|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Perry Groves
(Post 8324047)
the love between a man and a camel is a complicated thing?
“Yes Sir, I did say that, but the men usually ride the camel to the nearest brothelâ€. Or “No, it only hurts when you catch your thumbs between the bricksâ€. :rofl: |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 8324425)
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 I fully 110% agree with both of you. A carbon tax will produce huge revenue streams, and although it will reduce energy consumption slightly, its effect will be completely disproportional to the cost. Far better (in my opinion) would be to set arbitrary CO2 caps on industry, then fine them if they breach those caps. It would be complicated – but so too is ETS, and it would be more productive – especially if the fines were punitive. After all, this is how we regulate OH&S in the workplace. You can disobey the rules if you want, but the fines are prohibitive if you are caught breaking them. The most abhorrent part of ETC is the idea that an entire industry will spring up in credit trading, and people will make fortunes out of it. Is that really what ETS is about? Trading the problem from one to another??? |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8324777)
Gawd – Isolande and Swerv-o, I didn’t think Scientists were so cynical! :rofl:
I fully 110% agree with both of you. A carbon tax will produce huge revenue streams, and although it will reduce energy consumption slightly, its effect will be completely disproportional to the cost. Far better (in my opinion) would be to set arbitrary CO2 caps on industry, then fine them if they breach those caps. It would be complicated – but so too is ETS, and it would be more productive – especially if the fines were punitive. After all, this is how we regulate OH&S in the workplace. You can disobey the rules if you want, but the fines are prohibitive if you are caught breaking them. The most abhorrent part of ETC is the idea that an entire industry will spring up in credit trading, and people will make fortunes out of it. Is that really what ETS is about? Trading the problem from one to another??? All good scientists should be cynics! It prevents them from getting too close to their theory and becoming determined to prove it at any cost. Hmmm... Does that sound familiar? There was an interesting program on ABC radio last night that mentioned Hedge Funds buying up carbon credits - and that a whole new market could develop which would push the price of the credits up massively. And of course when that happens, guess who has to pay the extra? Yup, you guessed it - good old Joe public the consumer. The whole things seems a nonsense to me I'm afraid... S |
Re: Global warming
How would an individual go about buying a carbon credit? And how much are they?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8325184)
How would an individual go about buying a carbon credit? And how much are they?
I have loads if you want to invest in the ecological future of our planet. :rofl::rofl::rofl: |
Re: Global warming
It might be instructive to approach this from, as it were, the other end.
Assume, just for argument's sake, that the IPCC's interpretation of the data is correct, and that very significant reductions in emissions are necessary. All the arguments so far have been about how many gigatonnes have to be eliminated and by which countries - the actual effect on each participating country has been left up in the air (pun intended, sorry) and, as a result no-one really believes there would be a significant difference to their lives. Look at it the other way, then. Ask just what standard of living would be acceptable to, say, Australians. Bear in mind that the underdeveloped countries will naturally aspire to the same standard. No airconditioning? Limited heating? Meat reduced to a ration of 250g a month? No-one to have a car except for essential users? *Their* cars to be all electric? No dishwashers, washing machines, dryers? Much reduced internet? (Internet servers use quite a large proportion of our power supply). Home computers to be restricted? You can draw up a list that varies from "no change" all the way down to "stone age". Having fixed a general standard of living, assume that *all* countries tend towards that standard, assume a world population of the projected 9.3Bn and *then* see what the emissions would total. I would bet a pound to a penny that, using *most* people's list, global emissions would be far in excess of what the IPCC are aiming at. (Remember, we are making the assumption that their figures are broadly correct.) My own take on this is that an exercise such as this bottom-up view would bring home the stark reality that Kevin is not on the same planet as the ballpark, Tony is close to being sectioned and that there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting an agreement by any industrialised nations. We are just going to have to let nature take its course: if the IPCC is completely wrong then those of us who generally accept their conclusions will have to eat humble pie. And if the IPCC is correct then nature will in time sort itself out. It would take billions of casualties, wars, starvation, disease and probably a thousand years but what the hell! PS - one estimate (quote): >>One study by Brown, commissioned by the US environmental protection agency, suggested that US data centres used 61bn kilowatt hours of energy in 2006. That is enough to supply the whole of the UK for two months, and 1.5% of the entire electricity usage of the US.<< |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8325242)
It might be instructive to approach this from, as it were, the other end.
