | 04/03/11

      “Ah it is actually steam and CO2 given that is a coal plant so what are you going on about.  Do you know how a coal plant works?”

      Yes, yes I do. Do you? Apparently not.

      The big, squat round towers are water cooling towers….they take hot water and, errr, cool it. This makes steam!!! Amazing stuff really.

      The big skinny tall towers are stacks, the come off the burners and heat exchangers. They are tall cause they work as scrubber. What are scrubbers you ask? They are a series of water sprays that generate a fine mist, trapping particulates like dust, and also reacting to precipitate CO and CO2 with solids so they can be captured. This is why they are so tall….and since it comes from hot areas - this makes steam!!! More amazing facts!

      Also, if you look closely, you can see that the steam cloud is dissipating rather quickly from all of the stacks….if it was smoke it wouldn’t dissipate.

      Mind you, I am (according to one as learned as you), somewhat uneducated….I only picked up these things from working in the industry.

    • Jack says:

      11:21am | 04/03/11

      Great, I wondered how many would “get it”

      Labor’s red + the greens are the new purple party .
      Purple people eaters, devour the people and save the earth.

    • James says:

      11:57am | 04/03/11

      Jim are you saying (or implying) CO2 isn’t being emitted by the coal plant in that picture from the furnace?

    • neil says:

      12:14pm | 04/03/11

      @PTom says:

      And they emit steam as well, If you have ever seen a coal power station you would know they don’t emit smoke, they use scrubbers to remove the particulate matter which put water vapour into the exhaust.

      Nothing but steam, plant food and very low levels of NOx, CH and CO comes out the exhaust stacks.

    • Jim says:

      12:15pm | 04/03/11

      Not saying that at all James…but if you were half as smart as you claim to be you’d know that you cannot actually see CO2. You’d also know that the visible part of smoke is composed of ultrafine particulates, which are scrubbed out,.

      Allowable emmission levels for all contaminants are set in stone whenever a new plant is built. Most plants are aging and so the limits are somewhat lax, so some plants are ‘allowed’ to emit more CO and CO2 than others. But 100% gauranteed, what you see in that photo is steam.

    • Matt says:

      12:38pm | 04/03/11

      Jack,

      Red and green make brown, not purple.

      Red and blue make purple.

    • James says:

      12:43pm | 04/03/11

      Ah Jim, I know you can’t see CO2 that is my point, that is why people take photos of steam coming out of coal plants because it is an indication of CO2 being emitted.  There is CO2 “in that picture” and incidentally in front of your face.  Join the dots

    • Jim says:

      01:35pm | 04/03/11

      Well if you know that James, then explain to me why that particular photo gets pulled out if the archives by every loony Green writing about AGW? With no explanation of what the photo is?

      Surely it couldn’t be used to try and dupe the masses into thinking that is a shitload of CO2 being discharged??

    • The Badger says:

      05:39pm | 04/03/11

      This is the sound of jim slinking away.
      out of ammo.

    • Jim says:

      05:53pm | 04/03/11

      No Badger…it’s the sound of Jim tired of arguing with idiots who have nothing except ideological and illogical rants….at least you are there for the odd spot of comic relief.

    • TimB says:

      06:42am | 04/03/11

      Senator, there’s so much rubbish in your article I barely know where to start. I’m sure many of the others here will oblige us both and pull it apart though.

      But I do have one thing to say. You’ve got a lot of nerve deriding the Coalition’s response to your reckless policy as a “scare campaign”, given the fact that this policy is the result of AGW, the biggest scare campaign in history.

      None of this will fix the problem (if it exists).

      None of this will have any benefit to Australia .

      All of this will hurt our economy.

      You are deluding yourself if you think any different.

    • PTom says:

      10:17am | 04/03/11

      Where you proof that this will hurt the economy?

      So cleaning up our country, securing our energy source long term and job creation has no benefit to Australia.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:30am | 04/03/11

      @ PTom: by definition, tax hurts an economy.  What you subsidise, you encourage.  What you tax, you discourage.

      It won’t do a thing to clean up the country.  All it will do is put cash in government coffers and in (maybe) low and middle income earners’ hands.  That money will not be spent on the EPA because nobody in the Government has committed to saying what’s recouped from the carbon tax will go direct to environmental protection.

      It also won’t secure our energy source, because it’s not legislation to stop mining coal or fossil fuels.  Without such legislation, the mining will continue and the energy sources will continue to be depleted.  It also will discourage nuclear energy because the Greens have stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed “Never, never, never” to even fusion energy which ticks every clean energy box you could want.

      It also won’t create jobs.  It might shift a few around, from the private sector to more shiny-pants public servants to administer the whole thing, but there will be no net increase in jobs because all you’re doing is shifting money around, not actually making something.

    • Andrew says:

      06:46am | 04/03/11

      “Our children’s future”, puhlease. The Greens policies are anti human. With the failure of communism/socialism in the 20th century the far left moved into the green movement and has no love of mother earth.

      There are so many inconsistencies and untruths in this article that it would take me most of the morning to point them out.

      I have no problem moving away from reliance on fossil fuels but stop using a questionable climate change argument to push the agenda.

      As with everything greenie you try to tap into emotion and touchy feely “save the environment” b.s. when in fact your policies will cause significant structural pain in changing a minor world economy without the rest of the world doing anything about it.

      I could go on and on and on, suffice it to say the Greens, who are now trumpeting their influentual role in introducing a great big new carbon dioxide tax, had better be around to take responsibility for the inevitable pain and loss of jobs that follow.

      Finally, you clearly know nothing about the costs and capacity to scale up renewable energy. In most circumstances it is at least 10 (and in some cases 100) times the cost of base load coal. Germany and Spain can’t afford to continue to underwrite renewable energy projects what makes you think Australia can.

      Too much wishful airy fairy thinking in this article for you ever to be taken seriously. If by chance you do want to engage outside your loonie left constituency then let us know why you are so fundamentally opposed to nuclear power.

    • Adam Diver says:

      06:48am | 04/03/11

      Wow, just wow. It honestly reads as if a year 8 student wrote this. I predict an avalanche of comments but I would like to ask one question of the senator

      “baseload solar” - Any real life examples of such a thing?

    • acotrel says:

      08:14am | 04/03/11

      @ Adam Diver -  Any year 8 student knows that the Snowy Hydro Scheme pumps water when electricity is cheap, and uses it to make electricity when the demand and the price are higher! ‘Baseload’ is not an issue!

    • Matt says:

      10:01am | 04/03/11

      Wow! I didn’t know that the Snowy Hydro Scheme was harvesting solar energy. The more you know, eh?

    • James says:

      10:18am | 04/03/11

      Yes concentrating solar thermal power with molten salt storage, look it up. It has been around for a while can provide dispatchable baseload power and is being ramped up in California and Spain, there is $20 billion invested in the Spanish rollout alone.

    • PTom says:

      10:28am | 04/03/11

      How about the solar plant in Cloncurry.

      But “baseload solar” can also mean every house or building having there own solar panels.

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:57am | 04/03/11

      Great examples guys

      Snowy Hydro - Classic

      Look it up - Thanks for clearing it up

      Cloncurry - Not finished and will power the whole town all 2,500 of them.

      I am not ruling out solar because I love burning coal, just because it does not work yet. The best example you gave me is hypothesis and test and Christine Milne uses it as the basis for an entire economic shift.

      Still waiting on a solar plant that can handle baseload power people.

    • Jim says:

      12:18pm | 04/03/11

      What about the huge proposed solar plant near Temora(?) that was knocked on the head….by the Greens!!?

      Or the wind farm that was closed…by the Greens???!

    • James says:

      12:44pm | 04/03/11

      Jim seriously what are you on, I got’s to get me some

    • Jim says:

      01:40pm | 04/03/11

      It’s called fresh air James…maybe you should put the bong down, have a shower and get some.

      Are you seriously saying that those things were not canned by the greens??

    • James says:

      03:26pm | 04/03/11

      Really don’t know that one, maybe it was a bit WOFTAM.

    • Mouse says:

      08:11pm | 04/03/11

      “is blaming the projects failure on concerns about light pollution”.  Now I have heard everything! Tell me the truth, Dazza, this is from a Monthy Python script isn’t it? .

    • Brian Taylor says:

      06:52am | 04/03/11

      what a load of crap, this tax is just another way of ripping off the Aust taxpayers, time for the greens to go back to the trees where they belong, go hug a tree and leave us the hell alone woman

    • AliceC says:

      08:06am | 04/03/11

      Yeah, because the mining industries aren’t ripping us off right now, and have done for a long time….

    • Jim says:

      10:16am | 04/03/11

      How are they ripping us off Alice? Please tell me!

      You lot get all excited and in a flap when a big bad mining company makes a profit, but you have never once considered that;
      1. That mine may employ 1000 people
      2. That mine might spend a billion dollars with local businesses
      3. Those local businesses then can employ maybe 5000 people
      4. Those extra 6000 people earning money then spend it locally at supermarkets, clothes stores etc….maybe keeping another 5000 people in work.
      5. Now you have a towns population worth of people who need teachers, nurses, doctors, council workers, butchers, bakers, friggin candlestick makers!

      So please, put down you latte and your GetUp newsletter and tell us how this great big rip-off is occurring?

    • PTom says:

      10:36am | 04/03/11

      Jim,

      How does a mine employ 5000 local if the miners fly in and fly out?
      So no small town just bigger cities.

    • Jim says:

      11:23am | 04/03/11

      PTom…it’s all relative mate. Most North Queensland sites are in the general vicinity of Mt Isa for example. Most also offer FIFO - so you have business in and around Mt Isa supported, and you have places like Townsville reaping the next tier of benefits.

      For the sites closer to Mt Isa, the town itself benefits. Even Cloncurry had it’s opportunity but greedy councils put a stop to that.

    • ZSRenn says:

      12:44pm | 04/03/11

      @PTom Ever heard of a small place called the Hunter Vally!

      It would be full of small rural villages if it wasn’t for mining but instead has many cities. Many large towns of over 11,000 in poulation. Smaller villages and a booming infrastructure all because of mining. Theres more but I think I have made my point!

    • acotrel says:

      06:53am | 04/03/11

      Every state has its own Environment Protection Agency.  They always were paper tigers!  Our environmental laws are based on ‘loss of amenity’, what could be a greater ‘loss of amenity’ than the bushfires and floods we’ve had as a result of global warming?  ‘If you want to get rid of rats, you should block up their holes.’  That’s what should happen to the big polluters!

    • Phil says:

      08:05am | 04/03/11

      If all the doom and gloom is correct, just how are you and the righteous climate change advocates going to measure it.

      What will be the average temperature in say 5 years from the start of this carbon tax?
      What would it be if no tax was introduced?
      If taxing us is a good thing, then why not tax everyone even more?
      Why tax then redistribute the money? Is that not counter productive? By the time 1000’s of public servants have played with the money, less will be paid out.
      Say this scheme is introduced and no measurable impact is available after 5 years, can we all have our money back (those that got no compensation that is)
      See our governments have so far spent 5.5 billion dollars on climate initiatives, and if you believe the greens the climate has only got worse.
      I would be interested to note just how many like your good self advocating for a carbon tax, ie those in favour have actually spent their own cash on insulation, solar panels etc How many actually pay to offset their carbon, and whether they will be compensated once this is bought in. Further say no compensation was available but carbon was priced lower, would they still be in favour if a carbon tax?
      I dont think we will get many straight answers to these questions.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      07:00am | 04/03/11

      Why is it that every time the greens have a brainfart it involves government sticking their hand in my wallet.

      Sod.Off.Swampy.

    • Dylan Malloch says:

      08:16am | 04/03/11

      Hahahaha!  That, my friend, is one of the best Punch comments I’ve ever seen.  Outstanding.

    • Seanr says:

      08:58am | 04/03/11

      Agreed and LOL

    • ZSRenn says:

      10:09am | 04/03/11

      We need a Punch Awards Dinnert.

      PAD

      Funniest comment.
      Most welded on!
      Ogre award for the crankiest.
      Stupidest comment .
      Most travelled to the event etc.

    • James says:

      10:20am | 04/03/11

      Dylan you have pretty low standards don’t you buddy.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:51am | 04/03/11

      @ZSRenn,

      “Most References to Hitler” award.  You’ll definitely need that catagory.

    • ZSRenn says:

      01:52am | 05/03/11

      Another one Elphaba would be for the person to most often invoke Godwins law! Good work sorry I didn’t see it earlier.

    • Super D says:

      07:01am | 04/03/11

      I’ll start believing that:
      1. Climate Change is a serious problem
      2. We are actually going to do something about it.

      As soon as the Greens advocate the only reliable baseload carbon free energy source - Nuclear Power.

      Wind and Solar sound great but at this stage only provide expensive, unreliable power.  I’m all for R&D but we should not be subsidising the rollout of eneconomic, inefficient energy technologies.

      Finally I note that Christine is still advocating feed in tariffs.  These are a real example of how when a policy is claimed to be “green” no one looks at the actual details.

      Feed in tariffs are perhaps the most regressive policy ever introduced by any government in the country.  They are more retrograde than the biggest Workchoices lies.  Feed in Tariffs result in the poor, the infirm and the unemployed subsidising the landowning middle classes through high electricity prices.  They are an absolute disgrace and proof that common sense flies out the window as soon as the word “Green” is attached to a crackpot idea.

    • AdamC says:

      09:03am | 04/03/11

      SuperD, I agree. It is difficult to take Greens claims about climate chnage seriously when they continue refuse to sacrific some of their dated hang-ups in response to what they claim is one of the greatest crises in history. It just doesn’t quite add up, does it? The same goes for the Copenhagen shenanigans.

    • PTom says:

      10:48am | 04/03/11

      ” Nuclear is the only clean baseload power.” False
      a single wind turbine or a single slar panel can never be baseload but thousand can.  People need to start think about multiple source of power generators and not just one big plant.

      If you have houses with turbine and panel storing their night energy during the day and supply their excess back into the grid you create a new source baseload while reducing the old baseload.

      What about baseload from tidal?

    • St. Michael says:

      10:07pm | 04/03/11

      @ PTom: you do understand what the phrase “baseload power” means, don’t you?

      If not, educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseload_power

      Thousands of solar panels can be rained out and rendered useless if a storm hits the panel farm.

      Thousands of wind turbines can be rendered useless if the wind is too slow *or* too fast.

      The problem with solar and wind is that they don’t provide a continuous energy level to meet demand as it rises and falls.  And they never will.  Solar thermal with storage might provide it, but it’s still woefully unproven in large scale settings, which like it or not, Western civilisation is.

    • Ironside says:

      07:09am | 04/03/11

      Christine, I want to you to tell me how a carbon tax will actually do anything to help reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Forget for a moment that power as Australia’s largest user of coal produces just 50 Gigawatts per year compared to China’s 600 (with between 400 and 600 coming online in the next decade as well) which would render any carbon reductions from Australia completely pointless. Leaving that aside what do you actually think will happen when you tax a business? The answer is they will pass the cost onto the consumer this cost will also include the administration fees surrounding the processing of the tax, therefore meaning that the cost increases cannot possibly be offset by any refund by the government to the people. Given that things like Food, Fuel and power which are our biggest emitters are inelastic expenses even at an increased cost people will still have to buy them, meaning that there is exactly 0 incentive for those industries to reduce emissions. So if your great big new tax is going to do next to nothing to reduce emissions, and the emissions from one single developing nation will more than make up for any savings we can make then why are you perusing a policy that will significantly harm the people of Australia?

    • Barry says:

      07:12am | 04/03/11

      Wow just wow!  Who would have thought this carbon price will allow me to buy shoes for my children?!  Amazing!  Childhood asthma is caused by the big polluters, and the carbon price is going to fix it!  That’s funny since the asthma foundation currently states they don’t know what causes asthma, but that it’s possibly a mix of genetic and environmental factors.  It’s very possible pollution may play a part, but you’d be better off banning smoking if you really wanted to reduce asthma. 

      “As a nation, we are smart enough and mature enough to put our children’s future first, reject the scare campaign and embrace this exciting future.”

      What a joke.  You are running a scare campaign by suggesting that without this carbon price our children’s futures will be in doubt.  Whether or not this is true doesn’t matter, but atleast don’t try and pull a shifty like claiming you aren’t also running a scare campaign.  Let’s see some figures!  The carbon price is going to pay for people to buy their children shoes…....Really, how about an article demonstrating through real figures how the lower class will get more money back through the carbon price then they will be paying, rather than just an emotional, puff piece lacking in substance.
      .

    • Jim says:

      08:01am | 04/03/11

      It’s funny you mention the asthma thing there Barry. When I moved to the Hunter region I was by several locals that it was the asthma capital of the country - and the power stations were to blame (of course).

      But I also noticed 8 out of 10 people smoked…I noticed just about every car driving around had a tribe of kids in the back seat with mum smoking in the front. I’ve been to visit people and they smoke inside with their kids running around.

      Then there was a ‘study’ done by one doctor - who, as it turned out, was overlooked previously as preferred GP for one of the big powerstations - showing increased childhood asthma. Well derrrr….

      Even the family that Today Tonight visited (while showing archive footage of coal mines and power stations) were all smokers. On teh coffee table there was a salad-bowl sized ashtray!

