Seeking Alpha

Australia's carbon tax progressed through the lower house of Parliament, moving one step closer...

Australia's carbon tax progressed through the lower house of Parliament, moving one step closer to becoming a law that will strongly encourage power companies to use less "dirty" coal. What worked Down Under that couldn't inspire similar legislation in the U.S. or Europe? Natural disasters and an endangered Great Barrier Reef set the right mood to overcome the perpetual lobbying by big businesses.
Comments (25)
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    >>What worked Down Under that couldn't inspire similar legislation in the U.S. or Europe? <<

     

    A larger (barely) amount of common sense in the U.S. and Europe. Surely not often you get to say that about anything, so enjoy the chance and enjoy the fact that your electric bill hasn't skyrocketed (yet).
    12 Oct 2011, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • Capitalist1
    , contributor
    Comments (54) | Send Message
     
    "What worked Down Under that couldn't inspire similar legislation in the U.S. or Europe?"

     

    Your thinking is as confused as your grammar.
    12 Oct 2011, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, just because dissolved CO2 has lowered the pH of the ocean and is dissolving the great barrier reef, I mean, my cheap ac is much more important. Wait until it really heats up, they will be praying for the cheap energy.
    12 Oct 2011, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Option,

     

    "dissolved CO2 has lowered the pH of the ocean"

     

    What are you quoting Ted Danson again?

     

    You can't possibly believe something so stupid, can you?

     

    Just like the Himalayan Glaciers were gonna be gone in 30-40 years.
    12 Oct 2011, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, chemistry degree. I know all about pH and what it exactly is. CO2 dissolves in the ocean and lowers the pH. Ever have a soda? Then you have had a bit of carbonic acid. One of the reasons why the soda has a very low pH (high acid) and will rot your teeth (not just the sugar). Some things don't grow very well in high acidic environments, like coral. (Some do, like my blueberries, but I grow them on land) Very simple chemistry, unless you don't know anything about chemistry. But, maybe you distrust scientists, I don't know.
    I'll give you this, climate is like a big pinball game, you can never predict exactly where the ball is going to end up, too many variables, all part of chaos theory (you know what that is, don't you). No, we don't know where the climate (not the weather, two different things) it will end up, but we can follow the road it is going. Greenlanders killing their dogs because they can't feed them anymore, no ice to hunt marine mammals. Yes, some glaciers disappearing, permafrost melting, Pacific Islands losing fresh water due to the ocean rising. All observed, but yes, we don't know for sure if it will continue or how far it will go. Chaos theory, warming may somehow trigger an ice age. You never know. This whole climate deal is not a belief system, what will happen will happen, no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes shut and hope otherwise.
    12 Oct 2011, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Option,

     

    What was the pH of the "Oceans"

     

    10 years ago?
    20 years ago?
    100 years ago?
    200 years ago?
    1000 years ago?
    100000 years ago?
    1000000 years ago?

     

    Shall I go on?

     

    Science is based upon the Scientific Method, not on the slideshow of Mr Al. Gore, the "temperature of the earth's core is millions of degrees", and what passes for science in the global warming crowd is closer to religion.

     

    Wikipedia describes how science is made:
    http://bit.ly/nbfuPA

     

    Scientists who get paid to study man-made global warming produce reports that show there is man-made global warming and that's a surprise?

     

    You are way to smart to believe this junk science. A tax will not lower the temperature of the earth but a carbon converting technology just might assuming we needed it with a lot less human cost and financial cost.

     

    Interestingly that Chinese coal burning everyone complains about is according to Greenpeace:

     

    http://bit.ly/mXmWP7/
    "Chinese coal plants keeping the planet cool
    Climate In an ironic twist it appears that the huge increase in Chinese coal-powered plants has actually been keeping the planet cool and skewing climate change data. The huge amounts of sulphur emitted by the plants has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade as a result of the cooling effect caused by sulphur’s reflection of solar radiation. "

     

    You should be celebrating we have solved the "problem".
    12 Oct 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Sure, billion years ago pH was very high, and has varied throughout earth's long history. But, present life in the ocean today has been used to a slightly alkaline pH. Lower it, and it screws things up. Sure, massive die offs have happened in the past, and since we weren't around, they weren't man made. Nature can be quite brutal. Hate to be around for another die off, wouldn't you?
    Just climate scientists lie and scam? I don't know who you think pays them. Chevron has deeper pockets then Ohio State, in which a lot of polar ice core analysis has been done. Oh, hold it, you think that only uncle Al is doing the science, not thousands who somehow, are all in cahoots with each other. Well, not all, just 95% of climate scientists doing the actual science (check it out, the math alone is beyond the four years of calculus I took many moons ago). If you do believe they are in cahoots, don't take any drugs deemed safe by for profit big pharm companies, now those scientists have a lot to gain. It is all more complicated than uncle Al and other talking heads make it out to be. Hey, I have an open mind, I don't "believe" or "not believe" in global warming. What will happen will happen, and insisting it won't happen is just another belief system.
    12 Oct 2011, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    Option, it's clear you know little about this. The existing "climate science" has been thoroughly discredited. As far as deep pockets they are on the pro-AGW side, although Penn State would have been a better example if you knew the subject. Governments have thrown vast sums at the research community to justify AGW in the hopes of convincing the unwashed masses that equally vast new tax schemes are required to solve this "problem." The old joke when I was growing up was that politicians would tax air if they thought they could get away with it, and this is the realization of that political wet dream.

