Burbage

Otherwise you'll face extremely localised catastrophic global warming.

iolande

slapphead_otool

Hmmm - PhD thesis : close proximity impacts of camel ass, with regard to potential hearing impairment and loss of nasal capabilities.

MartinLuther

And what would have happened to the carbon that's now locked up in the extra 4 billion people?

slapphead_otool

Cremation must release CO2.

Canibalism might work....

MartinLuther

Yes and death if the body rots but after that someone plus a little bit comes along to replace them which is why we now have a bigger population than ever.

I don't know how true this is (so I'm not backing it, just mentioning it) but I did hear once that there are more people alive today than have ever died. I wonder if there's a model to show if there's any truth in that.

MartinLuther

Don't know about this one, but I've always wondered whether there was a case for stopping paper recycling and locking all that carbon up in land fill (maybe old coal mines).

As well as locking the carbon underground it would mean that pulp companies would have to expand their managed forests (I've banned old forest logging for good measure) meaning that there will be more carbon locked up in new trees, if they grow in places were trees weren't previously growing.

iolande

How about we bury all the humans, cows and termites in the old coal mines and seal them up?

MartinLuther

After you.

We'll be behind you. Honest!

slapphead_otool

On a slightly different topic:

This isn’t a comment on the Rudd AGW solution, nor is it a comment upon AGW/GW, and isn’t backed up by facts, so I am happy to be shot to pieces on this, its just my opinion based upon anecdotal observations:

1) When a government wants to stop something it bans it. Handguns in the UK, assault rifles in Australia, drugs in both countries, are all controlled by punitive legislation.

When a government wants to make money out of something it taxes it. They have been taxing cigarettes and alcohol for as long as I have lived, and each year we would watch the budget announcements “another 10 pence on a packet of cigarettes”. It didn’t really affect consumption.

What happens is the taxes simply drive inflation. People still smoked, they simply demanded higher wages to pay for them.

My first pint of beer cost 30 pence. Doubtless just s much beer is drunk now, even though its price is many times greater.

2) Even worse, in a claptrap piece of logic going back to the 1950s, the governments use taxation as a means to control disposable income – thus controlling an economy. If you only have 20% of your salary to dispose of yourself, the chances of you stuffing up the balance of payments is reduced. If the government has 80% of your income and spends it on things it wants to, then they control the ecomony.

3) finally, governments tend to become addicted to taxation, because it becomes part of the control mechanism mentioned above. When sales taxes were removed and GST introduced here in Australia, the government kept the extra taxes on fuel, cigarettes, alcohol, and things like luxury cars. In fact the public ended upon paying GST on the other taxes.
I remember the same crap with the introduction of VAT in the UK, which governments promised would be capped at 10%. Within a few years it was 15%. What is it now? 20% yet?

Given this, i am not sure a ETS will make any change other than push up inflation. If you want to cap emissions why not just do it with legislation?

Wol

>>Given this, i am not sure a ETS will make any change other than push up inflation. If you want to cap emissions why not just do it with legislation?<<

That's exactly what the effect will/would be.

slapphead_otool

Certainly nothing has impacted smoking habits like banning smoking in bars and clubs. Tax on cigarettes didn’t stop people, but standing outside in the cold and snow did.

Perry Groves

the love between a man and a camel is a complicated thing?

iolande

Tax on cigarettes is easy - people are addicted and have a hard time giving up. Most start smoking before they have an income so they are spending someone else's hard earned wage (usually mum or dad's) and before they make the cognitive link between hard work and tax. Once they are hooked they will keep paying into the coffers.

CFC was easy to ban as there were substitutes and no-one would be willing to pay a high tax as they weren't hooked on it and they would just buy the substitute as it was cheaper.

Taxing carbon sounds pretty much like the cigarettes - we are pretty much hooked on it (can I get my electricity company to stop using coal? Can I afford a hydro car?) so a tax is going to be consistent and profitable.

And as for the GST comment above - Income tax was originally brought into Britain in 1798 as a short term measure to pay for the Napoleanic wars. It was less than 1% and would only affect middle-to-high earners. Once the war was over it was to be abolished. Just another example of a governmental promise broken *sigh*

Swerv-o

I don't really understand how they think that the ETS is going to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It seems more about producing some kind of certification as to who is producing the emissions, and then allowing them to continue producing them providing they make the right trades with their 'carbon credits'. It seems like a lot of smoke, mirrors and extra tax to me.

I think that the government could be taking a more practical approach to carbon dioxide reduction than this. Maybe some investment in solar furnaces etc.

I get the feeling that this ETS bill is just lip service to placate people and make it look as if the government is doing something, when in actual fact they are just looking for a revenue raiser.

Call me cynical...


S