    • no name says:

      07:13am | 04/03/11

      Can somebody please remember what cause a hole above south pole before? CO2 above aveage level!

    • Achmed says:

      07:37am | 04/03/11

      @ no name - well, if CO2 levels are increasing….what closed it?

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:44am | 04/03/11

      I remember it was chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds, commonly called Freon’s, and of bromofluorocarbons compounds known as halons not Co2

    • TimB says:

      07:55am | 04/03/11

      ...Uh…I think you’ll find that was CFC’s.

    • Rev says:

      07:58am | 04/03/11

      @no name - try googling ‘CFCs’ champ.

    • acotrel says:

      08:00am | 04/03/11

      No Name - It was chloro fluoro carbons - CFC’s.  Just like the stuff that escapes from your car’s airconditioner.

    • Jim says:

      08:06am | 04/03/11

      Hahahahaha….

      Oh, the great unwashed with their whacky theories.

      The hole was noticed by satellites…there was no history of it being there, or more importantly NOT being there already prior to this.

      The hole was a place where no ozone was found.

      Ozone absorbs some UV wavelengths - CFC’s were shown to break ozone down. The world acted surprisingly quick and eliminated CFC’s…no reduction in the hole has been seen.

      Guess the hole was always there.

    • Barry says:

      08:15am | 04/03/11

      Actually, CO2 has litle to do with the hole in the ozone layer.

    • The Original Oz says:

      08:44am | 04/03/11

      No Name you are a goose. Carbon Dioxide had absolutely nothing to do with the hole over Antarctica. It was shown to be the result of chloroflurocarbons used in everyday day items like refrigerators and air conditioners. This has been phased out (at least in Australia) by implementing a ban on the use of CFCs in manufacturing and establishing policies and protocols in disposing of the gases in older equipment. NOTE: This was achieved without the need to implement a massive tax that penalises everyone except the financial industry.

    • Engo says:

      09:10am | 04/03/11

      Not CO2, CFCs. CFCs (and other similar chemicals) react with ozone. I can’t exactly remember the chemistry but the net result is it turned an ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2), via a reaction which had nothing to do with CO2, and did not leave sufficient oxygen atoms left over to form more ozone. They were banned years ago.

    • I wouldn't give my name either. says:

      09:23am | 04/03/11

      I believe you are thinking of CFCs.

    • Super D says:

      09:42am | 04/03/11

      Actually it was CFC’s and its well worth remembering that there was absolutely no global agreement to eliminate CFC’s until there was a demonstrated cost effective alternative.

      This should provide an indication as to the likelihood of an international agreement resulting in significant carbon reductions.  It will only happen once there is an an economically viable alternative available.

    • Ironside says:

      09:47am | 04/03/11

      Actually CO2 had nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer the best scientific assessment then and now was it was cased by an increase in the levels of Chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Chlorofluorocarbons were used as refrigerants, propellants (in aerosol applications), and solvents you would also know them by their trade name Freon. CFCs which have a chemical compound of something like CCl2F which is very different to CO2. The problem with CFC’s was the chlorine portion remained in the upper atmosphere and reacted with Ozone to create O2, while Ozone filters UV light O2 does not. CO2 occurs naturally in our environment and as a part of our atmosphere and does not react with Ozone to create O2 and therefore has no affect on the Ozone layer.

    • Dick J says:

      09:51am | 04/03/11

      No name - a perfect pseudomyn for a dill.

    • Peter says:

      12:17pm | 04/03/11

      Flourocarbons was the beast. Now banished from aerosoles under federal law. Which is kind of funny the greater harm of Carbom releases could also be banned but are not so, giving rise to thinking not all is at it seems when Government decides to profit from pollution being released in place of stopping it. .

    • LC says:

      01:19pm | 04/03/11

      “Can somebody please remember what cause a hole above south pole before? CO2 above aveage level!”

      Degradation in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs (Chloro Fluoro Carbons), the use of which has been banned across much, if not all of the 1st world.

      Do some research before you open your mouth.

    • iansand says:

      07:25am | 04/03/11

      I have always seen a price on carbon as an extension of the concept of remediation, which is common in the mining industry.  Any approval to open a mine carries with it a responsibility to remediate (I actually hate the word) the site at the end of the mine’s economic life.  That requirement is often given teeth by bonds etc.  If you look at NPV calculations for a mine there is a negative blip at the end for remediation costs.  The necessity to clean up your mess is a cost that is factored into the economic viability of the mine.

      A price on carbon is similar.  Carbon dioxide, and other pollutants, are a by-product of the manufacturing process.  Until now, the cost of the environmental degradation caused by waste products has been nil.  That cost simply does not come into any economic calculation.  The cost is externalised, and becomes someone else’s problem. 

      By imposing a cost on carbon the damage to the environment is internalised and is brought into the cost of doing business.  The problem of emissions becomes the same as the cost of remedying damage to a mine. 

      Another amnalogy is toxic runoff.  No industry is permitted simply to dump toxic runoff into the drainage system.  It has to be stored on site, treated, or taken offsite for safe disposal.  That is a cost of doing business.

      A carbon price is a way of making industry bear the cost of dealing with emissions.  Sure, those costs will be passed on, but all costs are eventually passed on.  At the moment we all deal with those costs because we, as society, are the “someone else” whose problem it is.  A carbon price gives an individual company an opportunity to compete on the level of reducing emissions by developing cleaner processes, or operating more efficiently by using less energy.  Lower costs mean that widgets can be sold at a lower price, or at a higher margin.

    • iansand says:

      07:50am | 04/03/11

      I should add what should be obvious.  At the moment there is no opportunity to compete at the level of reducing emissions because emissions are not a cost of doing business - they are free.

    • Ripa says:

      07:59am | 04/03/11

      “Carbon dioxide, and other pollutants are a by-product of the manufacturing process”

      Liar, Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, it is a naturally occurring gas that makes up the air we breathe, without it there is no life on earth.
      Every tree or plant uses the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
      Stop lying to people, stop propagating this myth, stop misleading people. Saying CO2 is pollution makes you sound ignorant.

      If you want to force companies to rehabilitate their sites, then you make that part of the contract, don’t try to con Australia into thinking CO2 is evil.

    • Achmed says:

      08:00am | 04/03/11

      “CO2 is a pollutant” - tell that to the plants! How can one of the critical components of Earth’s atmosphere be described as ‘a pollutant?
      ‘‘Lower costs mean lower prices or higher margins” - awesomely stunning economic perception.

      Unfortunately imposing an additional tax will not lead to lower costs - yes, in an unneccessary CO2 tax environment if a business can lower its emissions (without increasing other costs to do so) then that may contribute to it becoming more locally competitive against local businesses that do not. But it isn’t going to make it more competitive against much cheaper imports from countries without a carbon dioxide tax. 
      Suggest you may consider making a personal contribution to reducing CO2 emissions by not exhaling.

    • acotrel says:

      08:03am | 04/03/11

      ‘By imposing a cost on carbon the damage to the environment is internalised and is brought into the cost of doing business.  The problem of emissions becomes the same as the cost of remedying damage to a mine.’

      Does this mean the ‘triple bottom line’ would become a reality?

    • Jim says:

      08:43am | 04/03/11

      It’s like chalk and cheese iansand…the remediation, or end of mine costs are calculated as part of the plan of operations and approval processes. It’s an amount that has to be available at the end of operations for remediation….there is also an environmental assurance paid, which scales to the end of mine cost.

      It’s basically a percentage of the money allocated that has to be paid to the government body each and every year. If mines are doing the right thing and complying to every condition - which most do these days - then a company may only have to pay 75% of that yearly assurance, or 80% or 90%. If they have breaches or non-compliances they may have to pay 110% for example.

      This does two things - it keeps companies accountable from year to year, and it provides a pool of money to be used in case the company goes belly-up.

      Also, if a mine does shut down prematurely, and another company takes over, they also take over any environmental liability left behind.

      The difference is, this is money that is set aside each year and held in trust, with the balloon payment (if you like) budgeted for and transparent. And it is for a very specific purpose.

      This carbon tax is nothing but a grab for cash by a fiscally irresponsible government that has run out of money, and it is all based on the AGW myth that is being pushed by world bankers and global corporations that will earn trillions from trading carbon.

    • Phil says:

      09:23am | 04/03/11

      Ian whilst I agree that you have put your case well, surely the businesses taxed will pass that cost onto the consumer (which we know they will)
      Compensation is surely you will agree an ineffective way of amending habits. Surely unless it costs more, in some cases much more people will not amend their lifestyles.
      The manufacturers may produce something as nasty capitalist bosses do, but unless they are doing so as a foreign order for themselves or a mate, the end user of their product is a consumer, be that by way of electricity usage, petrol, timber and steel in the case of construction, plastic or electrical goods, even a Hybrid Car which I am told costs far more to produce in CO2 emissions than a similar petrol or diesel vehicle due to the energy in production of the batteries. This being the case surely the end user should be paying the CO2 tax for its production and the CO2 tax for its usage? Would it not be better and fairer to bring in (I dont agree with the tax in principal) but a CO2 tax at a lower rate with zero compensation to anyone, thus affecting behavioural patterns, and everyone pays what they or the goods they buy and use emit. Compensation based on income is an ineffective way of changing behaviour as well as biased against those who work harder or live in a more expensive city/region. Further ones income does not determine whether they use more CO2 than one on a lesser income.
      It is also interesting to note that The Greens would like to close down all coal mines in a very short space of time. I wonder which parties voters would be more effected by this decision alone. They want renewables, but if energy prices went up 300% immediately renewable energy was online there would be a riot in the streets. Nuclear is the only Zero CO2 emission (well close too zero emission) base load power alternative and they are dead against this.

    • Andrew says:

      09:40am | 04/03/11

      iansand, the real pollutants from energy come from SOX and NOX. Everyone knows this. Look up google earth and check out the moonscap around the big victorian power stations. you’ll see what SOX and NOX does. If gov’t were serious they would charge SOX and NOX emitters not CO2 which is clearly fairly harmless in the quantities we emit.

      On another point why don’t you look up what solar panels are made from. Some of the most dangerous and toxic elements on earth, which is why, when you buy them you also pay a premium for their disposal at the end of their useful life. DOn’t believe me, ring up a solar panel company and tell them you’ve got a solar panel on your roof that has cracked open and you are just going to go up and grab it and put it in the garbage. They will shit bricks.

    • iansand says:

      10:16am | 04/03/11

      OK - two airheads who don’t like the word “pollutant”.  I don’t know if they added anything useful after that.  I stopped reading.

      Jim, who is with me (although he hasn’t worked it out yet).  If you reduce emissions then it is just like mining best practice - your costs are reduced.

      Phil - I did not mention compensation.  Compensation will be a political necessity.  I agree - it distorts the concept, and I hope it does not remain forever.

    • jf says:

      10:45am | 04/03/11

      Trood’s article, to which Christine Milne is responding, is primarily about the fact the Greens lack accountability for their policies and their lack of pragmatism or ability for contextual thought. The secondary theme is Gillard’s lie.

      I note that Milne has declined to respond to either of these charges in her ‘counter-punch’. Presumably because she has no logical rebuttal for either charge.
      mment:

    • Blind Freddy says:

      10:51am | 04/03/11

      Some definitions of pollution:

      1.  Undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities
      2.  Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat, or light. ...
      3.  The results of activity that is detrimental to beneficial use by plants, animals or humans of water, air or land.

      If it causes harm to the existing equilibrium (which includes human wellbeing) its pollution. QED.

    • Average Joe says:

      12:13pm | 04/03/11

      Hahaha iansand - rather be one of those airheads who highlighted your understanding of CO2 as a toxic pollutant (your words) than someone who could be described as a delusional carbonhead with no understanding of economic fundamentals. You know this will politically destroy Julia Gillard, so we understand how hard it is for you to accept the tsunami of public opinion against the carbon tax. Keep fighting the fight - she needs all the support she can get…...but in the long run it won’t help her survive.

    • iansand says:

      12:29pm | 04/03/11

      Average Joe - Where do you get “toxic” from?

      Apart from that, the foam from your mouth is distracting.  Please stop.

    • Average Joe says:

      02:36pm | 04/03/11

      Sorry iansand, the foaming is nothing like the sludge dribbling out of some others. Hey, but don’t you worry your pretty little head about it, just keep on toeing the party line and supporting Julia up to the point when Greg Combet pops up behind her and knifes both she and the CO2 tax. Then you can support Greg - he’s probably more your type anyway muahahaha

    • Ripa says:

      11:44pm | 04/03/11

      @iansand
      Calling people “airheads” that disagree with you is pretty amusing, considering “AIR” that we breathe contains CO2 a necessary gas vital to life on earth..
      Once again, you show how much of an ignorant moron you are.

    • iansand says:

      12:23pm | 05/03/11

      I have a better idea, Ripa.  How about you deal with the matters raised in my first post?  Until then I will maintain my first judgment.

    • LC says:

      07:15pm | 06/03/11

      “A carbon price is a way of making industry bear the cost of dealing with emissions.”

      And who do you think that cost will be passed down to? The shareholders? I don’t think so, angering them is not a good thing for survival of the company. The costs will be passed down to their customers, you me and every other Australian.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:33am | 04/03/11

      Ms Milne I did some math’s yesterday using the carbon production figures I gained from the website The Ecologist.

      These calculations gave me the result that if this tax was implemented it would save 0.015% of Global emissions if it caused us to reduce ours by 1%, 0.074% for a 5% saving and 0.15% if it saved a massive 10% of our carbon emissions.

      These figures would still leave us as the 8th largest producer of Carbon emissions / capita.

      Could you explain to me please why you are pushing forward with this tax for such a miniscule saving? Is the angst being shown to your party and to that of Labor worth it?

    • James says:

      10:24am | 04/03/11

      To move away from a carbon economy people need a price signal. 

      Q How much would you be spending on petrol if it was $3 per litre?

    • mel says:

      11:33am | 04/03/11

      james i would be spending $3 per litre because i need to drive. i live 30km from the nearest town. what am i meant to do? starve? i will anyway if fuel is that high.  not eveyone has the luxuary of living in a big city or town.
      james as you seem to have all the answers tell me what to do.

    • James says:

      12:02pm | 04/03/11

      mel, what sort of car do you drive and how much fuel does it use per 100kms?

    • Jim says:

      12:23pm | 04/03/11

      Yes mel…contrary to the little bubble the Greens tend to live in (ever been out of Newtown, James?), public transport is not an option for the vast majority.

      I travel 83km each way to and from work each day. My car gives a reasonably economical 9.8L/100km, could do better but I’ll be stuffed before I buy a hairdressers car.

      “move closer to work” I can hear James pontificating….hrrm,,,,I did live closer last year, but I was paying $500 a week for a 2-bed duplex. It was cheaper to move.

    • mel says:

      12:48pm | 04/03/11

      well james since you asked i drive a brand new diesel hilux. brought it to be a good little bunny as it is more fuel efficiant than my old one. no don’t say live closer to work as i already live where i work. but pricing me into the poor house is not going to help the economy, but maybe my waistline.

    • James says:

      12:48pm | 04/03/11

      Jim I come from a farming family, which is part of the reason I am so concerned about climate change I don’t want to see farmers killing themselves as their ill prepared farms are clobbered by its effects.

      Look its a free country but don’t whinge about high fuel costs if you insist on a car that gets 9.8 L/100 when you can get one that gets 3.7 L/100.  Its your choice but accept responsiblity for it, that’s all I am saying.

    • James says:

      12:50pm | 04/03/11

      By the way, you won’t hear disagreement from me (or most greenies) about the extotionate cost of rent, I too am outraged on that one.

    • James says:

      01:30pm | 04/03/11

      Mel, do you use the hilux on your farm?

    • ZSRenn says:

      02:40pm | 04/03/11

      @ James

      So you would see Australia pay $3.00 / liter so that we can save 0.015% of global emissions. That sounds too expensive to me for the result.

      Combine this with increased food production and transport costs we would have to meet. I do not think the Australian economy which is $50,000,000,000 in debt could withstand it.

      Price rises are occurring as we speak with the increased demand from China and other developing nations as their wealth increases. The trouble that is occurring in the Middle East is also causing an upward movement in the price of crude. So maybe we should let these economic influences do the work to slow the use rather than impose an extra burden.

      Because looking at your figures we will all go broke, have nothing to eat and we wouldn’t have cleaner air in Australia because of this tax. Meanwhile the rest of the world can keep going at its own pace.

      Sorry mate but it just doesn’t add up.

    • Adrian says:

      02:52pm | 04/03/11

      I’m getting really sick of people labeling anyone who thinks about, or considers anything resembling Green, as Newtown inner city, urban bubble freaks etc. Stereotypes are not the way forward and they never are. I have lived in the bush, on a farm, in the desert, in the Snowies, by the coast, and yes, oh no, in Sydney’s yuppy Balmain and Melbourne’s Prahran and Fitzroy. Does anybody dare to try and label me, hey? Stop it! NOW.

    • Labelling is easy says:

      03:39pm | 04/03/11

      Adrian, you’re a transient. Wasn’t that hard was it?

    • DJ says:

      07:43am | 04/03/11

      Absolute rubish Ms Milne. It’s simply the means on which to redistribute wealth in your utopian socialist Australia. In your dreams you looney. I reckon the majority of good folks who voted for you are scratching their heads today.