     

    And your protestations aren't convincing. It's clear you're a believer in the AGW religion and lacking any real scientific basis it is indeed a cult.
    13 Oct 2011, 02:39 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    Follow the money (quest for corporate subsidies) - it's on the AGW side:
    http://huff.to/pJgGZs

     

    And the money behind the fake science of AGW:
    http://bit.ly/qHUowG
    13 Oct 2011, 02:49 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    "The existing "climate science" has been thoroughly discredited."

     

    No, it hasn't. Thoroughly discredited by gentlemen with Master's degrees in economics. Or do you hold the view of the repub's witness at their hearing: "E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, who warned that "fear of catastrophic, man-made global warming is a mistake," and argued that because the "biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God," humankind couldn't possibly be affecting the climate." Or do you go along with Richard Muller, a climate change debunker who, during the same hearings, did say his team found that tempertures were rising.
    Is climate change conclusive? What "theory" is? Could the cure be worse than the disease? It may very well be, who wants to ride a bike where-ever they go. I have an open mind on this, do you?
    13 Oct 2011, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Option,

     

    Ignorance is dangerous. Consensus is not science.

     

    If neutrinos can move faster than the speed of light then the 100% consensus of light as a constant for the past 100 years or so will be overturned by new facts.

     

    Open your mind and examine the facts.

     

    Plenty of competing theories that explain warming that do not involve man or C02 most of which comes from natural sources (man's contribution to C02 is minuscule).

     

    There is a reason why Kyoto 2 failed at Copenhagen in 2009 and that was because the "science" is based upon fraudulent, manipulated data as revealed by Climategate.com

     

    All the so-called "errors" in the IPCC 2007 report just show how much of this is based upon politics rather than science.

     

    Finally CERN (you know who they are don't you?) revealed a competing theory (the sun and cosmic rays) that explains climate changes more simply and elegantly than anything the Global Warming religionists have been able to concoct with their fancy mathematical models - apparently since there is no recent warming it must be the fault of the planet not the stupid spreadsheets.

     

    Anyway, I doubt you can be reached on the issue but the bottomline is no to TAXES dedicated to a fraud.

     

    If we really want to solve this problem it could be as simple as this and not a single tax would be needed:

     

    http://bit.ly/qQ5O3Q/
    "Scientists from the University of Calgary in Canada have created a method to efficiently capture carbon dioxide directly from the air around us. The device, which is built on near-commercial technology, was built by Uof C climate change scientists David Keith and his team."
    Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12u5l)
    13 Oct 2011, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Just because neutrinos move faster than the speed of light doesn't mean that the speed of light is not a constant. Neither does it throw out the entire theory of relativity, that still hold for a particular sector of reality. The theory of relativity did not entirely throw out Newtonian physics, which you and I observe in everyday life. The "world" around us is very complex, and even reading the "new" physics put into "layman's" terms gives me a headache.
    Hey, I'm open to anything that comes down the pike that explains the warming of our climate (and as stated before, it may in some way trigger a cooling down the road, by more cloud cover, perhaps).
    My mind is not set in concrete. Time will tell, won't it? Like I said, this is not a belief system, what will happen will happen, ideology and politics (anyone's) are flicked off the shoulder of mother nature by her fickle finger.
    13 Oct 2011, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    E=MC2(squared)

     

    Would be wrong if the fastest moving particle/wave is not C. The idea that "something" can move faster than C would certainly qualify as overturning the conventional wisdom.

     

    I would say that's a revolution in the making - maybe faster than light travel will in fact be possible.

     

    The point is that consensus based upon millions of observations can be overturned by just one new one.

     

    I am a huge proponent of Science but the AGW crowd, Al Gore for example, have corrupted the scientific community for political and monetary reasons as a way to convince people worldwide that they should pay TAXES on this issue.

     

    This is what I am responding to so vehemently - I hate lies that are presented as truth.
    13 Oct 2011, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Matter cannot move at the speed of light. But why not faster than the speed of light? I've heard this theory for a number of years. Check out
    http://bit.ly/rbjdWu. Kind of fascinating.

     

    Hey, eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you, chocolate is bad for you now its good for you. Sure, science is fallible, but there are too many climate scientists (hey, I don't know the exact number) who are doing experiments and analyzing the data. Not all of them are outright liars just making things up. Sure, they may be going down the wrong road, and we may not like their cheerleaders, but I'm not ready to throw out the whole theory anymore than I am ready to fervently take it as gospel.
    13 Oct 2011, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    Again OptionManiac, you have no clue as to whose is promoting AGW, and you certainly don't have an open mind. You obviously didn't bother to read the links I gave above. You're making patently false claims. It's the anti-science zealots like yourself that continue to try to keep it alive. Mann, Jones et al have been thoroughly discredited. The existing body of the so-called "climate science" has been thoroughly discredited.