Assume, just for argument's sake, that the IPCC's interpretation of the data is correct, and that very significant reductions in emissions are necessary. All the arguments so far have been about how many gigatonnes have to be eliminated and by which countries - the actual effect on each participating country has been left up in the air (pun intended, sorry) and, as a result no-one really believes there would be a significant difference to their lives. Look at it the other way, then. Ask just what standard of living would be acceptable to, say, Australians. Bear in mind that the underdeveloped countries will naturally aspire to the same standard. No airconditioning? Limited heating? Meat reduced to a ration of 250g a month? No-one to have a car except for essential users? *Their* cars to be all electric? No dishwashers, washing machines, dryers? Much reduced internet? (Internet servers use quite a large proportion of our power supply). Home computers to be restricted? You can draw up a list that varies from "no change" all the way down to "stone age". Having fixed a general standard of living, assume that *all* countries tend towards that standard, assume a world population of the projected 9.3Bn and *then* see what the emissions would total. I would bet a pound to a penny that, using *most* people's list, global emissions would be far in excess of what the IPCC are aiming at. (Remember, we are making the assumption that their figures are broadly correct.) My own take on this is that an exercise such as this bottom-up view would bring home the stark reality that Kevin is not on the same planet as the ballpark, Tony is close to being sectioned and that there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting an agreement by any industrialised nations. We are just going to let nature take its course: if the IPCC is completely wrong then those of us who generally accept their conclusions will have to eat humble pie. And if the IPCC is correct then nature will in time sort itself out. It would take billions of casualties, wars, starvation, disease and probably a thousand years but what the hell! PS - one estimate (quote): >>One study by Brown, commissioned by the US environmental protection agency, suggested that US data centres used 61bn kilowatt hours of energy in 2006. That is enough to supply the whole of the UK for two months, and 1.5% of the entire electricity usage of the US.<< |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8325205)
$10 each, they are A4 bits of paper with “Carbon Credit†written across them in red biro.
I have loads if you want to invest in the ecological future of our planet. :rofl::rofl::rofl: |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8325259)
only $10!!! Let me send you my bank details and password whilst I'm at it!
How are you together with your family? I hope all is well? It is understandable that you might be a little bit apprehensive because you do not know me but I have a lucrative business proposal of mutual interest to share with you. First and foremost, I am Carbon Emitter, honest trader of carbon commodities and all round nice guy. My father was General Pollutant, and he was sadly killed off in the 1980s. When he died he was holding 200 billion dollars of carbon trading bonds, held with the Australian government Mr Kelvin Rudderless. My problem now is my inheritance. I cannot make the withdrawal of this fund, because a man called Lord Monkton doesn’t believe I exist. What I would want you to do, is to assist me to get money easy by pretending to be me. If you do this risk free endeavour I will give you 20% of this inheritance, and all of the carbon pollution you will ever need. As a sign of good faith please send me your credit card details and ten blackmail sized naked photos. Yours honourably Carbon Emitter. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8325259)
only $10!!! Let me send you my bank details and password whilst I'm at it!
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com Looks like you are out of business slapphead. |
Re: Global warming
Yay - I now own 16,507,034,504 carbon offsets. (although I might have burnt a couple from going to the site, downloading and printing off my certificates)
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8325301)
Dear Friend.
How are you together with your family? I hope all is well? It is understandable that you might be a little bit apprehensive because you do not know me but I have a lucrative business proposal of mutual interest to share with you. First and foremost, I am Carbon Emitter, honest trader of carbon commodities and all round nice guy. My father was General Pollutant, and he was sadly killed off in the 1980s. When he died he was holding 200 billion dollars of carbon trading bonds, held with the Australian government Mr Kelvin Rudderless. My problem now is my inheritance. I cannot make the withdrawal of this fund, because a man called Lord Monkton doesn’t believe I exist. What I would want you to do, is to assist me to get money easy by pretending to be me. If you do this risk free endeavour I will give you 20% of this inheritance, and all of the carbon pollution you will ever need. As a sign of good faith please send me your credit card details and ten blackmail sized naked photos. Yours honourably Carbon Emitter. |
Re: Global warming
Just to give you a sense of how much warmer than the average this summer has been in Canberra:
November long-term averages (min/max): 8.8/22.7 November 2009 average (min/max): 12.7/29 December long-term averages (min/max): 11.4/26.1 December 2009 average (min/max): 12.5/28.8 January long-term averages (min/max): 13.2/28 January 2010 average (min/max): 15.9/31.6 The departure from the long-term average (1939-2009) is huge and it's a similar story across much of southern Australia. The sea temperatures off the coast of NSW are almost tropical at the moment which is leading to the very warm and humid nights of late. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8325497)
Just to give you a sense of how much warmer than the average this summer has been in Canberra:
November long-term averages (min/max): 8.8/22.7 November 2009 average (min/max): 12.7/29 December long-term averages (min/max): 11.4/26.1 December 2009 average (min/max): 12.5/28.8 January long-term averages (min/max): 13.2/28 January 2010 average (min/max): 15.9/31.6 The departure from the long-term average (1939-2009) is huge and it's a similar story across much of southern Australia. The sea temperatures off the coast of NSW are almost tropical at the moment which is leading to the very warm and humid nights of late. If next year is colder than the long term average I take it you'll think we're heading for an ice Age. What about this year in the UK? It's not all about Australia either. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8325333)
Hold your horses! You can get free ones here:-
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com Looks like you are out of business slapphead. I know a fair bit about data analysis, and its clear a lot of the AGW lobby doesn’t. I could set myself up as an “environmental Data consultantâ€, charging staggering amounts of money for my services. Probably get a OA for services to the environment, act as a highly paid consultant to several major corporations, and even a seat on the board of some. All I need to do is swallow my pride and common sense. :( |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 4:31 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.