Carbon tax
Jul 17th 2011, 1:03 pm
#316
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Jul 17th 2011, 1:33 pm
#319
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 269
Re: Carbon tax
Which sounds great until you realise a 25 year old pine tree uses 6.82kg of carbon dioxide per year (Link).
Someone above said they aim for a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide? Australia produces 399,219*10^3 t of carbondioxide/yr (Link).
So @ 20% reduction thats 79843.8*10^3 t/yr or 79843.8*10^6 kg/yr.
So you are going to need about 11.7*10^9 trees (11.7 billion trees).
Apparently you can get 400 trees/acre which means you'll need just 2.9*10^7 acres or 118,243 km^2.
So pretty much half of the state of Victoria in arable land used for trees to avoid carbon taxes
.
Someone above said they aim for a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide? Australia produces 399,219*10^3 t of carbondioxide/yr (Link).
So @ 20% reduction thats 79843.8*10^3 t/yr or 79843.8*10^6 kg/yr.
So you are going to need about 11.7*10^9 trees (11.7 billion trees).
Apparently you can get 400 trees/acre which means you'll need just 2.9*10^7 acres or 118,243 km^2.
So pretty much half of the state of Victoria in arable land used for trees to avoid carbon taxes
.Last edited by billingham; Jul 17th 2011 at 1:41 pm.
Jul 17th 2011, 2:48 pm
#323
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,237
Re: Carbon tax
Dear oh dear. It sounds like you've taken the usual Murdoch press propaganda hook line and sinker. The Murdoch press have been on a crusade to destroy the Gillard government since the lead up to the last election. No amount of exageration, intellectual dishonesty and manipulation is too much to force an early election and install that clown Abbott.
OMG this is exactly the american style drivel we are heading towards. Cries of socialist redistribution whenever money is redistributed down, trickle down awesomeness whenever it is redistributed up. It is total bollocks. Money is constantly redistributed both ways and one is not more inherently evil than the other - each policy stands on its merits. Traditional Liberal party people would not come out with this low brow type of article where absolute fear mongering and misinformation replaces discussion of policy. Maybe fox news should start up here and we could totally forget about any policy discussion at all
- Any Murdoch press article will oppose Julia and her gang, just because they are part of Murdoch's empire? What about when a news article appears that criticises the ALP and its policies and the media agency/organisation is not part of Murdoch's empire?
- Anyone criticising socialism either (a) works for the mining industry, (b) is hysterically looking for reds under the bed, and/or (c) the political "right" is guilty of "exaggeration, intellectual dishonesty and manipulation" whilst the political "left", in particular the ALP, is incapable of it?
Would you say that's an accurate summary of your comments?
Jul 17th 2011, 2:56 pm
#324
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,247
Re: Carbon tax
Pine trees take 25 years to reach maturity, and once that growing stage is finished they use less co2, obviously. This is why in sustainable forests the Trees are cut down after 25 years, which renders all your calculations wrong and pointless! If one is going to research into a subject to try and discredit a post - at least do a proper job of it and present the full facts, otherwise one ends end up looking like Julia Gillard.
.Lets see how you reached your conclusions about the viability of this plan.
Meanwhile:
The first serious problem is that cancelling out the emissions from one car by absorbing them in native forest requires around 600 square metres of new forest each year - comparable to the size of a typical suburban house block. Taking a person's driving lifetime as 50 years, the scheme will eventually have to re-forest 3 hectares of land for each participant.
There are around 10 million cars registered in Australia, so leaving aside trucks and other commercial vehicles, accommodating the driving habits of Australians now alive would require 30 million hectares of new forest. For comparison, the area of the entire state of Victoria is 23 million hectares.
There are around 10 million cars registered in Australia, so leaving aside trucks and other commercial vehicles, accommodating the driving habits of Australians now alive would require 30 million hectares of new forest. For comparison, the area of the entire state of Victoria is 23 million hectares.
Looks like I was actually underestimating a bit (a lot!)
.
Study casts doubt on forest carbon capture plans
As CO2 levels rise, land becomes less able to curb warming: study
That said I am still skeptical about the hypothesis in some respects but I’m not going to be swayed simply by uninformed opinion either.