     

    Here's the link again to a leading man of science calling this scam out:
    http://bit.ly/qHUowG

     

    Speaking of masters in economics here's another link. This is Deutsche Bank promoting the fiction of AGW. If you were someone of science and a critical thinker you might have bothered to wonder why an investment bank would be promoting AGW. It's about the MONEY, specifically the government handouts that will pick the winners, and Deutsche Bank wants to influence and front-run who gets the government handouts.

     

    http://bit.ly/rn3e0b

     

    And here again is the Huffington Post article on this being driven by politicians buying votes and businesses seeking government handouts:
    http://huff.to/pJgGZs
    13 Oct 2011, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Thanks, I will read them. Oh, I do have an open mind, the climate might not heat up. Do you believe that it definitely won't?
    Oil companies (not all) finance anti AGW, they don't have any financial gain to that end? Sure, they are all human, after all.
    13 Oct 2011, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    A quote from one of your articles I like: "The Big Ripoff argues that ethanol subsidies, CO2 taxes, and Kyoto--especially as they are exploited by big business--will not improve the environment."

     

    Gad, whenever there is a buck to be made big business is in on it (well, anyone wants to be in on it). Thanks for the links. Doesn't change my mind because my mind can go either way with it, there are scientists who are passionate about the science they are doing, and who are honest about it.

     

    But, again, it doesn't matter what you or I believe, the earth will warm, cool, or stay the same, no matter what you or I think. Right now, it is heating up a bit, Pacific islands losing fresh water because of the rising ocean, polar ice cap at a record low, Greenland's glaciers melting, both plant and animal species moving towards the poles. All measurable and in plain sight. But hey, I hope it's all temporary, I hope you guys are right, I don't want global warming, I've got a couple of kids who are starting their lives. Thanks again for the links, they did open my eyes.
    13 Oct 2011, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    . "Right now, it is heating up a bit, Pacific islands losing fresh water because of the rising ocean, polar ice cap at a record low, Greenland's glaciers melting, both plant and animal species moving towards the poles. All measurable and in plain sight."

     

    I don't think you have learned anything.

     

    Best wishes.
    13 Oct 2011, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    None of those things are happening? They are.
    READ my post. My view is not set in concrete, obviously yours is. I am not convinced the world is in a permanent warming phase.
    13 Oct 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    "None of those things are happening? They are.
    READ my post."

     

    I've read your posts and they simply make unfounded claims. There's no evidence of a warming trend. What there has been is normal variability. The first half of the 20th Century showed a warming trend, followed by a cooling trend until about the mid-80's. Then there was a warming trend, and the last 15 years have shown no change (and if you pick the last decade as the window we're in a cooling trend). It's the last 15 years, and particularly the last decade that discredited Mann, Jones, and the IPCC's AGW alarmism.

     

    The fact is even the AGW fraudsters have been forced to recant their claims.
    http://bit.ly/ofJDKS

     

    But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.

     

    Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

     

    Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

     

    Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a little-noticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.

     

    One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

     

    He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
    13 Oct 2011, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    Here's a paper that reports what Mann now admits he covered up in his fraudulent work.

     

    http://bit.ly/pMv9tp

     

    "The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized."
    13 Oct 2011, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Thanks - I'll read your links.
    14 Oct 2011, 06:10 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Trust me, I hope that you are right and the earth is not warming.
    14 Oct 2011, 06:12 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    We can be guaranteed that the earth will both warm and cool from here, it just depends upon the time-window you select to view as to whether you see a warming or cooling trend. But that's not what the AGW claims were about. AGW claimed a secular catastrophic warming trend began in the mid-1990's that was man-caused. That's the claim of Mann's infamous hockey stick, and the last 15 years have shown their theory to be false.

     

    These carbon tax and credit schemes do nothing productive. They're meant to enrich the Al Gores and Deutsche Banks of the world. (One UK paper claimed Gore would have earned the title of "World's first carbon-credit billionaire" had what had been proposed at Copenhagen in 2009 gone through as he had front-run the process by getting heavily into carbon credit trading.) Rather these carbon taxes shift resources from better purposes such as healthcare technology advances or advances in food production. It's a zero-sum game with a few high-placed, well-connected winners and the majority of the population as losers and left to pay the bill.
    14 Oct 2011, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    The EPA is doing what a Democratically filibuster proof Congress wouldn't - destroying the standard of living of the average American slowly but surely all for a fraud.

     

    Nancy's House succeeded (failed) in passing Cap & Trade but apparently even Senate Dems weren't that stupid.

     

    Making energy more expensive doesn't reduce global warming - a tax is a tax so I am not sure how that tax reduces the temperature of the earth.

     

    It certainly reduces the thickness of our wallets.

     

    The Aussies, who I admire, are idiots if they go through with this.
    12 Oct 2011, 04:33 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|