    • Mike says:

      07:45am | 04/03/11

      I will happily go along with a Carbon Dioxide Tax when Gillard has the guts to have a referendum on it and it is voted in by the Australian people. Until that happens, Gillard, Brown and Milne can kiss my…..........

    • stephen says:

      09:45am | 04/03/11

      Correct…twice. An election is neccessary over such an important matter, if only because the normal methods of Government here is not working as it should.
      There has to be a govt governing, and an effective opposition ; both together function, in effect, as opposing each other to define and refine policy for the electorate. Currently the energy of such a meld is dissipated by the three independants - our ‘Senators’ - and The Greens - our ‘Conscience’. They are un un-thought-out addendum to good governance. An election must decide, one way or the other, a Government in authority and an Opposition in authority, unencumbered with chattel.
      Then a Carbon Tax and all other important matters can get a proper thrashing.

    • Matt says:

      12:48pm | 04/03/11

      Mike,

      Was a referendum necessary for the government to violate the UDHR by locking up assylum seekers? or with the NT Intervention? or with the “anti-terror” laws?

      Or what about the floating of the dollar? Selling CBA? Selling Telstra?

      There have been plenty of important and controversial policies in the past. Just because this one isn’t right-wing doesn’t mean a whole election should be called for one piece of legislation.

    • LC says:

      01:27pm | 04/03/11

      @Mike,

      Seconded, provided that the public are given a balanced view of it first.

    • Mike says:

      07:46am | 04/03/11

      I will happily go along with a Carbon Dioxide Tax when Gillard has the guts to have a referendum on it and it is voted in by the Australian people. Until that happens, Gillard, Brown and Milne can kiss my…..........

    • PresqueVu says:

      07:50am | 04/03/11

      What would be the drop in global temperature by 2100 if every person in Australia turned off the lights, hopped on a boat and left so there was not one gram of man made CO2 being emitted???  A whopping 0.0123ºC.

      Christine I think you would be better serve the people if you concenntrated on real environmental issues which are having impacts now, not sometime fantasy scenarios based on very uncertain science.

      I would say bring on global cooling so we put an end to this charade but I don;t really won;t it to be cooler.  The weather isn’t very nice to humans when the climate cools.

    • Jim says:

      09:43am | 04/03/11

      There’s so much visible pollution in our oceans, rivers, landfill etc…but if they tax that then (because it is visible, measurable and therefore proven), it will have to spent there. You can’t fill the governments expense account with money for REAL things Presque! that would be anathemic to Labors ideology!

    • James says:

      10:22am | 04/03/11

      Ah you are not seeing the point of this, we need to transition to a no carbon economy to do this we need to penalise pollution and encourage no/low carbon technology.  In the same way you are protected from cadimium, mecury poisoning your water, do you suggest we allow open slather on harmful levels of all pollutants?

    • Elphaba says:

      08:01am | 04/03/11

      No.

      A carbon tax will only hurt the consumer. Businesses won’t lower their emissions, they’ll just pollute above the cap and charge the consumer.  We can’t possibly save our environment with a carbon tax, because we don’t live in an ecological bubble where our actions benefit or harm just ourselves.

      If you were really worried about the environment and solidifying Australia’s position as a world class in energy, you’d embrace nuclear power.  But no.  You hopped into bed with the tree-hugging idiot ideologists and now you’re bending the entire population over and screwing us.  This is a cash grab from an inept government who wouldn’t know a solution, or how to handle money, if it bit them on the arse.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:28am | 04/03/11

      My mistake, you are a member of the tree-huuging idiot ideologists.

      An honest mistake - you all look the same in the Watermelon Party…

    • fairsfair says:

      09:39am | 04/03/11

      you are a wordsmith wink

      I tried to read this article with an open mind. No matter how this is presented to me I interpret it the same way you do. The “exciting opportunities of baseload solar” is where I really started to stumble, and really that is only the start of it.

    • Jim says:

      09:49am | 04/03/11

      The Greens stopped hugging trees in the 80’s Elphaba…when socialist states started collapsing they had to go somewhere. Check out GetUp’s website, and any greens site from around the world - very scary stuff!

    • Elphaba says:

      09:53am | 04/03/11

      @fairsfair, hehehe

      It’s amazing how articulate I can be when I’m f*cking angry… wink

    • AdamC says:

      10:05am | 04/03/11

      Good on you for trying, though, Fairsfair. I didn’t even bother. I just saw the title, Christine Milne’s byline and filled the gaps in my head. (Incidentally, I am sure my head wrote a better article.)

      And spot on, Elphaba. A wordsmith indeed.

      As an aside, I have noticed you two having quite the mutual benefit society of late. What’s the story? ‘Find on this page’ perhaps?

    • Elphaba says:

      10:15am | 04/03/11

      @Jim, eww, I was unfortunate enough to stumble across GetUp a while ago *shudder*.  You’re right, scary stuff.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:35am | 04/03/11

      @AdamC, not sure.  I’m not looking for fairsfair, maybe people are looking for me?

      It’s ok, I have that effect on people.  wink

      I’m sure you did write a better article.  I didn’t read most of it either.  If it’s the same as what I’ve been hearing on A-PAC for the last 4 days, I don’t need to.  All bullshit smells the same, after all.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:20am | 04/03/11

      AdamC, it is just the vibe wink

      True though, there have been instances of freakish comparability with opinion and comment. Some days I comment to that effect, but more often than not I just give Elphaba a mental hi5.

      group hug y’all.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:40am | 04/03/11

      High Five!!  grin  Love a good high five!

    • Seanr says:

      12:31pm | 04/03/11

      I’m with AdamC, saw the headline and then Christine Milne and went ‘fill in the gaps’, then read the article. I"m sure anyone could have written a better one.

      Query: if you hug a tree and it doesn’t hug back, does that mean the trees is racist or it’s just doesn’t care?

    • fairsfair says:

      01:10pm | 04/03/11

      seanr - I think the tree would be categorised as a sceptic if not just a straight up denier.

    • AdamC says:

      01:20pm | 04/03/11

      Yep, SeanR, my imaginary article was way better than the actual one.

      “Did you know that your tax dollars are currently paying polluters to pollute?”

      Is there any sort of truth to this at all? How are we paying these polluters and which polluters is she talking about? And, if we really are paying them from our tax dollars, why not just stop? No need for a complex carbon tax!

    • Charles says:

      08:05am | 04/03/11

      Christine Milne, if you put a cost on the Big Polluters as you say, they will invariably pass their costs onto those who consume their products, and when those are things like electricity, it is not likely they will stop using it in the next short while.  So, the Big Polluter becomes the average person ion the street.

      In the case of feed-in tariffs for solar panels, all you are doing is passing the cost of electrcity from those with panels to those who don’t, in essence the pensioners, unemployed and low-paid citizens of West Sydney get to buy the electricity of those in Balmoral and Mosman.

      But where it really stings is the wind farms the Greens support.  These are an electricity generation system that is so variable, it must be constantly backed up by a fossil-fuelled generator, just so the lights stay on.  However, apart from ruining our environment and skyline, and not reducing our emission by 1 kg, we get to endure these obscenities while we pay for the over-priced electricity generated from these things, which mostly goes into the pockets of owners and shareholders of windfarms, most of whom are located so far away from Australia they can hardly spell it.  It is the worst piece of public policy ever invented.

    • Daniel says:

      08:10am | 04/03/11

      Christine,
      So true. This article is great and I’m a strong supporter of the Greens and the Carbon Price on pollution.
      I think what the Greens now need to do is sell this to people like those in western Sydney who have no idea what the Greens are actually talking about. Those that are in the lower socio economic groups in Sydney and other regions in Australia that have no clue what this all means. If the Greens get in quickly and explain this without these poor people getting hit with higher power bills and just blaming Greens it can only help the Greens increase primary votes and increase support.

    • The Original Oz says:

      10:00am | 04/03/11

      Daniel - I do hope that this is sarcasm as no person who has the ability to think for themselves would possibly come out with a ridiculous statement like this.

    • Denny Crane says:

      08:24am | 04/03/11

      Christine, you honestly have no idea do you.

      So you want Australia to take the lead pay this tax, i ask so when is China & India going to do the same thing NEVER.

      If you believe the warming planet caused the floods, explain to me the blizzards that covered North America, no on that you will wait till thier summer, when it gets hot and say Climate Change.

      This is just a big tax, you dont listen to what the people have to say, or that the tax will kill this country, how is anyone to get ahead, and create wealth.

      You are the pary of watermelons, Green on the outside and RED on the inside

    • Angry (of Mayfair) says:

      08:28am | 04/03/11

      I demand my right to cosume without consequence! It is a human right to own a plasma TV (its in the constitution . . . and the Bible). And as a Liberal voting human I don’t think that the laws of physics should apply to me. It’s all the Greens fault. Bwaa . . . bwaa . . . sob . . . snuffle. It’s not fair that my actions have consequences!

      Oh well, got that of my chest . . . better stick my head back up my butt.

    • Seanr says:

      09:37am | 04/03/11

      Thank you for that constructive comment now please go and watch Playschool whilst the adults are talking.

      Unless of course you wish to have a valid argument as to:
      1. Why no nuclear?
      2. Australia reducing emissions to zero has negligable impact on world carbon emissions so why do it?
      3. No evidence that disasters are increasing because of AGW?
      4. Green jobs and renewable energy aren’t proving that reliable or cost effective in Europe so why would it be different here?
      ETC ETC ETC

    • James says:

      10:27am | 04/03/11

      @Seanr, ah who is the adult here, you are suggesting we don’t act because no one else is (which isn’t true) you are like a selfish little kid who can’t see beyond their own selfish needs.

    • Seanr says:

      11:01am | 04/03/11

      Your mind reading is faulty James, nowhere have I said not to act ‘because no one else is’ I’m saying why act when it will have no impact, completely different.

      Address my arguments don’t insert your own talking point.

    • James says:

      11:58am | 04/03/11

      @Seanr “acting will have no impact”? hmm that is less childish perhaps and more completely daft.

    • TimB says:

      12:50pm | 04/03/11

      What impact will it have then James?

      Why don’t you tell us seeing as you’re so well informed?

      Please note, I want a quantifiable answer, not something vague.

    • James says:

      01:33pm | 04/03/11

      I turn the table, you show me it will have no impact same challenge nothing vague.

    • LC says:

      01:36pm | 04/03/11

      “Oh well, got that of my chest . . . better stick my head back up my butt.”

      I’d be impressed if you can…

    • ZSRenn says:

      04:14pm | 04/03/11

      @James I have said a decrease of 0.015% reduction in admissions I call that no impact and most mathematicians round it down to zero.

      Now answer the mans question Scott sorry James.

    • TimB says:

      05:28pm | 04/03/11

      What ZSRenn said. And besides don’t ask me to prove a negative James, thats stupid. How can you quantify “no impact”? The quantity is nothing.

      You’re the one advocating we drastically futz with our economy. The onus is on you to convince us.

      Or is what I suspect true? That you don’t actually have anything beyond enviro-nut rhetoric?

    • James says:

      10:35am | 05/03/11

      You sound pretty sure it will have no impact, so proving it should be easy.

    • Brian says:

      03:18pm | 06/03/11

      JAMES,  You sound pretty sure it will have AN impact, so proving it should be easy.
      That the part you have yet to do.

    • James says:

      11:37am | 07/03/11

      I’ve got news for you pal despite what you may think, you are the one who is going to have to prove we shouldn’t move away from fossil fuels as the real risk is in not doing so.  If you want to try and convince everyone we should be left behind, that’s fine, but you better have a much better arguement that what I have seen so far.

    • pete says:

      08:28am | 04/03/11

      who cares if it causes climate change, who cares if it doesnt.  If we and our kids get cleaner air, isnt that a plus?

    • Phil says:

      09:32am | 04/03/11

      With a comment like that I may be wrong but dont this it will be costing you very much

    • jf says:

      09:44am | 04/03/11

      This is typical of the level of scrutiny that the Greens get away with.

      I am all for a cleaner planet and agree that something must be done.

      However, Pete, this policy will increase the cost of living for everyone whilst at the same time reducing Australia’s international competitiveness.

      Add to that, that this policy will do nothing towards improving the global climate or environment. 

      Whilst the wealthy can afford to pay for increased electricity, the poor can’t. And this, my friend, is the root of the problem.

    • LC says:

      01:40pm | 04/03/11

      I’m all for weaning humanity off fossil fuels. The sooner we do that, the less harsh the bump will be when they do run out.

      I’m not all for taxing carbon when alternatives are not readily available, increaing the cost of living for EVERYONE for no gain.

    • Col. of Blackburn says:

      08:34am | 04/03/11

      Christine
      Love your photo of all that H2O, plus a little bit of CO2 coming out.
      I thought that someone who runs a Gardening Blog would have been aware of that? Plants need water and co2 to grow Christine!
      BTW Christine, how come you contribute an article to The Punch, but never contribute to your forum on the Just Grounds Community Site?

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      07:47pm | 06/03/11

      Dear Col. of Blackburn,

      Not all plants will benefit from a rise in CO2. Photosynthetic rate is dependant on other factors as well, such as light, water and nutrient availably and genetic factors such as growth rate and metabolic rate.

      Plants that are fast growing are better poised to take advantage of increasing CO2, so they will out-compete slow growing plants. Another way plants reacted in the past was to increase in numbers and colonise other areas previously unavailable to them. We make it difficult today for this to happen by restricting the places plants can grow, through agriculture and urbanisation.

      Another thing to consider is the plants account for only about 40% of the photosynthesising life forms on the planet. The rest, such as algae and phytoplankton, reside in the oceans. As the oceans warm CO2 leaves the oceans and migrates to the atmosphere, rendering the extra CO2 unavailable to them.

    • The Original Oz says:

      08:35am | 04/03/11

      This ridiculous piece of fiction is all based on the premise that AGW is real. As more and more of the AGW/CC “scientific facts” are proven to be utter crap the diatribe from the believers in this faulty religion becomes more and more desperate. Not happy with their usual “the sky is falling” doom and gloom message they now try valiantly to justify putting in place this tax (yes it is a bloody tax) that will beggar so many Australians it is truly scary. Once it moves from being a tax to being traded as credits the only winners will be Invesment Firms, Futures Traders and the finance industy. Real industry, commerce and the public will continue to pay the price for this lunacy. By the time an ETS is in place the cost of everything will have increased astronomically. Taxing power generation, fuel, transport, manufacturing will drive up the prices of ALL commodities not just power and fuel. Retailers will have no choice but to pass on the increases or be forced to close their doors. Supermarkets will pass on all price rises otherwise it will affect their bottom line margins and the poor shareholder may see a reduction in their share price or even -shock, horror - their annual dividends cheque. We can’t have that can we?

    • Mark says:

      08:39am | 04/03/11

      If you honestly think this won’t be passed onto the consumer then you are naive as you are stupid.

      If my memory serves me right, Juliar was sworn in as prime minister, not the Greens party, yet here you are running the country.

    • kat says:

      10:52am | 04/03/11

      “If you honestly think this won’t be passed onto the consumer then you are naive as you are stupid.”
      isn’t that the point? in my understanding (and please correct me if i’m wrong) the tax/price/whateveryouwanttocallit will increase the price of ‘polluting’ energy, and the tax/price/whateveryouwanttocallit from this will be used to decrease the price of ‘clean’ energy somewhat offsetting it and encouraging us societal plebs to head to the green side.

    • James says:

      11:00am | 04/03/11

      Ah coal, oil and NG are all going up in price regardless of carbon tax or not, wouldn’t it make sense to try and encourage people off all three, which is precisely the point of a carbon tax.

    • stephen says:

      12:05pm | 04/03/11

      but sofar the alternative is not price compeditive.  solar is expensive to instale and will not cover all household needs.  there are not enough wild farms to be effective. 
      when they offer us better, more reliable and cheaper alternatives to what we have now,they can then instale an ets.
      until then taxing us will not change anything.

    • James says:

      12:52pm | 04/03/11

      Three words.  Cost Reduction Curve.  More words, the more R & D that goes into these technologies, the more they are rolled out the cheaper they become, as it was with coal, as it was with gas as it was with nuclear.  Same deal

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:25pm | 04/03/11

      Cost Reduction Curve is that anything like a J Curve. Economics has been running along nicely on the Supply and Demand Curve.  And I think that curve is the only curve we need.

      iansand has given the best argument in this forum so far for an explanation of this tax but still and to all and for the last time.

      Why are we doing all of this for no result and at great expense to our economy only?

    • Fed says:

      08:48am | 04/03/11

      Bob Brown and his mates will only be happy when we are all living in caves, back hunting for food. Great to have all these policies, but what about the practical implications of them. A tax on everything, regardless of carbon pricing or gst, raises the price on everything. Electricity goes up by $500/year for household, what about manufacturers, are they going to absorb the costs? Transport companies, will they absorb the costs? Will Woollies & Coles keep their prices down when everything has additional costs to produce, transport and market?

      If Bob Brown and co were really interested in saving the world, why not nuclear reactors as a power source. Technology is so much better in that environment today, even another Chernobyl would cause a lot less damage to the environment that the carbons produce by coal fired generators.

