Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Faldur]

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...mfp=001&st=&cy

Hmmmmmmmmm

Kind of nice how they tax everyone.. the US could learn from that

[russtafa]

How many times do I have to say I am not arguing for a tax, a cap or anything political? We agree: the planet's life support systems are feeling the stress of seven billion industrious people.

ok i agree but politicians of the left and the right will use the climate to tax it's citizens

[muh_muh]

Kind of nice how they tax everyone.. the US could learn from that

would be kinda nice if you had learned to read at some point in your life

Taxable income           Tax on this income
0 - $6,000               Nil

[Stavros]

Trish, many thanks for an eloquent summary of the history; I think that as has now been said too many times, the science itself has been overtaken by the politics, on which everyone has an opinion. The decline of popularity in the teaching of hard sciences, maths and engineering in the UK has also created a generation of people for whom even simple science is complex, tv programmes that explain complex phenomena in simple language and using cgi and other techniques are therefore quite popular, but are a substitute for real learning; even in the case of computing most of the teachers in our schools can use a computer but have no idea how it works. One of the reasons why India and China could dominate the world economy over the next 50 years is due to the graduation of enthusiastic scientists and engineers with business ideas, and yet in terms of resources, US universities are still in the top quartile in the world; the irony may be that the US will end up training scientists who go elsewhere to do business; leaving the US with an antiquated infrastructre and Professors in their 90s. I know that I was exagerrating the point, but the GOP contenders are chilling in their indifference to the things that will make the future work, and rely on a stupefying belief in markets and God, who might be omnipoent, but is unlikely to intervene in the US economy, presumably for political reasons...

[Ben]

[Ben]

[Ben]

Paul Kingsnorth, English writer and journalist, is quite critical of the environmental movement. Not for reasons you may think of:



And an interview w/ Paul Kingsnorth:

http://www.theecologist.org/Intervie...their_way.html

[russtafa]

The carbon Tax is 23 dollars per ton the highest in the world and now our skanky PM can get a job with the UN when she retires.We have already had one factory close down and move overseas and more are said to follow

[Ben]

The carbon Tax is 23 dollars per ton the highest in the world and now our skanky PM can get a job with the UN when she retires.We have already had one factory close down and move overseas and more are said to follow

A tax is considered a burden.... High prices are also considered a burden. Oil is a finite resource. And will get more expensive. Plus India and China are going to have greater energy needs -- and this'll boost the price. To put it mildly, well, we're in a pickle.
The reason for a so-called carbon tax is to raise prices on bad things. Like pollution. I mean, you get in your car it creates congestion, air pollution and higher prices at the pump. Not taking into account the long term consequences. It's called an externality. It's a market transaction whereby a third party doesn't consent. You know, I get in my car. Start it. Drive it. What I don't take into account is the air pollution that I'm responsible for. That places a health burden on other people.
So, again, taxes are considered a burden. We could, well, drastically reduce income taxes. Considered a good thing. (That's Ron Paul's proposal. Ya know, it's your income, you worked for it. It's yours. Hence a 0 percent income tax. Is that a good idea? Well, how do we pay for roads, bridges, highways, schools, a police force etc., etc., etc. Do people really want a private police force?
I mean, you can and maybe should address all these issues through popular will or democracy. Ya know, do Australians want a carbon tax. Vote on it. Let the people decide. I'm not entirely sure if I trust people -- ha ha! But, well, that should be the basis for a policy decision like a carbon tax. Let the people vote, let the people decide.)

[trish]

Each time you breath you increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 0.00000000002 tons. If all 7 billion of us exhaled at once that would put 0.15 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In one minute we all put about 3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In a day that's 3400 tons. Of course not of that was released from fossil sources; i.e. it's all part of the natural cycle. Were the carbon cycle in balance, all 3400 tons would be taken up by the world's plant kingdom and a comparable amount of oxygen would be released. Any additional tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by releasing long sequestered sources (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) tilts the carbon balance, "thickens" the atmospheric "insulation" tilting the thermal balance and stressing the climate. Human industry dumps 30 billion tons of long sequestered carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. That's 24000 times as much as the 1.24 million (3400x365) tons of recycled carbon dioxide we breath into the atmosphere annually. Science can't tell us whether industry should be taxed for dumping that those 30 billion tons yearly. Perhaps we shouldn't. Science can only tell us the consequences continued dumping.