We are going through a period of warming within climate cycles but the warming appears, since the industrial revolution, to have exceeded predicted growth rates. The effects of this are subject to conjecture by many scientists with an array of possible outcomes from pleasant to utterly catastrophic.
Understanding the science of climate change is important for us and future generations of humans. If evidence comes to light that offers weight (proof is for mathematics, not science) to the arguments for or against then it should be taken into consideration regardless of how personally inconvenient they might seem.
Jul 17th 2011, 4:58 pm
#325
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Carbon tax
We are going through a period of warming within climate cycles but the warming appears, since the industrial revolution, to have exceeded predicted growth rates. The effects of this are subject to conjecture by many scientists with an array of possible outcomes from pleasant to utterly catastrophic.
.
I can see the errors that the climate alarmists are making.
1. They have concatenated one measure (tree ring grown from 12 trees found in the Yamal Forrest) straight onto temperature measurements. This is utter bollox.
The tree ring growth rates DONT measure temperature, the measure tree adaptability.
They selected the 12 trees to support the hypothesis out of 250+ that were available. I have the FULL 250 sets of data and when you add the lot together the warming is disproved.
2. They then added this useless data onto thermal measurements. These were taken originally by thermometers - literally men tapping glass tubes and writing down numbers.
They then added this to much more accurate data from infra red measurements from satellites - which are themselves problematic.
This resulted in the appearance of increasing temperatures - the infamous hockey stick graph produced by Mann.
its utter bollox science, and these morons should be struck off.
If anyone wants to dspute this, it had better be good because I have all of the facts on this laptop somewhere.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE WARMING OF THIS PLANET.
Jul 17th 2011, 5:19 pm
#326
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Re: Carbon tax
No, the point was, you were trying to undermine Julia Gillard's intentions by posting a link to a news article that shows her affiliations to organisations that have a conflict of interest. I simply responded saying that the alternative (the Coalition) are equally as conflicted due to their close ties with the mining industry. Therefore your point was, well, pointless and served nothing to this argument other than to attack the man rather than the plan.
Weldone!
Weldone!
Last edited by Broad Shoulders; Jul 17th 2011 at 5:31 pm.
Jul 17th 2011, 5:24 pm
#327
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
Re: Carbon tax
Let me just check that I've got this straight:
Would you say that's an accurate summary of your comments?
- Any Murdoch press article will oppose Julia and her gang, just because they are part of Murdoch's empire? What about when a news article appears that criticises the ALP and its policies and the media agency/organisation is not part of Murdoch's empire?
- Anyone criticising socialism either (a) works for the mining industry, (b) is hysterically looking for reds under the bed, and/or (c) the political "right" is guilty of "exaggeration, intellectual dishonesty and manipulation" whilst the political "left", in particular the ALP, is incapable of it?
Would you say that's an accurate summary of your comments?
Jul 17th 2011, 6:29 pm
#329
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 269
Re: Carbon tax
There was an interesting program recently, which showed that 100,000 years ago the Sahara dessert was not indeed a dessert, then 20,000 years later, it started reverting back to dessert. There was a movement within the Green Party at the time to reduce carbon emissions.
You have to remember, that to a certain extent, the Green party is based on this whole issue, it exists to fight climate change - without it, they are no more. They will never, ever agree that the science is flawed as then they would simply be redundant.
You have to remember, that to a certain extent, the Green party is based on this whole issue, it exists to fight climate change - without it, they are no more. They will never, ever agree that the science is flawed as then they would simply be redundant.
Last edited by billingham; Jul 17th 2011 at 6:34 pm.
Jul 17th 2011, 6:52 pm
#330
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,237
Re: Carbon tax
No, the point was, you were trying to undermine Julia Gillard's intentions by posting a link to a news article that shows her affiliations to organisations that have a conflict of interest. I simply responded saying that the alternative (the Coalition) are equally as conflicted due to their close ties with the mining industry. Therefore your point was, well, pointless and served nothing to this argument other than to attack the man rather than the plan.
Weldone!
Weldone!
. This sounds rather like the water usage fees in WA - despite fines as well as the usage charges, the rich just carry on watering their velvet green lawns and fill their huge swimming pools with Perth's drinking water. After all, what incentive is there for them to reduce consumption?As for conflicts of interest, is your job still marketing for a solar energy company?