    • Ellis Wyatt says:

      08:48am | 04/03/11

      Senator Milne parrots the tired old Greens Party furphy about “handing money to the polluters.”  Fuel tax credits allow that the business use of fuel in off-road activities including agriculture, mining, fishing, forestry, marine & rail transport, plus remote area power generation etc to be eligible for a tax credit.  The principle behind the fuel tax credits is that the fuel is not used on public roads and it therfore removes fuel excise from the costs of production.  Heavy on-road transport is also able to claim a fuel tax credit, less a substantial road-user charge.  These should be simple enough concepts for the Deputy Leader of the Greens Party to understand.  Removing fuel tax credits would make our agricultural and mining sectors (plus the rest of our economy) less competitive internationally and increase the price of farm produce; surely not something the Greens Party would desire.  Oh wait ...

    • Tator says:

      10:03pm | 04/03/11

      Ellis,
      the only reason that fuel tax credits exist is that prior to 1996, fuel used for road usage was levied an excise by the states, which was found to be unconstitutional in the High Court, so the Howard government levied the equivilent excise federally on all fuels and gave out credits to those sectors who didn’t previously pay the excise.  It is also the reason that up until recently, Queensland received an 8 cents a litre “subsidy” on the fuel costs there.

    • DocBud says:

      08:49am | 04/03/11

      “What most people don’t realise is that, far from supporting the transition to a solar economy, our governments are handing billions of dollars of your money every year to the companies digging up, selling and burning coal, oil and gas – companies already making multi-billion dollar profits out of polluting our planet.”

      Care to put some facts to that assertion, Christine?

      The demonising of hard working people who contribute so much to this country and the determination to take away their livelihoods based on a political agenda rather than science are utterly odious. The least skilled coal mine worker or power station worker has contributed more to Australia than you, Christine. You peddle your simplistic, ill-informed policies and provide no benefit, all at the taxpayer’s expense.

      This is where your anti-people policies will take us:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12597097

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-windfall-in-false-promise-of-green-jobs/story-e6frg6zo-1226014388051

      To pay for health, education, etc., we need to have jobs that produce a profit (e.g. coal exports), not jobs that suck up taxpayer’s money.

    • Dash says:

      11:46am | 04/03/11

      Hi DocBud, before some lefty fool gets on hear and tells you about the compensation scheme.

      I would add that the hard working people who contribute so much are the ones who will not be adequately compensated under this policy. The people already paying the most tax will not be eligible for compensation and the greens and the ALP will determine where that money goes. This is a massive socialist fraud!

    • Matt says:

      12:36pm | 04/03/11

      Dash,

      Because a bank CEO works so much harder than a landscaper.

      Give yourself an uppercut.

    • Dash says:

      01:26pm | 04/03/11

      Matt, what’s your point and how is it relevant to my argument? I have a landscaper at my place at the moment. He told me if i wanted a cheaper quote I just needed to pay him cash!!! Unfortunately as a PAYG taxpayer, I don’t have the luxury of dealing in the cash economy! He has a lot more money than I do and a very sucessful business and yes he works extremely hard.

      My point is why punish people who work hard and are successful. You don’t become a bank CEO without working hard or being intelligent. Why do lefties alway seem to put down the value of white collar workers? Many of whom are well educated and work very long hours.

      The point is, household compensation is most likely going to be based on income not pollution! This therefore makes this a socialist wealth redistribution exercise, not about punishing polluters! It makes a mockery of the reason the government is giving for this tax!

      And if you don’t believe that, you can give yourself an uppercut.

    • Ryan says:

      08:57am | 04/03/11

      And yet Christine pollutes on the way to work driving her car here there and everywhere, pollutes when just hopping on a plane and pollutes with her daily large carbon footprint.
      Do as I say, not as I do is the Green mantra. I just wish I was as rich as Christine to be able to afford all this, including the lies that go with it.

    • Mikko says:

      09:01am | 04/03/11

      So we are all subsidising the coal industry, Christine. Please do the maths - which is the greater, the billions earned in royalties and export income, wages in the coal and other support industries plus projected income from a mining tax, or these “subsidies” we are all paying? And please don’t try to tell us a “carbon price” will change the world’s climate. More than 30,000 scientists have signed a petition stating CO2 and other greehhouse gases are not the main driver of climate change, but you expect us to believe “the science is settled” because you, Bob Brown and Julia Gillard say so. See http://www.petitionproject.org/
      Oh, and that photo which is typical of what we keep seeing on TV whenever “climate change” is mentioned, shows harmless clouds of steam rising from the stacks.

    • James says:

      10:29am | 04/03/11

      Well you photograph the cloud of CO2 coming out with the steam and show how “stupid” that photo is, go on.

    • Mouse says:

      05:32pm | 04/03/11

      I hear people keep saying that if prices go up, people will use less. Less what? Less food, less toothpaste, less petrol? Maybe the people that will get slugged with this tax will cut back on electricity where they can. Most I know have already done so, things such as solar panels, greener appliances, etc. Petrol? Fine if you live in the city, so you can car pool, use public transport. Country people don’t have a choice though. Australia is a pretty wide country, lots of kms to get places.  I suppose you could ride a bicycle!
      This tax is going to add cost to everything. Food, clothing, stationery, electronic equipment, everything! A bit like the GST but without the removal of all other government taxes first. So, if you eat, wear clothes, live in a house, own a vehicle, you will be hit. People on the lower end of the wage scale will be compensated. gillard has said that the majority of people in this group will get more than what they spend. How in the hell do you work that out? How can you end up with more money than you had? So why should they cut back on anything, they’re being compensated. Companies will get compensated too. But why? They will be passing their increased costs onto the consumer so are therefore going to be better off also. Whereas the higher end of the scale get no compensation. Include the $Bs that have been pledged by the government to this UN Green Climate Fund to all the compensation given away in Australia, what money will be left over to?
      What purpose is this tax for then? It’s not going to cure AGW, it’s not going to pay for cleaning up any of our “polluting” industry, all it’s going to do is level out the income across Australia.  Gee, that’s a fair Democracy for ya!

    • Matt says:

      09:19am | 04/03/11

      This article is an infuriating composition of lies, half truths, emotional blackmail and envy politics.

      No matter what your view is on CO2 and AGW, there are two facts that most Australians understand
      1. Taxing carbon won’t reduce emissions
      2. Reducing Australia’s emissions to zero will have no impact on global emissions.

      It’s because people understand this that Gillard ruled out a carbon tax in order to win the election. For the Greens to then try to argue this is an environmental policy is a lie.

      Those so called “big polluters” contribute a lot more to the capacity of all Australians to put food on the table and buy shoes for their children than a Greens wealth redistribution tax ever will.

      The Greens should have more respect for the 87% of Australians who did not vote for them and stop forcing a minority view on all of us. Hopefully this term of Parliament will expose the Greens for the deceitful self-serving nutters that they are.

    • Peter says:

      09:22am | 04/03/11

      Dear Christine.  The Carbon Tax where the punter pays the polluter more money to continue polluting.  New Technoloy Bob and he Greens keep in the closet, the punter pays less for electricity and theres no polution.. However that would upset the Coal Union a mighty force at election time.

    • Tim says:

      09:23am | 04/03/11

      Huh?

      “What most people don’t realise is that, far from supporting the transition to a solar economy, our governments are handing billions of dollars of your money every year to the companies digging up, selling and burning coal, oil and gas – companies already making multi-billion dollar profits out of polluting our planet.”

      Please explain how our government is paying tax dollars these companies?

      This kind of anti-corporate nonsense shows the ideology behind the nice leafy Green facade.

    • Tim says:

      01:24pm | 04/03/11

      Matt:

      Firstly, giving tax concessions is not the same as “paying tax dollars”.

      Giving tax concessions means not collecting tax. I.e. not taking a cut of someone else’s earnings.

      Giving tax rebates is the (unfortunately inefficient) process whereby the government collects tax but gives it back, for a variety of reasons (including to ensure that businesses aren’t taxed on reasonable business expenses).

      This is not even close to “paying polluters to pollute.”

      As an income earner, if you work more than usual in a given week, the government will tax you as if you earn that much every week, and you will pay extra tax. At the end of the financial year, the government will give you that extra tax back.

      Using Ms Milne’s logic, if you spend your tax return on any activity which causes carbon emissions, then the government will have effectively “paid a polluter to pollute.”

      So along with abolishing tax concessions and rebates, an environmentally responsible policy should include the abolition of tax rebates for individuals.

      I wonder, do you accept any personal tax rebates or handouts that contribute to carbon emissions? If so, maybe you should hand them back.

    • Engo says:

      09:29am | 04/03/11

      Wow, I didn’t realise that I payed big polluters to pollute. I thought I paid industry to provide goods and commodities, and CO2 was produced as an undesired (but often neccessary) side product. Thanks for clearing that one up. And thanks for the greatly educational photo of a pollution source. Oh wait, that’s water vapor mostly coming out of cooling towers, not CO2. Whoops. But it adds to the story nicely, doesn’t it?

      As an engineer, I take great offence to the accusation that industry simply pollutes for pollutions sake.

      What is the Green’s position on industries which simply have no other way of doing business that doesn’t result in CO2 emissions? Take for example steelmaking. At present, there are two main methods of producing iron and steel. A blast furnace and BOS process, or an EAF (which is less suitable due to the small scrap market in Australia). In order to convert iron ore (iron oxide) to iron, a blast furnace is used which uses coke (produced from coal) to transfer the oxygen in the ore to the carbon, producing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. This iron is still rich is carbon (around 5%), which is removed by blasting with oxygen in a BOS, where the carbon is transformed to CO and CO2 again.

      Now given that there is a certain amount of efficiency that can be improved, there is still a theoretical minimum required for steelmaking that is physically impossible to substitute. There are trials for other technologies (which still use carbon) but there is nothing approaching either a blast furnace/BOS or EAF system for economies of scale, quality and cost of production.

      Will the Greens/Labor allow some level of compensation for this theoretical minimum requirement, or will they continue to preach “paying polluters to pollute” until the last of industry dies?

    • Peter says:

      09:31am | 04/03/11

      Dear Christine, Why do you and the Greens refuse to back the New Technogy Obahma, Gillard and Brown welcomed. That is not reliant on solar, emitts no Carbon and is cheaper to produce than Coal fired electricity and indeed Hydro generated electricity.
      Now released in Open Technology World wide, have you lost your copy privided before it was released in Open Technology.
      Writing and ringing you office fails to acheive even a reply let alone a response.

    • demeter says:

      09:32am | 04/03/11

      Best blog ever Ms Milne.

      So we are going 100% renewable energy hey? As per the Green policy.

      What planet are you lot from?

      Dont get me wrong I love the Greens they are like you little sister, fun to have around, do cute and cuddly things, sound good. But you never really pay too much attention to them because they have no idea. But this has gone mad, its like a 6 year old girl behind the wheel of a F1. Either they will drive it at 300km into a wall or go no where because they have no idea how ot start it. Either way a 6 year old behind the wheel means death or nothing not much of a choice im afraid.

      Surely the ALP can bribe a Greens Senator to come over to the ALP and stop this insanity.

    • James says:

      10:33am | 04/03/11

      Planet Earth the very same planet that is in the process of a 6th mass extinction caused by humans altering the composition of the atmosphere.  If you want to try and live on a planet where the average global temperature is 18 degrees then find a new planet please.

    • Jim says:

      12:36pm | 04/03/11

      The 6th mass extinction caused by humans?? Wow…didn’t think we were around 200 million years ago! Also didn’t know that we caused volcanoes to explode arfound the globe, frying everything. Or that we caused a big-arsed asteroid to crash near Mexico.

      I AM uneducated, as you say, James!

    • Matt says:

      01:20pm | 04/03/11

      Jim,

      The extinction 200 million years ago was the Permian Mass Extinction you idiot. Caused by the destruction of the ozone layer (by a massive volcanic eruption in what is now Siberia).

      The KT Mass Extinction (65 million years ago) was caused by an asteroid twice the size of Everest.

      The current mass extinction (60,000 years ago to present) is being caused by Homo sapiens.

    • James says:

      01:34pm | 04/03/11

      You said it

    • James says:

      02:54pm | 04/03/11

      Hey Jim, I thought you were a geologist

    • Jim says:

      03:49pm | 04/03/11

      Whoever said I was a geologist??

      BSc’s in Ceramic Engineering, Mineral Science and Metallurgy, Bachelor degree in statistics, and an MBA. Geology…pffft.

      Anyway, my tongue-in-cheek comment was in reference to your “6th mass extinction caused by humans”....I knew what you meant but it sounded funny all the same.

    • mis says:

      09:36am | 04/03/11

      i am going to use the old chestnut of a loaf of bread. if you take agriculture out, the mill that processes the grain will be taxed, the truck that moves the grain will be taxed and the supermarket that sells the bread will be taxed. all this will have to be passed on to the consumer.  i know this because my husband is a farmer/truck driver, my friend works at a mill and i work in a supermarket.

    • PresqueVu says:

      09:58am | 04/03/11

      Call me cynical but I have a feeling that leaving out agriculture was more about protecting Oakshott and Windsor than keeping our food cheap(er).

    • Peter says:

      10:08am | 04/03/11

      Mis, the carbon tax goes further than that, it increases the price of candles on your childs birthday cake.

    • mis says:

      10:17am | 04/03/11

      PresqueVu
      you get that feeling too?
      but when those two go, then what?

    • mis says:

      10:45am | 04/03/11

      peter,
      i decided not to have children because of their carbon footprint. do i get “browny” points for that?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:32am | 04/03/11

      I grow a front lawn.  I put a fair amount of water on it to keep it green.  By definition, I am capturing carbon which is not going into the atmosphere.  Where are my tax credits for that?

    • Anna C says:

      09:39am | 04/03/11

      Christine Milne must live in fairy land. This new TAX will just drive up the prices of good and services and do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon or so called global warming.  Instead of creating jobs your new carbon tax will wreck our economy and make us even less able to compete with countries like China.  The Greens are an absolute joke when it comes to economic matters.  If I were into conspiracy theories I’d wonder whether their main objective was for our extinction; that sure would put a halt to global warming wouldn’t it Christine.

    • James says:

      10:05am | 04/03/11

      Do you actually have facts to back up your statements or do you feel that you don’t need facts?

    • The Original Oz says:

      02:13pm | 04/03/11

      James - you are asking for facts? There have been many requests on these forums for you to provide facts your fantasy statements and not once have you responsed with verifiable facts. Usually when you feel challenged or cornered you resort to personal abuse of the poster in the hope that this will deflect the fact that you have consistently refused to provide verifiable facts to bak up any of your “Green” fantasy statements.

    • James says:

      03:33pm | 04/03/11

      And I’ll be asking you for the facts to back that up too.

    • Brian says:

      03:22pm | 06/03/11

      James where are your facts? you never provide any.

    • LauraBoBaura says:

      09:44am | 04/03/11

      Christine - prove to me that a carbon tax will make one iota of difference to the environment, and I’ll be all for it. How do we know that AGW (if it is real) is even reversible & that any of the billons and billions of dollars we pour into it will make the slightest lick of difference in the longrun?

    • James says:

      11:02am | 04/03/11

      Prove to me that it won’t, good for the goose good for the gander

    • jf says:

      11:46am | 04/03/11

      James says:11:02am | 04/03/11

      “Prove to me that it won’t, good for the goose good for the gander”

      I think that before you introduce a tax that will impact on the lives of millions of people, you’d better have a damn good reason supported by sound and unequivocal science.

      This is the very point. The Greens say something and the gullible jump on without thought, consideration, context or depth.

    • James says:

      12:11pm | 04/03/11

      Ok but the deal is you have to engage your brain.

      Carbon tax penalises polluting industries, the revenue can be redirected to more help make people use energy more efficiently i.e. more bang for buck.  Usually for every service there is a higher efficiency alternative if you use that service you will usually be better off financially in the long run, high energy efficicent services are better for the environment because they use less energy or waste less to deliver the service. 

      Classic example would be using a carbon tax to fund research into more efficient cars, lights, heaters, ships, power plants, farming practices etc.  This can have a massive impact becuse the more efficient technology can be implimented around the globe.

    • LauraBoBaura says:

      12:27pm | 04/03/11

      But James - how far away is this ‘long run’ in which I’ll be better off financially. I’m scraping by on the bones of my bum as it is, when everything rises in cost, and I apparently ‘earn too much’ to get assistance from the government for this carbon scheme, this long run better get here pretty quickly.

    • jf says:

      12:58pm | 04/03/11

      “Ok but the deal is you have to engage your brain”
      A typically condescending and arrogant comment from someone who thinks that they hold the moral high ground and has it all worked out, someone who is so obviously viewing at this issue in isolation, without consideration for the broader implications and without context. Hardly what I would consider as engaging one’s brain.
      I have news for you genius. A lot of us who oppose this tax care just as much about the environment as you. However, we oppose it because we understand that it isn’t as simple as that. We have considered the broader implications and the impact on the financially vulnerable.
      “Usually for every service there is a higher efficiency alternative if you use that service you will usually be better off financially in the long run, high energy efficicent services are better for the environment because they use less energy or waste less to deliver the service.”
      Name one. Shouldn’t be too hard with your constantly engaged brain.
      “Classic example would be using a carbon tax to fund research into more efficient cars, lights, heaters, ships, power plants, farming practices etc.  This can have a massive impact becuse the more efficient technology can be implimented around the globe.”
      Maybe so. But how long will it take and at what cost? And is the benefit worth the cost? At this stage this is all rhetoric. You do understand that providers of goods and services add the costs of providing their costs and services to the price that the users of those costs and services. You do understand that the Government is simply an intermediary between people who get money and people who pay money. However, they take their cut as it passes through. Often this is necessary. However, as we seek these high energy solutions, in the meantime, many, many people will suffer.
      Added to the insult of this is that the Government is penalizes the polluters (fair enough at many levels) but is then compensating them. Net result: money wasted on administration, higher costs to consumers and zero impact on the health of the planet.
      If only the Greens would engage their brains: but the point is that the simply don’t have to when their supporters don’t and they are subject to zero scrutiny and zero accountability.

    • James says:

      01:40pm | 04/03/11

      Laura, my advice to you is to look at ways you can become more efficient in energy use.  Have a look at your power bill and see how many kWh you use, with good advice you can a get house without gas down to around 10 kWh using off the shelf technology, this should mean your bills are managable.

      There are also cars now that only use 1/3 of the petrol a regular car uses i.e. 1/3rd the fuel bill.

      The Greens are actually batting for people and trying to reduce their overall cost of living especially people who are skint.

    • jf says:

      03:36pm | 04/03/11

      James says:01:40pm | 04/03/11

      ” this should mean your bills are managable.”

      At least until a carbon tax makes them once again unmanagable.

      “There are also cars now that only use 1/3 of the petrol a regular car uses i.e. 1/3rd the fuel bill.”

      These cars were developed without a carbon tax. So why do we need one again?

      “The Greens are actually batting for people and trying to reduce their overall cost of living especially people who are skint.”

      Then why don’t they have policies that actually achieve that?

      Come on mate. Engage your brain.

    • James says:

      10:38am | 05/03/11

      No use debating idiots they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    • PresqueVu says:

      09:55am | 04/03/11

      When Christine and the Greens talk about the “Big Polluters” who they are really referring to are you and me and everyone else who turns ona light, drives a car, buys food at the supermarket, buy clothes, watches a movie etc etc etc.  Unless you give up all of these activities you will be emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and in the brave new world of taxing carbon dioxide you will have to pay for it.  Of course giving up these activities will not result in any significant decrease or increase in climate temperatures.

    • mel says:

      10:02am | 04/03/11

      i loved how bob brown stated it would make us use public transport more. well bob i live in regional nsw and i have no public transport, the school bus doesn’t even come up my road. so what am i suppose to do? walk 30km to the supermarket? ride my bike?
      not everyone lives in the city you know…...

    • James says:

      12:18pm | 04/03/11

      But most people do, I don’t think Bob Brown has it in for you personally, relax.

    • mel says:

      12:36pm | 04/03/11

      never said he did, but once again james you miss the point.

    • Matt says:

      01:24pm | 04/03/11

      80% of Australians live in ciites. Pretty sure he’s refering to that majority. And don’t worry, the regional independents will ensure rural Australians are treated fairly by this carbon tax. The Nationals, on the other hand, will again give you 1/4 or 2/5 of sfa.

      btw, 50 years ago it was possible to catch a train between towns on the Darling Downs. Much of the trackwork is still there, I don’t see why we can’t go back to a system like that.

    • James says:

      01:43pm | 04/03/11

      No I get what you are saying in your situation it might save you a heap of money to buy something like a TDi golf they only cost 50 bucks to fill up and get you over 900kms on one tank and there are even better cars coming out.

    • mel says:

      02:53pm | 04/03/11

      james a golf would not last very long on a corrogated dirt road,as for rail, 2 years ago they removed sections of the railroad that i use to cross, that is not including what has been damaged or neglected.  i believe in climate change and do what i can but because my cows fart i could be taxed. i am sure if those poor little cows new what they were doing was wrong they would stop, but until the day i can talk moo that is not going to happen

    • mel says:

      02:57pm | 04/03/11

      the national party doesn’t exsist it is like the tassie tiger, i have only seen it in pictures.

    • James says:

      03:52pm | 04/03/11

      If you just need a car for commuting a Golf will do you fine even on dirt roads, they are used as rally cars.  I think people in the bush deserve a better train service I would be all for it.  If you have a farm you could actually profit from and ETS, there will be way of sequestering carbon in your soil that you might be able to get credit for, I would look at the detail of what is being proposed as you might end up ahead.

    • Richard says:

      10:04am | 04/03/11

      Christine Milne, you do articulate an appealing vision for a cleaner, greener future, and a vision that I hope I get to experience as an Australian some time down the track. HOWEVER, I believe that the vision you outlined is so appealing that we will be able to achieve it WITHOUT the need for a carbon price.

      Nothing is stopping the government from investing in solar baseload at the moment. Nothing is stopping the government from cutting subsidies to the coal industry. The government both can and should be doing so.

      A lot of people are very eager to start making the changes required to lower carbon emissions, but you still need to give people free choice. An arbitrary “price” on carbon is a fake construct, and seems to be more like a tax grab than anything else, because all of those advances you mentioned could still be achieved WITHOUT crippling our economy in the process.

      Its just the thing is that no matter what, no matter how much the price of carbon you want to crank up and take out of people’s pockets, everybody is still going to need to use lots of electricity, and everyone is still going to need to use lots of petrol in order to maintain our current high living standards.

      Not very many can afford a brand new hybrid car, not many can afford solar panels on the roof, I mean if people can afford those, they would already have or be planning on buying them regardless of a price on carbon, because it makes sense already, no need to tax people.

      But for the vast majority of us, we are stuck with our old cars and living in our rental houses. The carbon price is just going to cost us even MORE to drive our cars (which we need to do, it is a necessary aspect of Australian life), and it won’t drive innovation in new cars to the extent that we will be spared from the huge petrol bills you have in store for us (at a time when the price of oil is already skyrocketing anyway due to your leftist mate Gaddafi’s shenanigans).

      We can ask the landlord to put solar panels on the roof, but he’s not going to, so we have no choice but to pay way more for electricity just so that we can cook our food and wash our clothes and light our homes…

      Your vision sounds good in theory, but please Christine, let the change happen naturally and organically, from the grass-roots up, instead of imposing it on us top down like an authoritarian socialist regime. Please don’t force us to suffer and lose our living standards before the science and technology has advanced far enough to implement the changes we know are necessary, but don’t requires a great big new tax to enact.

    • Peter says:

      10:53am | 04/03/11

      Sorry Bro, no such thing as solar baseload despite Christine pretending there is. Base load power is 24/7. Solar power even with heat sinks still cannot provide base load power.
      However there be many zero carbon cheaper cost electricity sources Christine and the Greens refuse to have bar of. Something about Coal reaction if too much Coal burning is denied them.

    • James says:

      01:44pm | 04/03/11

      Yes there is it is called “concentrating solar thermal with storage”.

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:30pm | 04/03/11

      I’m sorry Scott sorry James you may not be aware that you can paste links on The Punch. Could you help us out please.

    • Mikko says:

      10:24am | 04/03/11

      Here’s another view of the carbon tax on Quadrant Online’s Doomed Planet:
      “…The government and the Greens have left themselves wide open to attack by making the announcement prematurely without tying it to a base price and without ruling in or out such crucial components as petrol or diesel fuel.
      “Promises that all funds raised by the tax will go to compensating the poor and encouraging greener alternative energy have been outweighed by concerns costs will inevitably rise and offsets won’t go far enough.
      “With no facts to back up the proposal, it’s a hard sell for the government. “Trust me, we’ll look after you,” will not impress too many families already juggling the rising costs of power, fuel, food and housing…”
      See http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/hot-air-tax

    • Jugg says:

      10:28am | 04/03/11

      What makes you think the ‘polluters’ won’t pass the cost on to the consumer? 

      We lose twice.  We pay for our own carbon emissions (whatever the hell they are???) and we pay for the polluters!

      It makes perfect economic sense.

    • James says:

      11:06am | 04/03/11

      Duh that is the point, other companies that don’t pollute as much will offer the same service and you can switch to them, that is economics.

      If I sold whale oil lamps are you going to stick with me or get a light globe?

    • Dash says:

      11:39am | 04/03/11

      Absolutely correct Jugg. And the ALP and greens will decide which Households get compensated for price rises. That means, if you already pay a lot of tax, you will get no compensation!

      Don’t let the government or the greens say that you will get compensated. Unless you’re in an ALP demographic, you will get nothing! You will also note that the government has not come clean on how this part of their policy will work! And for good reason.

      They will take from you, and your family and give to those who pollute as much if not more than you on the basis of what they earn not on the basis of how they pollute! They will manipulate who pays for this and it has nothing to do with who’s polluting. It’s a FRAUD!

    • mel says:

      11:42am | 04/03/11

      it depends james
      is the light bulb going to be run on solar power or coal base electricity, or was the whale caught for scientific purposes? decisions decisions.

    • James says:

      12:13pm | 04/03/11

      um you are having trouble whether to use a lamp running on whale oil or a light globe, don’t know what to say.

    • mel says:

      12:34pm | 04/03/11

      well james
      which one is more enviromently sound.
      the one running on blubber or the one using nasty coal?

    • James says:

      02:18pm | 04/03/11

      I’d be tipping coal but I am certain one run on wind is much greener

    • The Original Oz says:

      02:18pm | 04/03/11

      James I don’t picture you as selling whale oil lamps. What I see you as is the same as the Greens and their welded on supporters - Snake Oil salesmen

    • James says:

      02:50pm | 04/03/11

      I actually believe Greens policies don’t go far enough

    • Helen says:

      10:45am | 04/03/11

      Thanks for this article, Christine, and I’m sorry for the ignorance and abuse abounding here. I guess you had a look at the site before you published and had some idea of what you were in for. “I didn’t even bother [reading]. I just saw the title, Christine Milne’s byline and filled the gaps in my head.” Just about says it all. Unfortunately there is a very active and well-funded push by corporations, via thinktanks, to discredit AGW science and scare the punters into thinking they will be left freezing in the dark. The “business as usual” mode will end in tears, but unfortunately it’s the children and grandchildren of these people who will be left to bear the consequences.

    • mis says:

      10:55am | 04/03/11

      don’t have any kids so i really don’t care.

    • DocBud says:

      11:29am | 04/03/11

      The Greens way will end in tears as prices and unemployment rise, and we’re all forced to have less fun. I for one intend to continue to grow my personal wealth and hence carbon footprint so that my children and grandchildren will be happy to bear the consequences of their inheritance.

      New papers suggest that the climate is far less sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide than previously thought and positive feedbacks are also much lower, so we can all carry on our business as usual:

      http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

    • Andrew says:

      12:50pm | 04/03/11

      And the “Who will think of the CHILDREN!” panic award goes to ..... Helen.

      Congrats Helen. I will sleep so much more soundly tonight safe in the comfort that you and the Greens will save our children, our childens children and our childrens childrens children and our ....oh stuff it!

    • Bilby says:

      01:06pm | 04/03/11

      Andrew - Perhaps so, but who will save the apostrophe?

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      01:33pm | 04/03/11

      “well-funded push by corporations, via thinktanks, to discredit AGW science”

      Oh brother…....................you are aware that tin foil hats are not a fashion accessory.

    • Ex Labor Voter says:

      11:05am | 04/03/11

      You are a very dangerous person Muzz Milne. Tell me, what sort of car do you drive Muzz Milne, or should I say, what sort of government car does you chauffeur drive you around in? Do you run air conditioning in your home and office Muzz Milne?

      Practice what you preach before telling the rest of Australia what to do.

      Reality is Muzz Milne, even if AGW was real, and it’s not, it would take decades to fix, if not centuries, and I can guarantee you right now that long before that happens there will be a catastrophic plague or war or similar that will wipe out half the poplation of the earth. Instant decrease in CO2 and less need for those nasty polluting miners. You’d love that wouldn’t you Muzz Milne. Personally I hope you and your idiot mate Brown are the first to fall victim to whatever plague gets us in the end.

    • yofussn says:

      11:13am | 04/03/11

      Excuse me while I pinch myself to see whether its just a dream,  no,  phew, just a total brainwashed idealology, ts all OK!

    • Dash says:

      11:16am | 04/03/11

      Christine, can you please enlighten me as to the money that’s “coming back” to me! You seem to brush over that point quite quickly. You see, I have this concern that this is a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! This part of the policy is not adequately explained and yet it is the most important in terms of who is going to pay for this.

      I do not trust the greens or the ALP to compensate me exactly the same as the householder in the ALP electorate that is polluting just as much (if not more) as I am! Until you and the ALP come clean on this part of the plan, this policy will not be accepted by middle Australia. I want to know exactly how I will be compensated for you driving up my energy prices and the prices of every good and service dependent on electricity!

      What do you mean by “some money comes back to you”? Who determines who gets what? Because I do not trust you or the ALP to do the right thing! The people who are already paying the most tax and who are already financing the nation will in my mind get stung the most by yet another socialist policy. And unless you can prove otherwise, I will continue to see this policy as a FRAUD, hiding behind the environment to tax sucessful people and redictribute to green and ALP aligned demographics.

      I have no problem fairly paying my way. But I refuse to quietly accept a policy that is looking to redistribute wealth from those who are creating it to those that are destroying it. You must come clean on the mechanism to compensate households and you must come clean now. It is the huge elephant in the room and it’s the dodgy piece of this policy.

      I believe that those who are financially contributing more in tax and therefore providing the government with the means to reduce green house gases should be compensated exactly the same, if not more, than the lazy arse dole bludger claiming benefits.

      Explain this part of the policy to us now!

    • Daryl says:

      11:24am | 04/03/11

      This confirms my concerns and the concerns of the whole of Middle Australia! Those people who are successful and who are already paying significant amounts of tax will be expected to pay for this. Whilst those already claiming benefits and sitting on their arses will be “compensated”.

      No one can argue about doing the right thing for the environment. But just look at how this is structured. If you are already means tested out of every benefit known to man, you will pay and pay big time for this policy!!! Make no mistake about it. Read between the lines of this article. This is clearly a socialist policy aimed at ripping money away from educated, hard working successful families and redistributing it to people the greens and the ALP determine to be appropriate for “compensation”.

      This policy is disgraceful! It goes against everything our free and open democracy stands for. It is bordering on Communism! And it was inflicted upon the population on the back of a lie!

      If you work hard and strive to get ahead for the good of your family. Guess what, the green ALP coalition is going to make you pay!

      STAND UP MIDDLE AUSTRALIA! You are about to get hammered again! Enough is enough!

    • James says:

      12:00pm | 04/03/11

      You will be hammered if you don’t become more energy efficient, if you do you will be better off.

    • Daryl says:

      12:47pm | 04/03/11

      James you miss my point entirely! The Greens and the ALP are going to compensate households on the basis of income, not on the basis of pollution. Therefore this is not about making the polluters pay. It’s about making middle Australia and high income Australia pay. It’s socialism!

      I can be as energy efficient or more energy efficient that you but on the basis of income you get compensated and I dont! How is that fair and how is that about punishing polluters! it’s not, it’s about redistributing wealth!

    • James says:

      02:16pm | 04/03/11

      Daryl, if you aren’t polluting i.e. invest in efficient technology you won’t pay, that is the whole point.  It is a polluter pays scheme, don’t pollute don’t pay.

    • Daryl says:

      03:14pm | 04/03/11

      James, how does the compensation part of the policy work? Please explain it to me! The government keeps telling us we’ll get compensated. How, who, when?

    • James says:

      03:37pm | 04/03/11

      Don’t know the details but I am guessing if your income is below a certain level your outgoings are frozen.  Once again if you are Lord snot the trust fund playboy and are very energy efficient then you will not be paying much carbon tax.  If you are Bazza the petrol head with a Mcmansion and an 8000W air conditioner that you run night and day, yes you will be paying for that lifestyle choice.

    • Greg says:

      11:29am | 04/03/11

      This argument about making polluters pay is complete bullshit! The greens and the ALP will determine who gets compensated! No matter how you pollute, if you earn good money and pay a lot of tax, you will pay for this regardless of how you pollute!

      Stop the lies and explain which householder get compensated and how!

      If you means test the compensation, it’s a deceitful lie to say polluters pay! Taxpayers pay and pay more! That is what’s wrong with this policy!

    • Bob L says:

      11:32am | 04/03/11

      I have a real problem when green politicians say that we are going to subsidise polluters. If you tell someone that you are going to increase their tax by $100, but because it might send them broke, so we will only take $50 from you. So therefore we are subsidising you $50 because we are a great government (Labour) and by the way you are nothing but polluting scumbags being supported by the people (Green).
      I hope they don’t subsidise me, I don’t think I can afford it.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:42am | 04/03/11

      “some money comes back to you”?

      It means that middle income earners will get sweet f*ck all and be worse off.  And the amounts of compensation will decrease over time as new teaxes are implemented, and suddenly everything is more expensive and you don’t get a break.

      Is that about right, Christine?

    • Elphaba says:

      11:46am | 04/03/11

      Sorry, this was meant to be addressed to Dash…

    • Dash says:

      11:56am | 04/03/11

      Elphaba, you got it! And this is the thing people in the media need to start writing about!

      The ALP and greens will determine who’s worthy for compensation. What a load of bullshit! That will not be based be making polluters pay at all. This whole talk about a market mechinism and making polluters pay is nonsense!

      And you know as well as I do that middle Australia and the people who pay the most tax, will get nothing!

      That’s why we need to stand up right now and march against this!

    • Elphaba says:

      12:47pm | 04/03/11

      I really am going to enjoy the next State and Fed elections…

      As far as I’m concerned dash, Julia said there wouldbe no carbon tax, and now there is one.  How can I trust her to compensate me fully?  She won’t.

      I do love the die-hard labor supporters though.  Persephone was going on and on yesterday about how people will be compensated.  If she could bottle her ignorance on this issue, she’d make millions.

    • Dash says:

      01:04pm | 04/03/11

      Hi Elphaba, people seem to be missing this point entirely! The compensation part of this policy is the cornerstone of who pays and who doesn’t. The fact of the matter is the greens and the ALP have the power to determine who’s worthy of compensation. And they haven’t come clean on how it’s going to work. It’s adding more uncertainty and complexity into the tax system.

      If they compensate on the basis of income, then guess what, this has nothing at all to do with pollution. It is merely a socialist exercise in stealing peoples hard earned money! You are right, if you are in middle Australia you will pay! And if you already pay a significant amount of tax and are no drain on the welfare system, you will get no compensation at all.

      Corporates faced with no economically viable alternative will just pass the cost on through to the consumer without changing their habits. It adds up to little if any environmental benefit.

      And yep, Gillard and the ALP have not one ounce of credibility left! This is merely one of many lies.

      Persephone is a paid up ALP member. Everyone needs to remember that when they read what she writes on this site!

    • Martin Hopes says:

      12:01pm | 04/03/11

      Wow, after reading most of these comments, one could be excused for thinking we were in the deep south of the USA - the only thing missing is the sounds of duelling Banjo’s.

    • CaptainCrunch says:

      12:38pm | 04/03/11

      And after reading your comment I can only think that you are from San Francisco, smelling your own farts and thinking they smell of roses.

    • Dash says:

      01:11pm | 04/03/11

      The way this country is going, it’s more like living in North Korea or Mao’s China. This policy is straight out of Gillard’s little red book!

    • The Badger says:

      03:39pm | 04/03/11

      Dash,
      This poses an interesting dilemma.  If what you say is true, the next election might be a choice between the little red book and the one nation manifesto.

    • Dash says:

      04:31pm | 04/03/11

      Good try Badger. People can see exactly what the ALP has delivered in NSW and are not looking forward to the same at national level! They have seen Gillard trying to implement her Socialist Forum beliefs! People would love a return to the Howard/Costello years and I might add, would love to have their 2010 election vote over again now that they are fully informed and not being deceived by the ALP.

      You though, seem more than happy with the ALP inflicting the same damage they did in NSW on the entire nation!

    • The Badger says:

      05:49pm | 04/03/11

      dash
      As I’ve said I don’t live in NSW and wouldn’t move there for all the tea in China and frankly don’t give a FlyingF about NSW.
      You might enjoy a trip down memory lane with Howard and company, but the thought of Abbott / Truss is the stuff of nightmares for most people.
      Two, three years from now, Labor will govern in it’s own right.

    • CJ says:

      12:11pm | 04/03/11

      To the AGW sceptics:  Even a small chance that we are effecting our planets climate cannot be ignored.  You might want to take the gamble, but I live on Earth too and I say we should start reducing pollution. 

      To Christine: This article is very vague and doesn’t really help the cause with empty promises of compensation that no one believes.

    • DocBud says:

      01:36pm | 04/03/11

      ‘Even a small chance that we are effecting our planets climate cannot be ignored.’

      Yes it can. Everything we do in life is risk assessed and subject to cost benefit analysis, it might be informal (e.g. crossing the road or buying a cream cake) or it can be formal. In the case of something like AGW, one has to assess the likely risks and benefits (never mentioned by the alarmists) against the cost of mitigation, and consider alternatives such as adaptation.

      Bjorn Lomberg suggests that:

      “We do know the numbers for the European Union - not for Germany, but for the European Union. They’re planning to cut their emissions 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

      The macroeconomic models indicate that the cost of that, the average of all these macroeconomic models indicate the cost will be about $250 billion a year. And the net effect, after having done that for 80 years, till 2100, will be a reduction in temperature by one 20th of one degree centigrade.”

      Or another example:

      “they’ve spent $75 billion on subsidising solar panels, the net effect which will be to postpone global warming by the end of the century by seven hours.”

      http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm

      For those kinds of numbers, I’d rather take the gamble.

      With adaptation, you adapt to what actually happens, warming, cooling, flooding, drought, etc. With mitigation you try and reduce what may or may not happen to some lesser or greater degree.

    • Concerned Engo Student says:

      12:12pm | 04/03/11

      It sure seems like most people in this discussion have no real idea how global warming works. In my opinion as a chemical engineering 3rd year student, its a very real problem and it’s about time sceptics face up to it. It may be an inconvinient truth but i tell you I don’t see any reason tens of thousands of specialised climate scientists would spontaneously decide to make this up, unfortunately most scientists are not well paid an do their job for the love of it.

      Also it is true that this is a global issue, however if we are serious as a nation we have to take the first step, prepare for the future and hopefully other nations will wake up to themselves and follow.  There is no use sitting in the shadow on this issue.

      To all the sceptics, while its great you have your own opinion, i suggest you read some indepentant climate research papers, there is a stack of them. Also take chemistry 101 and if you can still find a strong scientific case against the findings you truely will then have a credible argument.

    • stephen says:

      12:31pm | 04/03/11

      i belive in climate change but i don’t believe in an ETS at the moment.
      while renewable and alternative engery is inferior, unsustainble and expensive it seems wrong to charge us a tax for using what we have.  we need to have the technology of new energy refined so that it can support an increasing population. germany the biggest users of solar energy are finding it a huge expence and if a better answer is found they have outlay a lot of money on outdate technology.

    • Martin Hopes says:

      12:38pm | 04/03/11

      Concerned Engo Student @ 12:12pm..good on you for some balance.  Chemistry 101 would be way beyond most Punch commentators, you wont get many responses here.

    • MarK says:

      12:52pm | 04/03/11

      “In my opinion as a chemical engineering 3rd year student, its a very real problem and it’s about time sceptics face up to it. “

      Ahhhh I see. You have an opinion.

      No facts but an opinion.

      Well son so do I.

      “I don’t see any reason tens of thousands of specialised climate scientists would spontaneously decide to make this up”

      Of course not. Because ther are NOT 10’s of thousands of specialised climate scientists.

      You just made that up.

      “There is no use sitting in the shadow on this issue.”

      Show me the facts that led you to believe if any of this crap is broadly true that the cost of action now will be of more benefit later.

      Since we are talking global stuff here show me your facts as to why on a global scale heating the planet by a degree or 2 would be a net economic loss.

      “To all the sceptics, while its great you have your own opinion, i suggest you read some indepentant climate research papers, there is a stack of them”

      I do.

      “Also take chemistry 101”

      Why?

      Why don’t you question you lecturers a bit more and actually engage in science, you know, the testing and questioning of things.

      Could be fun

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:29pm | 04/03/11

      @MarK
      “Since we are talking global stuff here show me your facts as to why on a global scale heating the planet by a degree or 2 would be a net economic loss.”
      Assuming a global scale heating of 2 degrees, the economic consequences would be:
      1. An expansion of tropical areas in parts of the world leading to an increase of insect borne diseases such as malaria and water borne diseases such as Cholera.
      2. An increase of desertification in some parts of the world leading to a loss of agricultural land.
      3. Intensified El Nino and La Nina weather patterns leading to exacerbation of droughts, floods and cyclones.
      4. Increased human migration from unviable areas.

    • Jim says:

      01:31pm | 04/03/11

      @concerned Engo Student;

      Mistake#1: Chemical Engineering is now such a diluted course that they come out knowing 3/5’s of bugger all. A third year student is entitled to his opinion, but don’t embarrass yourself.

      Mistake#2: You mentioned ‘inconvenient truth’ - a Fruedian Slip maybe in reference to Al Gore’s 2-hour infomercial? Again, you’re embarrassing yourself if you claim to be a scientist yet point to AlGore Pty Ltd as a source.

      Mistake#3: Hoping other nations will follow. A very optimistic thought there. Ask a Kiwi how they’re going with their carbon tax.

      Mistake#4: “This is a global issue”....nope. It’s a global con-job. There is no proof, no link between CO2 and worsening greenhouse conditions. No evidence that the planet is warming since accurate measurements have been made.

      Mistake#5: Referring to ‘indepentant [sic]’ papers. There is no such thing. Peer review prior to AGW Corp. was a concept usually talked about by social sciences and life-long art students. What we see is collusion, not peer review. No AGW warrior is independant, they are all funded by the players behind the carbon trading business.

      Mistake#6: ‘specialised climate scientists’ - again, no such thing. A few weeks ago The Punch had a person who writes music reviews for a living in some inner-city only magazine that gets handed out at train stations for free, who just happened to attend a couple of climate seminars. She was passing herself off as a climate change expert. That is the calibre of 90% of the highly funded climate industry. Where exactly can one obtain a BSc in AGW???

      If you want to act like a scientist, or sound knowledgable in the field, you should take “Science 101” and learn to research your material in a balanced and objective way, otherwise you sound like the James’ of this world just out for a troll.

    • Dingo says:

      01:33pm | 04/03/11

      It’s clear Concerned Engo Student that you also have no idea how global warming works nor how scientific enquiry is undertaken.

      Could you please explain the application of scientific process to this “very real problem”. If the hypothesis that increasing temperatures are the RESULT of increased amounts of carbon dioxide, and further that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a RESULT of human activity, then the null hypothesis should be unsupported. There is however an enormous amount of evidence to support the null hypothesis and therefore the AGW THEORY is not supported by scientific analysis.

      What has been reported to support the AGW cause is a lot of questionable modelling, extrapolation, anecdotal observations and statistics. None of which is science.

      Stick to engineering mate, you are no scientist.

    • The Original Oz says:

      02:26pm | 04/03/11

      To concerned Engo Student - you state that “tens of thousands of specialised climate scientists” . Have a look at some of the CVs of these so called specialised climate scientists. You will find that very few are climate scientists (I doubt that the world has tens of thousands of specialised climate scientists. A lot of the “specialised climate scienttists” are economists or defectors from the other disciplines because they can smell the whif of “grant money” emanating from being a Climate Scientist.

    • Ed says:

      02:33pm | 04/03/11

      I think you’re correct on Global Warming, Engo Student.
      Whether Carbon Taxes will do anything is the problem.

      The Greens just want to appear to be doing something and taxing is the only thing pollies can do since they can’t make the tough choices like big government investments into energy research, nuclear power or weening off coal power.

      Taxing is based off the thinking that market forces can be manipulated.  But big businesses like mining, fuel and power are the last ones to ever budge.  They make billions of dollars in net profits.  They won’t need to change their ways due to a carbon tax.

      Electricity and fuel are set to rise anyway.  This tax is going to seem negligible compared to the giant price hikes that are on the way.

    • Concerned Engo Student says:

      02:57pm | 04/03/11

      Thanks for your comments guys. I just want to be clear I myself am not a climate expert, my estimate of 10s of thousands of climate scientists is just an estimate. But i’m talking about all the research teams taking core samples on ice shelfs or measuring ppm CO2/other concentrations or even measuring marine temperatures. These are some methods scientists are determining that global warming is having an extra effect on top of natural weather patterns.

      In terms of the economy prospects, a basic interpretation is this. The planet warms 1 or 2 degrees, shown to be enough for ice bodys to disipate. this is because the energy reflectd from the earth as black body radiation is a different wavelength as the sunrays coming in. this is now in the bandwith that CO2 and H20 belive it or not can absorb the energy, causing the molecular bonds to vibrate. molucules vibrating is basicly what we know as heat. linking back to the start of this paragraph, increased atmospheric water and temp disturbance creates some pretty screwy weather sometimes.

      Now the weather is a key factor in agriculture, ecosystem balance(includes fish), manufacturing, transportation as weve seen in Europe and Queensland, and it can also cost billions of dollers in damage as we’ve seen recently.

      These are some things i understand with a chemical/engineering background and that’s why I took chemistry 101. You might like me even get to do an IR spec on C02 and see which vibrational energys it absorbs at and prove for yourself the effect of global warming.

      Again i’ll say I’m not a climate expert, but climate experts are. If my doctor told me i have appendicitis, i’m going to trust his expertise and have it removed before I become ceptic, ergo when climate scientests say we have significant reason to believe we are in trouble why should it be any different. I’m not going to doubt them.

    • MarK says:

      08:11pm | 04/03/11

      ”  Shane From Melbourne says:

        01:29pm | 04/03/11

        @MarK
        “Since we are talking global stuff here show me your facts as to why on a global scale heating the planet by a degree or 2 would be a net economic loss.”
        Assuming a global scale heating of 2 degrees, the economic consequences would be:”

      Groovy lets have a look then


      ”  1. An expansion of tropical areas in parts of the world leading to an increase of insect borne diseases such as malaria and water borne diseases such as Cholera.”

      Well no. Not at all.

      http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/221.pdf

      It is widely disputed. Not as much fun reporting the facts though. It is a good read. i encourage you do so.

      ”  2. An increase of desertification in some parts of the world leading to a loss of agricultural land.”

      Well no.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523610.300-africans-go-back-to-the-land-as-plants-reclaim-the-desert.html

      All during catastrophic climate change we are experiencing now?

      Wasn’t it Flannery who recently said that the sea are warming so there is more precipitation expected? Does it rain in the desert lots?

      ” 3. Intensified El Nino and La Nina weather patterns leading to exacerbation of droughts, floods and cyclones.”

      Ahhh. Droughts and floods and cyclones. Exacerbated.

      http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

      Well no. This appears to refute the “exacerbated” threat of cyclones and what not.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_San_Ciriaco

      Makes good reading…..from 1899.


      This is also an excellent article

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<1819:IOENOG>2.0.CO;2

      That is 1999 data….you know the hottest year EVER OMG!!!

      I love this quote from the abstract I linked

      “Benefits included an estimated saving of 850 lives because of the lack of bad winter weather. Areas of major economic benefits (primarily in the nation’s northern sections) included major reductions in expenditures (and costs) for natural gas and heating oil, record seasonal sales of retail products and homes, lack of spring flood damages, record construction levels, and savings in highway-based and airline transportation. Further, the nation experienced no losses from major Atlantic hurricanes. The net economic effect was surprisingly positive and less government relief was needed than in prior winters without El Niño influences. The estimated direct losses nationally were about $4 billion and the benefits were approximately $19 billion.”

        4. Increased human migration from unviable areas.

      To be honest I am watching Arnie in T2 and cannot be bothered to find a link but does it not stand to reason that if some areas become unliveable others become liveable? Or does only bad stuff happen?

      I hope I have piqued your interest Shane and you get put more often and find other sources of information. Yours appear to be lacking.

    • Dingo says:

      09:46pm | 04/03/11

      Again, what you have identified as the science of climate change is the collection of data. That data is being used to suggest the world is warming. Leaving aside all the contentious issues about the validity of this data and the volume of data available to contradict that conclusion, the mere fact that the world may be getting warmer, does not of itself suggest CO2 has anything to do with it, nor does it suggest that the 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be attributed to human activity is the cause.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      08:48pm | 06/03/11

      Dear Dingo,

      Science explains the greenhouse effect. The Periodic Table and the Standard Model describe and quantify the radiative properties of atoms and molecules; how they can absorb and emit photons and electrons.

      CO2 can absorb a long wave infrared photon (emitted from ice-free earth and water) which causes it to oscillate and increase the thermal kinetic energy of the atmosphere when it collides with other air molecules. This increase in energy increases the ability of the air to heat the oceans, melt ice, evaporate water and expand the atmosphere. The residual thermal kinetic energy we measure as a rise in temperature.

      At some point the CO2 molecule emits this photon and it can then be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. This behaviour is called scattering.

      The theories of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model are so stable it gives rise to all the technology we rely on everyday. The radiative properties of atoms and molecules explains phosphorescence, fluorescence, the absorption and emission spectrum of the sun, and technology such as spectroscopy, cathode ray tubes and microwave ovens.

      The theories of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model also give rise to nuclear science, resulting in such technology as radiocarbon dating, which identifies the source in the rise of CO2 as fossil fuels.

      This is the science that comprises AGW.

      We apply AGW to climate science to predict the impact on future climate over the next century using probabilities. We know the impact of AGW will augment and exacerbate ongoing natural climate change. But we can’t use it to predict specific weather events and no single weather event is proof or disproof of AGW.

    • Colin Mirgis says:

      12:17pm | 04/03/11

      I have to laugh at the people saying that the scientific evidence is being fabricated by the in dependent scientists, as opposed to scientists tied to a $1 Trillion+ per annum Fossil Fuels industry. Who do you think has the most to lose and the most money to throw around? we need to change and change quick, if we do not act, how do we ask others to act? We ahve a real chance to break away from this Fossil Fuel lunacy, We start with voting out the OLD WAYS. Bring on the New Green Renewables for a Cleaner Planet.

    • The Badger says:

      12:47pm | 04/03/11

      Stop making sense.
      You’ll infuriate the simple minded conservative lemmings.

    • Kent Brockman says:

      12:52pm | 04/03/11

      I for one welcome our new Green overlords and look forward to working with them for the greater good of the collective.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      12:40pm | 04/03/11

      There are thousands of posts to the media during the past few days. The main arguments focus on whether or not global warming is real and life threatening. Most people seem to have made up their mind.

      As a scientist who is not a climate expert I do not know what it should be.

      From my point of view there are more important and practical issues.

      Firstly I think that the No 1 global problem is the continued population growth. We will not have another Green Revolution which saved us in the past forty years. Global warming is a second order issue and is one of the nasty consequences of global population growth. The effects of global population growth will hit us like a ton of bricks before global warming makes life miserable for us in Australia.

      The excitement on global warming in Western Countries means they forget about the more important issue of global population growth. We are at the beginning of a major global crisis in food production. Food is at record highs.

      Next our PM needs to demonstrate why the tax can help in reducing global warming. To date I only know NZ has introduced it. It is no use if a small group of nations which together produce 10% of the world CO2 pollution introduce carbon tax.

      Say for example we are taxed $10,000 per head in Australia in carbon tax so we all stop breathing so as not to emit CO2 and same in NZ. No major nations in the world do anything effective.  In this scenario at most we can reduce CO2 pollution by 3%. This is NOTHING and the uncertainties in the real atmospheric system will mask this 3% effect.

      So what do we achieve. We hurt Australia and its people and achieve NOTHING of any use. Many will get a warm feeling like taking some drugs to make them happy.

      We can do some simple and practical things. For a start we can pass a law that coal can be exported and use in power plants which are efficient and are not gross CO2 polluters. We may reduce our coal exports by 30% but that is not big drama compared with the pervasive effects of the proposed carbon tax

    • Dr. B S Staye says:

      01:15pm | 04/03/11

      As a scientist I cannot understand why a large percentage of the Australian public does not agree with the findings of the overwhelming majority of scientists researching Global Warming. Sure, the world has survived in the past with much higher and also much lower average temperatures, but that was tens of thousands of years ago when the population of the earth was few million people and there wasn’t millions of tons of CO2 spewing into the world along with all the other industrial pollutants we have contaminated our planet with in the last few hundred years.

      The sad thing is that if we listen to people who know nothing about the science and are merely politically motivated, we are going to inflict on future generations the most horrible of legacies. A dying planet unable to feed the masses and in constant struggle with an increasing violent climate.

      As one of the two largest generators of CO2 per capita, it is up to us to be at the forefront of addressing climate change and lead the world in developing alternate renewable energy sources.

    • Colin Mirgis says:

      01:15pm | 04/03/11

      Well doctor? for a start we are one of the highest per capita emitters on the planet. We emit (2007) figures 4.5 times the global average of Carbon per capita. So its abou time to adjust this a little would you not agree?

    • LC says:

      01:46pm | 04/03/11

      “For a start we can pass a law that coal can be exported and use in power plants which are efficient and are not gross CO2 polluters. We may reduce our coal exports by 30% but that is not big drama compared with the pervasive effects of the proposed carbon tax “

      Now THAT’S a good idea.

    • Irked says:

      12:48pm | 04/03/11

      The real question is this… If the world actually doesnt warm up to the degree described by all these models, despite rises in CO2, would there be a refund of all this tax money collected? Would there be litigation against politicians or scientists for perpetuating a fraud? Likewise if temperatures did rise despite the tax, would they then revise it given its inefficacy?

      The truth is, this is just another revenue stream for governments and hopefully most people will see through it for what it is.

    • Greg says:

      12:53pm | 04/03/11

      If the ALP green coalition compensate households on the basis of income rather than on the basis of pollution, then this policy is nothing more than a tax aimed at redistributing wealth! Plain and simple. It is not about the environment at all!

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      02:10pm | 04/03/11

      Hear hear Greg. Myth buster.

      Note how it’s not assets tested either.  So the income poor with polluting assets will get a free ride. Think about all those big old half empty inefficient houses worth millions. But your young family on $80k a year is the villain?

      I would have thought the Greens would be keen to fill up half empty houses rather than clear more land for more houses built from wood and CO2 emitting energy. I guess they’re not that green after all.  Just another political party.

    • LC says:

      12:53pm | 04/03/11

      “Now: A carbon price will make some things more expensive – we must not shy away from that fact.”

      The only true statement in this entire article.

    • MarK says:

      12:57pm | 04/03/11

      So many ridiculous comments by Milne it is not funny.

      Bas load solar LAWL.

      Anyway read this punchers. It was awesome to watch. Recommended viewing

      http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm

      One of the best bits

      “TONY JONES: Yes, but they do have similar, but more realistic targets for the rest of their energy consumption. But let’s move on, because the truth is that they are an early adopter of these solar technologies, so it’s inevitably going to be more expensive, just like widescreen televisions were more expensive for the early adopters of widescreen televisions.

      In fact what’s happening in China is you’re getting vast economies of scale now on solar panels and they’re going to be much cheaper in the future.

      BJORN LOMBERG: Well, listen, again, if I could just pick you up on that one. We do know the numbers for the European Union - not for Germany, but for the European Union. They’re planning to cut their emissions 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

      The macroeconomic models indicate that the cost of that, the average of all these macroeconomic models indicate the cost will be about $250 billion a year. And the net effect, after having done that for 80 years, till 2100, will be a reduction in temperature by one 20th of one degree centigrade. “

      This is a guy that believes in AGW too.

      Love it

      Senator Milne? Any comments? There is a non sceptical economist telling you that your plan sucks.

      Sucks real bad.

    • Polling Booth says:

      01:04pm | 04/03/11

      I just find all this amazing that Julia wants this TAX on reducing CO2 emissions, but Julia wants to sell coal to developing nations like India & China - the worlds biggest polluters. Oh, then they will want our Uranium for nuclear what nots wink

    • Shannon Smith says:

      01:15pm | 04/03/11

      Ok, I’m confused. This carbon price is supposed to come form the polluters, not from the poorest peoplle in our county, - so how are we going to be assured that it won’t let petrol, utulities ect go up?

      Originally I was told when a carbon price was to be implemented it was going to be a tax adjustment - not an additional tax. - having a zero impact to the community.  The impact was supposed to be only to the polluters - has that changed?

      For example - the excise on petrol would come down 20% and the carbon price on Petrol would go up 20% - meaning no effect to the end user but a 20% increase in funds going to clean up carbon. Same with Electricity. It was a price being paid from the Government out of tax to clean up carbon?

      The positive was supposed to be, that if you used LPG or Solar power, the tax component would be 20% lower but without the carbon 20% added to it, bringing the price of these things down.

      But when politics get involved - even the best ideas can be f%^&ed; up beyond all recognition…..

    • Daniel says:

      01:30pm | 04/03/11

      1.  Labor isn’t telling people how much this may cost because they know people will be alarmed
      2.  Labor can’t do number 1 because they haven’t decided what is in and what is not in the tax.
      3. Labor are gauging public opinion to determine how much they can tax (ideally absolutely everything for both economic and environmental reasons)
      4. Labor is correct in doing so as this is far too complex for the vast majority of voters.
      All these 5 points are true.  The sheer fact is that the majority of posters on here are stating complete lies about AGW being proven wrong or that there is no evidence of warming or whatever other populist pseduo-science they read off their cousins best mate.  I’m sure most of the people believe these lies but that just goes to show (and prove, this is actual proof) that a popular vote is not the correct way to go about this topic.  It would be just as useful as a popular vote on the correct angle of re-entry into the atmosphere of a foreign planet.

    • Concerned Engo Student says:

      03:04pm | 04/03/11

      Just wanted to say I enjoyed your joke at the end. I doubt many will understant this extremely head of the nail opinion. Well done mate!!

    • ZSRenn says:

      02:12am | 05/03/11

      I have a real problem even reading a post by someone who cant count to 5. How good are you with 0.015% saved

    • Brewster says:

      01:32pm | 04/03/11

      Can someone please explain to me why a coal fired power station is a carbon polluter but when I buy a coffee that has been heated, bean roasted, ground etc by electric power, I am not a polluter. Why is a consumer of electricity “compensated” . Surely for consistency and honesty no one should be compensated IF we need a carbon tax.

    • Concerned Engo Student says:

      03:14pm | 04/03/11

      You make an excellent point, the embodied energy in all our items or coffes is quite large, put ultimatly eletric companies are doing ok from the amount each of us pays at the bill. Yes we are all horible polluters undirectly but at the coal station is where we see it. The subsidys mentioned are saying that the consumer of this electricity ie us, shouldnt pay more to be cleaner while Mr hot shot coal burner is still making a mint. Enjoy your beer mate, you’re paying enoguh for your electricity to not feel guilty.

    • Geoff Davies says:

      01:44pm | 04/03/11

      Amazing that so many of these posts rant about a GREAT BIG NEW TAX, and hardly any of them seem to have noticed Christine’s opening line.  Those few who do simply deny it or, amazingly, argue that we should subsidise coal etc because they’re highly profitable.  If they’re highly profitable, they don’t NEED to be subsidised.  AND it distorts the market.

      Evidently subsidising coal is not socialistic, but internalising a cost on carbon that has so far been an externality IS socialistic, rather than properly including a cost of production in the market.  If any of the complainers here claims to be in favour of markets, then you’ve got your arguments backwards, just like Abbott.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      01:55pm | 04/03/11

      So Christine.  Who exactly is this mythical demographic that will pay?

      The government (30% of our GDP) won’t.  The rich are only a very small % so they won’t make a big difference.

      Most of the middle that I know care more and do more for the environment than your ‘people who struggle to make ends meet’ that I know. Are you seriously proposing that I subsidize struggle town’s carefree polluting behaviour?

      And is your party’s footprint carbon neutral?  And each and every single one of your team and supporters. E.g. have you taken the pro rata energy consumption of the space and time you take up in parliament and planted enough trees? What about all that air travel injecting pollutants straight into the upper atmosphere?

      No blank cheque before you deliver some numbers first.

    • Richard says:

      03:53pm | 04/03/11

      Terrific point StM.

      Its the beer swilling, fag smoking, marijuana addicted lower class that have the biggest problem with unsustainable consumption. The Greens propose to take money from the conscientious middle class, who take packed lunches to work and put solar panels on their roofs, and dole it out to the lower class wasters to blow on pokies on unsustainable levels of consumption.

      Socialism is never the answer, no matter what the problem is. If the Greens want to be taken seriously, then they will immediatlely abandon all their socialist, big-spending, big-government policies, and focus on becoming a laissez faire party that advocates for the environment.

    • Elphaba - leftovers are tomorrow's lunch says:

      04:22pm | 04/03/11

      That’s me!  I take a packed lunch to work!

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      03:03pm | 04/03/11

      Whether or not we face a serious global problem is not really the practical issue which Australia now faces.

      The issue is whether or not the proposed carbon tax in Australia can produce a significant reduction in CO2. This is the Main Issue. If any people can demonstrate that it will then we should name the person a HERO and should be given proper recognition by all of us.

      I have suggested that a first practical step is to pass a law that our coal exports can also be used in power stations which do not emit too much CO2 pollution.

      I like to make a second serious and practical proposal. At present we do not export uranium to India. Let us change that policy. We should export uranium to India provided India do two things: (a) It reduces CO2 pollution within some set limits (b) It reduces its population growth by certain set limits in some time frame.

      India at the moment cannot help itself in population management. Soon it will have the largest population in the world.

    • Tim says:

      03:53pm | 04/03/11

      I suppose the real question is: how do we start getting rid of people before they breed more? A virus? War? Compulsory sterilisation would be a start.

      We also need to figure out who. Obviously start with climate change deniers, but then who?

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      04:53pm | 04/03/11

      Tim. With such cheap energy and food thanks to industrial and green revolution? You could do it nicely by having open international debate about it or the ugly way by taxing energy and shutting down food production in places like the Murray Darling Basin. Oh wait.  Hang on. I didn’t mean that.  Shhhh don’t tell the spooks I said that. Move along, there’s nothing to see here.

    • LC says:

      09:35am | 07/03/11

      Tim, such drastic action may not be needed. Just legislate that couples cannot have more than two children.  If they want more they must adopt. Give it 10-15 years and you’ll bring population growth here to a manageable level, or maybe even halt it (depending on immigration rates). Give it even more time and population may even start going down.

      Love that last line too. You simply wouldn’t be a warmist if you didn’t insult and mock people holding the opposite views, wouldn’t you?

    • GB says:

      03:40pm | 04/03/11

      What a bunch of self-serving claptrap Christine. Please don’t insult our intelligence any further. Your story has more holes than swiss cheese. This paragraph here tells me everything I need to know about your motives.

      “But the great thing is that we can compensate people for the impacts of a carbon price, handing money back to people struggling to make ends meet to help them put food on the table and buy shoes for their kids while still encouraging everyone to buy less polluting goods and services. Instead of us paying the big polluters with billion dollar subsidies, the polluters will pay you.”

      Just another Socialist wealth re-distribution exercise hiding behind the warm and fuzzy cloak of environmentalism.

      As I said earlier. Stop insulting our intelligence.

    • Mikko says:

      04:00pm | 04/03/11

      Ok, but let’s look at all the facts from another scientist’s perspective. Former carbon computer modeller, Dr David Evans changed his opinion and became a sceptic several years ago after becoming convinced the evidence of dangerous global warming was seriously flawed and the claims greatly exaggerated. A very comprehensive read here
      http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/03/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt.html

    • Flossie says:

      05:05pm | 04/03/11

      What I would like to know is what the Greens are going to do about the raft of volcanos that have been erupting and belching out vast amounts of gas in the lower and upper atmosphere so much so that planes have been grounded etc - do the Greens plan to discuss carbon taxes with the countries that have the misfortune to have a volcano going off and has anyone calculated the effects of these volcanos when doomsaying about Global Warming?

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      09:29am | 05/03/11

      Dear Flossie,

      The carbon cycle has been in play since the world began, significantly contributing to the temperature regulation of this planet.

      Volcanic emissions, along with all natural CO2 emissions, have always been a part of the carbon cycle, balanced by the planet’s capacity to fix the atmospheric CO2, using photosynthesis and the formation of calcium carbonates, for example. The cycle fluctuates around equilibrium and drifts over time, but on average, balance is maintained. The rate of this natural drift is about 1300 times slower than the increase observed since the Industrial Revolution.

      An increase in volcanic activity above the norm will throw the carbon cycle out of balance, but historically, the fixing rate increases to reassert the balance.

      Fossil fuel use increases emissions, but the planet’s ability to fix this extra quantity needs a longer time to kick in, and, in the meantime we are eroding this ability through such things as deforestation.

      60% of the current fixing ability resides in the oceans with phytoplankton, but, as the oceans warm and dissolved CO2 migrates to the atmosphere, the plankton cannot take advantage of these higher atmospheric levels.

      The aim of a carbon tax, or any other strategy, is to try to redress this imbalance that we have caused, not the natural factors that also influence the equilibrium of the carbon cycle.

    • Isabel says:

      08:45pm | 04/03/11

      It’s hilarious in this big old Universe with all it’s forces created by explosions and implosions, that we think we have so much influence on our environment at such global/solar/galactic proportions. Such is the grandiosity of “Man"kind.
      However anything that cleans up our nest, I’ll say yes to!

    • Andy says:

      11:38pm | 04/03/11

      Man made climate change is utter crap.  Show me the evidence Christine.  What temperature would the Greens like to set Australia’s thermometer at? Ah yes, you would like to make it warm for us here in WA, since you will make it so expensive to run our air conditioners. But you don’t care for us, sitting in cool Canberra.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      09:00am | 05/03/11

      Dear Andy,

      The physics of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model describe the greenhouse effect, which is a fundamental part of the temperature regulation of this planet.

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is one of many variables that determines temperature.

      CO2 levels have risen about a third since the Industrial Revolution. This will cause a rise in the thermal kinetic energy in the atmosphere. Some of this energy will be realised as a temp rise, the rest will go into driving other equilibriums to new levels, such as heating the oceans, atmospheric thermal expansion and increased humidity.

      AGW will exacerbate the natural climate change, which is ongoing.

      The rate of this rise is on average about 1300 times faster than historic natural climate change.

    • Andy says:

      12:36pm | 05/03/11

      Dear Meridith,

      Show me the evidence of human emissions changing the climate, I’m waiting…..; once again we have exposed another global warming alarmist making it up on the run.

      The human contribution to total global CO2 is 4% and Australia’s contribution to this is 1.3%, which makes Australia’s contribution to the total global emissions a whopping 0.052%. For this the Greenbor party lead by PM Bob want to tax us into a state of global uncompetativeness.  Well I tell it won’t be without a fight from myself and the silent majority that is currently awakening.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      04:46pm | 05/03/11

      The physics of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model explains the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, quantifying the radiative properties of atoms and molecules.

      The radiative properties of atoms and molecules, which underpins the theory of the greenhouse effect explains bioluminescence, phosphorescence, photosynthesis, fluorescence and the absorption and emission spectrum of the sun. The predictions of this theory bear out in the reliability of such technology as spectroscopy, cathode ray tubes and microwave ovens.

      With respect to the greenhouse effect, this involves explaining how a CO2 molecule absorbs a long wave infrared photon emitted from ice-free earth and water, pushing an electron into a higher energy orbit that sets up an asymmetry in the electron cloud of the molecule. This establishes a magnetic dipole, causing the molecule to oscillate, which injects extra thermal kinetic energy into each subsequent collision with other atmospheric molecules it is involved with.

      This extra thermal kinetic energy does lots of things: causes thermal expansion of the atmosphere, evaporates water and melts ice, increases atmospheric humidity, heats up the oceans and some of it we measure as atmospheric temperature.

      Eventually, the higher energy orbit decays, and the electron falls back into its ground orbit and emits a long wave infrared photon back into the atmosphere where it can be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This is called scattering.

      We know this hard science is stable as it gives rise to all the technology we use in our daily lives, including the devices that measure CO2 levels in the air, C14 levels in the air, infrared, UV and visible light radiation at the earth’s surface and at various altitudes.

      Various predictions of AGW are measured and analysed. These include the following trends :-
      - Atmospheric CO2 levels.
      - Atmospheric C14 and C13 levels.
      - Fossil fuel use.
      - Global temperature trends of at least 40 years.
      - Global oceanic temperature levels.
      - Global oceanic acidity levels.
      - Global sea levels.
      - Glaciation and ice volume.
      - Infrared, UV and visible light radiation at the surface and various altitudes.

      All of these trends corroborate AGW adding weight to its probability that it is the most likely scenario (to 95%), but if any of the facets of the science prove to be wrong, and as new facts come to light, the position of AGW and the discipline of climate science modelling is revised. This is how science works.

    • LC says:

      09:54am | 07/03/11

      “Fossil fuel use increases emissions, but the planet’s ability to fix this extra quantity needs a longer time to kick in, and, in the meantime we are eroding this ability through such things as deforestation.”

      Then perhaps we should be taking action against Brazil, who are treating the Amazon (thought to be the lungs of the world) with utmost contempt.

    • michael j says:

      01:43am | 05/03/11

      carbon tax yes sounds very good ,i look foward to being slowy starved to death
      well done labour good one greens,,,on the lighter side as my compo can i have a nuclear power station,?

    • Owen says:

      06:42pm | 05/03/11

      I read through everything here and I am left with a somewhat disturbed feeling.
      To all those who say it’s all rubbish and that they will wait forever for the ‘proof’ - I ask:  just consider you MIGHT be wrong and that the science is right? You are effectively consigning your children and your children’s children to a terrible future.

      However,  I realise you must be right and the scientists HAVE to be wrong. After all, we all want all the good things modern society offers - so who cares about the future?

    • jf says:

      10:43am | 05/03/11

      And yet, still no-one has addressed the key issue here.

      That is that Trood’s article, to which Christine Milne is responding, is primarily about the fact the Greens lack accountability for their policies and their lack of pragmatism or ability for contextual thought. The secondary theme is Gillard’s lie.

      That every time these two very important points are raised, the rebuttal is to not respond but instead argue a completely different issue says everything that can be said on these two issues: (i) the Greens do not have a single policy that stands up to scrutiny or is practical and implementable, (ii) Gillard’s lie is indefensible.

    • Clyde says:

      11:42am | 05/03/11

      The green must think we are as stupid as they are if they believe that the so call be polluters will not pass on the cost of this tax on thin air. It’s all about wealth distribution.
      The sooner we have an election the better

    • Ben says:

      06:39pm | 05/03/11

      “Economists around the world agree with The Greens.” I bet she struggled to keep a straight face when she wrote that.

      The truth is that the Greens love a good tax even more than Labor. I wonder, if carbon taxation is intended to make carbon intensive activity more expensive for businesses, and businesses are expected to pass on the impost in the form of price rises, then why are Labor and the Greens planning on providing handouts to people to compensate for the increased costs? Isn’t the whole idea to make these products LESS affordable so that the propensity to consume is reduced? Do the Greens realise that for every coal mine that a company decides not to open in Australia, the ‘investment decision’ of international mining companies will simply cause them to open a mine somewhere overseas instead, resulting in no net decrease in carbon emissions and a marked opportunity cost for the Australian employment market. All this extra cost and lost opportunity for a 0.01% reduction in world emissions? (Australia comprising 2% of world emissions and the proposed cut to emissions being 5% =0.01%) Why hobble ourselves for a token gesture? The day the Greens understand economics is the day that John Howard becomes national secretary of the ACTU.

    • Khoa Huynh says:

      09:26pm | 05/03/11

      They shamefully taxing the hell out of us!

      For so many times the prime minister and the greens who constantly been lying to all of us including those who voted for them since the election and one of those lies are “there will never be a carbon tax under the government I lead” - Julia Gillard.

      This fixed price scheme on carbon will be in placed between three to five years and then to move into a market based pricing. 

      She couldn’t be any clearer by the day as the carbon tax is designed to lower your living standards, since she announced the tax at a media press conference. “If you put a price on carbon on something people will use less of it, as it is free at the moment to permit carbon pollution. If we put a price on carbon pollution and people will find ways to admit less of it and they don’t want to pay the price”   

      Well that means paying more for food, electricity and petrol. Small to medium businesses will closed or scale down their operations, more unemployment, working less hours and less personal savings. 

      While Greg Combet was promoting the tax, he also refuses to acknowledged that a price of carbon is a tax like it never exists. “Its a tax isn’t it?” the reporter asked. “This is a carbon price thorough a market mechanism with the first three years of the market mechanism at least between three and five years being a fixed price in effect that will operate like a tax carbon but the clear intend is to move into emission trading as quickly it can.” Bad PR or spin I must say.

      Second last,  I leave you a comment with the governments backbench member, Rob Oakshott sounds like a clueless twit. “I certainly support the release of this document, if I been asked to vote for it then I would”. Like he will vote for the tax that he never reads it. 

      But anyway what I want to leave for you is a quote from one of my favorite economics of the 20th century.

      “Those politicians, professors and union bosses who curse big business are fighting for a lower standard of living.” – Ludwig Von Mises, Theory and History of AntiTrust Laws, 1950.

    • Muzz says:

      09:50pm | 05/03/11

      What is self evident is that even if we do get this tax we’ll still keep on mining and burning coal, probably at a greater rate than ever.

    • John Parry says:

      08:52am | 06/03/11

      Dear Christine. You are clearly delusional. You won’t consider nuclear power, but you want to decommission coal fired power stations. You talk about our “solar future” as if its the answer to everything. You talk about creating a “cleaner environment” as if what we do only affects us. Duh, ever heard of India? China? They’re building one new coal fired power station per week. Using 3 billion tonnes of coal per year. Anything we do unilaterally is truly pointless. You and your greenie friends are all barking mad.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      12:05pm | 06/03/11

      Dear John Parry,

      Whilst I am not necessarily promoting a carbon tax/price as the ideal or only method, in my opinion the potential benefits are as follows:-

      1. It places us in a better position to demand change in other countries and economies: we can hardly demand from others that which refuse to do ourselves.

      2. It may accelerate the paradigm shift to sustainable practises, which could come into play this century, as the planet increasingly cannot cope with our impact.

      3. Pricing CO2 will establish market forces, which should change behaviour. By choosing the cheaper option we will migrate to a low carbon economy, reducing the impact of a catch-up process further down the track.

      4. This migration has the potential to drive innovation, revitalise industry and reinvigorate our skills base, inoculating us from the possibility of a stagnating economy in the future.

      5. Taxation rather than subsidisation provides an income base to help ease households and industry, reducing the depressive effects. It can be used to invest in new industry and promote other sustainable practices such as reforestation.

    • JohnW says:

      12:26pm | 06/03/11

      Yes Christine.  But what is the question?  The man-made emission of CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.

      When it is all boiled down, those who attempt to convince us of a “looming environmental catastrophe caused by human activity” do so by presenting us with two graphs.

      The first one shows what they claim to be global temperature trends over the last 30 years.  The second shows the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentrations also over the last 30 years.

      The graphs are scaled to show that the upward trends in both graphs look to be almost identical in shape.  They claim that this “proves” that the increase in CO2 is causing an increase in the temperature of the planet.

      In a court of law this would be called “circumstantial evidence.”  It is like saying that a person is guilty because they have a motive to commit the murder and was known to be in the vicinity when the crime took place.  On its own this evidence would never secure a conviction.

      Of course, those presenting these theories have shrouded it all with a mass of “supporting” data referring to such things as geological records, the temperature and acidification of the oceans, the frequency of floods and droughts and such like.  They also widely publicise pictures of melting ice, desperate polar bears, bereft penguins and so on, attempting to blame it all on the CO2.  But it is becoming more and more obvious this “evidence” has been put forward to confuse us as to the real issue and to hide that fact that their conclusions are based upon very shaky foundations which are crumbling under rigorous scrutiny.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      02:47pm | 06/03/11

      Dear JohnW,

      The correlation between the CO2 and T trends is indeed circumstantial evidence, but when placed in context with something more important not mentioned in your comment, it starts to look like corroborative evidence.

      What is this more important thing? The hard science of physics and chemistry, the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, that explains the greenhouse effect. These theories explain how CO2 traps and scatters long wave infrared radiation. It explains how the CO2 molecule, with its trapped photon of long wave infrared radiation assumes a vibration that injects extra thermal kinetic energy into the atmosphere. It quantifies this energy and makes predictions about the flow-on effects.

      For example, it predicts that a warmer atmosphere will expand, will hold more water and will heat up the oceans. We know that this planetary system is chaotic, which means that a small change in one of these flow-on effects will dramatically change the predicted behaviour. This makes it hard to quantify exactly how much of this kinetic energy will be diverted into these flow-on effects, and how much of the residual energy will be measured by us as atmospheric temperature.

      The other problem is that we cannot place this temperature rise fully in context with the ongoing natural climate change. The temperature rose 0.74 degrees C in the last century, but how much of this is due to natural change and how much is AGW?

      By using the greenhouse effect and the rise in CO2 levels we can make some general predictions. We know that doubling CO2 will cause a T raise (including feedbacks) of somewhere between 1.85 and 3.0 degrees C. So, by increasing CO2 by a third, we can predict a T rise of perhaps 0.61 to 1.0 degrees C. When we place this in context with T trends over the last 10 000 years we find the CO2 rise since 1780 to be the most plausible explanation for the T rise since 1780.

      For me, the hard science of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, coupled with this rise in CO2 constitutes the proof (ie, 95% certainty) that AGW is with us. The T trend, along with trends in CO2, atmospheric expansion, oceanic temperature and atmospheric humidity (to name a few) corroborates the predictions of AGW. But, because we cannot separate AGW from the ongoing natural climate change it is corroborative evidence at best, and not actually proof.

      To genuinely refute the existence of AGW one will need to counter the hard science of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model or show that the CO2 trends are incorrect or come from natural sources.

    • James says:

      05:05pm | 06/03/11

      Mark my words, people will see in time just how far sighted the Greens are, if we do not change our ways, get off fossil fuels, protect our environment and wise up reality is going to be paying each and everyone of us a visit and hand us a bill for our disregard of the environment and mother nature always collects.

    • JohnW says:

      08:08pm | 06/03/11

      Dear Lisa Meredith
      I think that we differ only in one pertinent point.  I will summarise my understanding first.

      As you have rightly said CO2 molecules are very good absorbers of heat energy.  The three atoms within the molecule resonate in the infrared frequency range.  Thus when an infrared photon encounters a CO2 molecule the energy is readily absorbed into the (internal) atomic structure of the molecule rather than being transferred by impact into (external) kinetic energy.  After a short time the molecule, which is now in an “excited” (unstable) state, gets rid of the excess energy by re-radiating it in a random direction.

      Noting that CO2 represents only 0.038% of the atmosphere, a small proportion of infrared photons being radiated from the earth strike CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, are absorbed and then re-radiated.  About 50% of this energy is radiated back to earth and the remainder is directed out into space.  The heat which thereby returns to the earth contributes to an increase of global temperatures.

      However, the CO2 molecules don’t mind from which direction the photons of heat energy are coming and will just as readily absorb photons which are coming from the sun.  About 50% of this heat is then re-radiated towards the earth but the rest finds its way back into space.  The CO2 contained in the atmosphere is, in this case, acting as something of a “heat shield” keeping a small but significant proportion of the sun’s energy from reaching the earth thus contributing to a reduction of surface temperatures.

      As there is an overall balance between the heat leaving the earth and that arriving, an increase in CO2 concentration of, say, 10% would result in these two effects cancelling one another out with zero net impact upon global temperatures.

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be saying that the heat energy arriving increases the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule by setting up an asymmetry in the electron cloud of the molecule.  I think that you then say that this asymmetry produces a magnetic dipole which causes the molecule to oscillate thereby injecting extra thermal kinetic energy into later collisions with other gas molecules.

      The difference we have is that the energy you are talking about is not “extra.”  That is, energy is not being created by this process but is simply being transferred from one place to another.  Further I would say that the contribution this oscillation makes is, at most, a small fraction of the energy that was originally absorbed, as the energy of the photon is securely held as a unit within the molecule at a predefined frequency determined by the resonance of the internal molecular structure (E=Planck’s constant x frequency).  When the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is brought into the equation, the overall effect becomes insignificant.

      As the “excited” CO2 molecules “decay,” scattering occurs by which the stored potential energy is re-radiated as infrared photons in random directions, some finding their way back to earth and some heading out into space.  In either direction, they behave in the same manner as any other photon.  This scattering will occur in the same way whether the heat energy that was originally absorbed came from the earth or from the sun.  Thus the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation will result in zero net impact upon surface temperatures.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      10:50am | 07/03/11

      Dear JohnW,

      Thankyou for your reply. This is my second attempt to reply to you.

      The extra thermal kinetic energy injected into the atmosphere, of which I speak, is described thus. The collision between a CO2 molecule in a vibrational mode and another gas molecule is not elastic. Both molecules leave with more momentum than they had before the collision. This increase in momentum is an increase in velocity as the combined mass does not change.

      It should also be noted that while the long wave infrared photons coming from the sun will be trapped, most of the infrared photons emitted by the sun are short wave. They are not absorbed by the air but by the earth and water which heats up and emits the long wave variety. As the earth’s surface warms up due to AGW more are emitted.

      One way of describing the earth’s increased radiative output due to heating (in keeping with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) is described by defining the emissivity response of the planet. Emissivity is a measure of how well an object absorbs radiation and emits it as heat. As object with maximum emissivity is behaving as a black body. Emissivity is low when heat is trapped and not emitted, or radiation is reflected.

      Increasing the greenhouse gas concentration reduces the IR emissivity of the planet, whilst UV and visible light emissivity remains constant. This is an imbalance and must be restored. The planet does this by warming up, which increases IR emissivity back to the pre-change equilibrium. At this higher global temperature the balance is restored, and will remain so until GHG levels are reduced.

      The opposite happens during glaciation. UV and visible light emissivity is reduced as this radiation is reflected, not absorbed. Infrared emissivity remains constant but is now too high and the planet’s total radiation output is out of balance. The planet responds by cooling and IR emitted is reduced until balance is restored.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@LaurieOakes I was suckered on Facebook last week and now Twitter. We are just innocents abroad a cyber sea.

Malcolm Farr

I just viewed my TOP20 Profile STALKERS. I can't believe my EX is still checking me every day - http://goo.gl/JySHI

Malcolm Farr

WOW! You can see WHO VISITS your TWITTER profile. That's cool! :) - http://goo.gl/JySHI

Malcolm Farr

Guess who's coming to dinner, too. BOF's prospects in the NSW Upper House. The Punch today: http://bit.ly/hTWj5z

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Benji Marshall. Hero. Gentleman. Good guy

Benji Marshall. Hero. Gentleman. Good guy

On school visits, Benji Marshall has a fun and disarming way of introducing himself. He says “my…

AFL scandal girl’s an idiot. Because she’s a teenager

AFL scandal girl’s an idiot. Because she’s a teenager

Teenagers are idiots, most of the time. They do incredibly stupid things. Hormones, drugs, alcohol, and…

A father’s advice to his sons

A father’s advice to his sons

I once wrote and directed a play (yes, a real play – in a theatre, in front of an audience) in…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Sex - when too much is barely enough

Dark Horse says:

I have a sneaking suspicion that these types of behavioural modification programs are used by those who are so bored with everything else that they have nothing else to try. You don't hear of people in broken down, poor countries worrying about their sex addiction when they spend most of their time trying… [read more]

From: Slicing up that ol’ disability pie

Lauren says:

so true. My brother has cerebral palsy, is blind and is intellectually disabled. He is also a gold medalist paralympian, He is retired from that now and works every day selling the big issue in Melbourne. For all he has put into society, he gets very little back. He has to live in a rooming house with… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Welcome, Nigerian Facebook friends. Please send money.

Welcome, Nigerian Facebook friends. Please send money.

Readers, as we’re sure you’re well aware, The Punch is Nigeria’s main national newspaper.… Read more

25 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter