Climate Change! Cows and Cars or maybe something else.
watsea said
11:54 AM Nov 30, 2021
I would be happy to pay more. I think the hard part is how to make sure the money is directed to the right items. That correct direction of funds is beyond me, most of the population and probably the government. Many people suggest the government tends to make funding directions based on many things not necessarily always the common good, and naturally there many opinions about that
Mike Harding said
03:03 PM Nov 30, 2021
Good God! A willing soul.
How much more per year would you be happy (not forced) to pay in direct and indirect tax:
$1000 direct - $1000 indirect
$3000 direct - $1500 indirect
$5000 direct - $3000 indirect
$10,000 direct - $5000 indirect
Let's put some numbers on motherhood statements shall we....
watsea said
03:34 PM Nov 30, 2021
Part of the problem with matters about these extra costs is that as a mere citizen, I have not seen any real structured Benefits Analysis or seen a Net Present Worth analysis that ordinary citizens can compend. By the way, I would also be prepared to pay more vehicle registration if it translated into better roads and transport systems.
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 03:37:25 PM
Mike Harding said
03:47 PM Nov 30, 2021
watsea wrote:
I have not seen any real structured Benefits Analysis or seen a Net Present Worth analysis
And you're never going to.
No government is ever going to say (or had the knowledge/ability to say) "if we each pay an extra $5000 in tax we can limit global warming to 1.5d."
Much of the bickering at the recent Glasgow conference was from Third World countries who want to know how much The West is going to pay them as compensation for climate change so, I ask again, how much are you willing (not forced) to pay to developing nations? btw I believe China is a dveloping nation.
Enough with the motherhood stuff - put your money where your mouth is....
watsea said
04:07 PM Nov 30, 2021
Ok. I will put the minimum amount as per your post. Does it really matter for your discussion? But how do I justify it? Maybe it should be more or less? How do we ensure contributions are made in an appropriate way from the appropriate contributors? Too much for me to work out. We citizens, don't have any "tools" to justify what is Value for Money.
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 04:08:44 PM
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 04:09:33 PM
Rob Driver said
05:37 PM Nov 30, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
watsea wrote:
I have not seen any real structured Benefits Analysis or seen a Net Present Worth analysis
And you're never going to.
No government is ever going to say (or had the knowledge/ability to say) "if we each pay an extra $5000 in tax we can limit global warming to 1.5d."
Much of the bickering at the recent Glasgow conference was from Third World countries who want to know how much The West is going to pay them as compensation for climate change so, I ask again, how much are you willing (not forced) to pay to developing nations? btw I believe China is a dveloping nation.
Enough with the motherhood stuff - put your money where your mouth is....
I am sure Buzz will know, dont you Buzz?
Rob Driver said
05:46 PM Nov 30, 2021
watsea wrote:
I would be happy to pay more. I think the hard part is how to make sure the money is directed to the right items. That correct direction of funds is beyond me, most of the population and probably the government. Many people suggest the government tends to make funding directions based on many things not necessarily always the common good, and naturally there many opinions about that
Just a slight problem methinks.
peter67 said
09:52 PM Nov 30, 2021
Is it also a withdrawal excuse for not donating? by saying I won't donate because I can't control who gets my money. If you believe in the cause all you need to worry about is getting the money sent.
dorian said
05:22 AM Dec 1, 2021
We had a carbon tax under Gillard. I don't remember it costing me anything directly.
Rob Driver said
07:44 AM Dec 1, 2021
Well they say it takes all types.
To be willing to pay a tax and/or send money to someone or an organisation an not knowing its destination is absolutely bizarre.
I will PM my bank deposit details to you guys and just feel free to deposit a few dollars a day into that account.
I promise I will send it to China or any country that is currently polluting the world.
Trust is an incredible thing, I am so pleased that anyone donating doesnt want a statement indicating the monies distribution.
I will promise you all that it wont go into the Rob and Angie general revenue account.
So there, that should fix it.
Blues Man said
07:48 AM Dec 1, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Well they say it takes all types.
To be willing to pay a tax and/or send money to someone or an organisation an not knowing its destination is absolutely bizarre.
I will PM my bank deposit details to you guys and just feel free to deposit a few dollars a day into that account.
I promise I will send it to China or any country that is currently polluting the world.
Trust is an incredible thing, I am so pleased that anyone donating doesnt want a statement indicating the monies distribution.
I will promise you all that it wont go into the Rob and Angie general revenue account.
So there, that should fix it.
Loved it .Should be in the joke section.
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:26 PM Dec 1, 2021
I would gladly be part of a carbon tax scheme as long as the subsidies to fossil fuel industries was paid into that scheme rather than the pockets of the fossil fuel CEOs. Probably all that money would make the carbon tax in credit.
@Rob I have been in private practice and business and paid my due taxes. I believe in paying one's fair share to benefit all. It sounds like you don't.
Who knows where all his or her taxes go? Does all the fuel tax go to transport infrastructure? No; Does all the GST get distributed to the States? No; Does all the land tax get used for administration of the land titles.? No. You pay taxes but you can't say where that money will go and that will be the same with a carbon trading system.
We already pay money to developing countries, why not use that money to combat climate change that will truly benefit all? Especially the low lying nations who are being inundated by rising sea levels.
If you don't contribute to CO2e emissions then you won't have to pay for the carbon tax. Those who do contribute to CO2e emissions will pay more to a carbon trading scheme.
Ideally, a smart government would implement a carbon trading scheme to keep the money in Australia rather than have Australian producers have to pay tariffs to other countries to sell their products. But the naive, selfish, short sighted minority are foolishly ruining the world.
Craig1 said
02:12 PM Dec 1, 2021
The GST is levied by the Commonwealth, but the revenue from the GST is distributed to the states and territories. This arrangement is set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on Federal Financial Relations.[3] Clause A4(c)(i) provides that the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relationschaired by the Commonwealth Treasurermust approve changes to the GST base and rate, and clause A6 of that agreement requires that any such agreement be unanimous.
Mike Harding said
04:41 PM Dec 1, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
I would gladly be part of a carbon tax scheme
A motherhood statement.
*Show me the money*
How much of your income are you prepared to sacrifice?
How much of the finance for the public services you use (hospitals, roads etc) are you prepared to sacrifice.
Because - and I know this will come as a shock to many - the Magic Money Tree has *stopped working!*
So, in order to give cash to "developing" nations we'll have to take it from you Buzz and the services you use.
It explains why it's hopeless to expect rational thought in climate deniers.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 11:12:04 AM
Mike Harding said
05:18 PM Dec 1, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
It explains why it's hopeless to expect rational thought in climate deniers.
Are they like holocaust deniers?
Rob Driver said
05:59 PM Dec 1, 2021
Buzz,
Your demands of all of us to adopt your stance is irrational. ( there, now it has been said )
You and your group are rushing headlong into a disaster with our wallets in your pockets.
BTW Buzz the link you quote goes to the Milonkovitch Cycles.
Have you finally seen the light? or are you just being very incandescent??
dogbox said
07:28 PM Dec 1, 2021
watsea wrote:
Part of the problem with matters about these extra costs is that as a mere citizen, I have not seen any real structured Benefits Analysis or seen a Net Present Worth analysis that ordinary citizens can compend. By the way, I would also be prepared to pay more vehicle registration if it translated into better roads and transport systems.
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 03:3725 PM
I thought ( and i'm not a big thinker) that we already payed enough for vehicle registration(administered by the states) to cover the cost of better roads, if you start to add in the federal taxes and levies of gst on everything we buy for vehicles, the 3 x3 tax Howard slugged us with, the tax on fuel an now we have toll road coming to various states , kind of make you wonder where all the money went. do you really think that a carbon tax or what ever you care to call it will fix the problem, most of the money will go to the fat cats back pocket and achieve very little for our dollar
must be a better way .
Some thing that i have been reminded of was when lpg was the source of cheap fuel for cars , after some of us spent to convert their cars they started to increase the taxes ,don't see many lpg cars around now government got to greedy
-- Edited by dogbox on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 10:34:37 AM
-- Edited by dogbox on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 10:48:24 AM
Buzz Lightbulb said
11:33 AM Dec 2, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Buzz,
Your demands of all of us to adopt your stance is irrational. ( there, now it has been said )
You and your group are rushing headlong into a disaster with our wallets in your pockets.
BTW Buzz the link you quote goes to the Milonkovitch Cycles.
Have you finally seen the light? or are you just being very incandescent??
Yes. As explained in the article. No matter how logical the argument, climate deniers can't be convinced so it's illogical to try. It is just trying.
There are those who probably think that we shouldn't listen to science and still be using horses and carts as the main form of transport. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't be in this terrible situation. Then there are those who listen to scientists and benefit from using computers, medicine, etcetera. At some stage some people seem to just stop listening, as the article mentions, because it doesn't fit their beliefs. They just don't understand why they can't see the logic.
There's a problem with the GN interface. I've removed the link. People will just have to cut and paste the URL:
As previously mentioned (and it's getting very tedious that some people just can't comprehend) I agree with the Milonkovitch Cycles. The IMPORTANT thing to UNDERSTAND about that theory is that those cycles affect the climate over 10s Or 100s of THOUSANDS OF YEARS. NOT over 100s of years or decades as THE current anthropic climate change is happening now. Please COMPREHEND that.
norto said
12:11 PM Dec 2, 2021
Some scientists say that Co2 increases follow temp rises by 600 -1000 years
Rob Driver said
12:14 PM Dec 2, 2021
Buzz
Reports that some Australian coastal towns will be under water from back as far as around 2005. It was predicted that this would happen in Port Lincoln. This false report slowed the real estate sales quite significantly at the time. It didnt happen, in fact the sea level has not risen by any true measurable amount at all. This rubbish was not only reported for Port Lincoln but several other areas in Aus. You and your co-Horts should be held responsible.
I open an article on the internet and they have included pictures of flooded houses in Brisbane in 2011. This flood was nothing but a*rain event* You and your Co-Horts should be charged for false reporting. Flooding of built up areas occur because of the fact that it is a built up area being added to with carparks large buildings and other developments on land. The fact is where there used to be open land where water ran off to natural watercourses it is now being redirected so as to permit the use of those soakage and drainage areas for more development.
The same goes for the recent bushfires, this is not due to climate but it has been found that arsonists are to blame. There are more houses burnt in present times on a bush fire because there are more houses on that land. Some of us wonder were these arsonists just climate change pundits trying to create a false situation to prove their misguided beliefs.
This is only a few incidents and reports. Many paragraphs of crap that we read on almost a daily basis generally have no credible foundation or source. This is just more scaremongering to remove money from the gullible.
You know Buzz, none of this false reporting happens in reverse. The reports of true climate change are factual and based on science and more to the point no one is asked for any money to fix something that just does not exist at the scale of doom and gloom that you, Greta and the likes, continue to bleat on about.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:17:52 PM
Are We Lost said
12:27 PM Dec 2, 2021
Buzz, a repeated question and a bigger one .... addressing the root cause.
What will we achieve? I have asked you that before. If we were to achieve the best reduction targets, what difference would it make to the temperature?
Can you imagine going to the boss (any business) and saying "We should spend money on this ..." yet not be able to state what it would achieve? What is the business case for throwing money at climate change?
In an earlier post I said I was not a climate change denier, but pointed out that Australia can do nothing meaningful, while the biggest polluters are putting their economies first. If the biggest polluters do that, why should we put ourselves at a financial disadvantage when our best efforts will achieve miniscule results.
But the bigger question is (assuming you are a believer) ...
"What is the root cause of climate change?"
If you are a believer you will probably say pollution and greenhouse gases. But that is not the root cause. They are symptoms. What has caused this growth in emissions?
People.
If we had a billion people on the planet we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the undeveleloped world people are starving because their natural lands can no longer support the numbers. And as we push for helping them, that drives their consumerismm which results in more pollution.
So, Buzz, instead of going on about a situation we can do virtually nothing about, what would you suggest to address the root cause? And please answer the first question about what we could achieve in temperature. You keep on referring to FACTS but fall short on producing them.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:30:33 PM
dogbox said
03:56 PM Dec 2, 2021
as long as the population keeps growing the problems we are referring to will just keep getting worse
Peter_n_Margaret said
06:19 PM Dec 2, 2021
dogbox wrote:
as long as the population keeps growing the problems we are referring to will just keep getting worse
And that is why we need to change our habits.
Cheers,
Peter
Rob Driver said
07:28 PM Dec 2, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
dogbox wrote:
as long as the population keeps growing the problems we are referring to will just keep getting worse
And that is why we need to change our habits.
Cheers,
Peter
Civil disobedience is just not acceptable.
Brain washed peanuts of whom most of them being already a drain on government money.
I bet they dont forfeit their Centrelink payment to support their misguided cause.
Get a job you clowns and cease preventing honest people earning a living, paying taxes and paying their Centrelink payment.
The same goes for the recent bushfires, this is not due to climate but it has been found that arsonists are to blame.
... -- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:17:52 PM
More fake news. The bushfires were mostly started by lightning strikes. @Rob where do you get your information from?
Rob Driver said
01:57 PM Dec 3, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Rob Driver wrote:
Buzz
...
The same goes for the recent bushfires, this is not due to climate but it has been found that arsonists are to blame.
... -- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:17:52 P
More fake news. The bushfires were mostly started by lightning strikes. @Rob where do you get your information from?
Oh you are back again Mr Incandescent Bulb,
You have spruked absolute rubbish on here in recent topics that you claim as fact but not once can you substantiate anything you say related to climate change as fact.
You have questioned by several forum members for an explanation of both their questions and your claimed statements of *fact* Not once have you provided any explanation.
Fact is fact when it can be substantiated not when you tell us all that it is. But what a change, now everything you dont agree with is *fake news*
Just as a quick exercise, I opened a random article on a google search and this is a statement from that article.
*In addition to natural causes of bushfires, many human-led factors influence its spread. While we only blame natural factors for wildfires, statistics have an entirely different story to tell. Nearly 50% of forest fires are caused by humans, and these are the results of campfires, burning debris, arson, or just plain recklessness.*
By the way Buzz, did you take the 5 minutes to watch the video on UNOBTAINIUM.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:00:05 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:01 PM Dec 3, 2021
Are We Lost wrote:
Buzz, a repeated question and a bigger one .... addressing the root cause.
What will we achieve? I have asked you that before. If we were to achieve the best reduction targets, what difference would it make to the temperature?
It would prevent the global temperature getting to a level in which humans can't survive.
Can you imagine going to the boss (any business) and saying "We should spend money on this ..." yet not be able to state what it would achieve? What is the business case for throwing money at climate change?
So that humans can live on this and we don't have to spend heaps more money to make the earth liveable.
In an earlier post I said I was not a climate change denier, but pointed out that Australia can do nothing meaningful, while the biggest polluters are putting their economies first. If the biggest polluters do that, why should we put ourselves at a financial disadvantage when our best efforts will achieve miniscule results.
But the bigger question is (assuming you are a believer) ...
"What is the root cause of climate change?"
If you are a believer you will probably say pollution and greenhouse gases. But that is not the root cause. They are symptoms. What has caused this growth in emissions?
People.
If we had a billion people on the planet we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the undeveleloped world people are starving because their natural lands can no longer support the numbers. And as we push for helping them, that drives their consumerismm which results in more pollution.
So, Buzz, instead of going on about a situation we can do virtually nothing about, what would you suggest to address the root cause? And please answer the first question about what we could achieve in temperature. You keep on referring to FACTS but fall short on producing them.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:30:33 PM
I totally agree that the population is the problem. The best thing one can do to prevent climate change is not have children, but what government is going to say that people can't have children.
The Chinese, that you seem to be down on, did have a one child policy that worked for a while.
The better thing for biodiversity would be to kill of the humans but whose going to suggest that? It looked like a pandemic would help a bit, and getting rid of the anti-vaxxers may be a benefit, but that's to science, that many people are now rejecting because of fake news and stupid beliefs, we have a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Most developed countries have next to zero or below zero population growth. The increase in population is in the underdeveloped countries.
All we can do is educate those underdeveloped countries about birth control and keeping the population down and that could be financed by the money that the developed countries have promised to provide in the COP.
Meanwhile, we need to reduce the consumption of the world's population and minimise the impact of CO2e emissions to prevent this climate crisis.
If one sees the water rushing out of a dam that's going to cause flooding, does one close the flood gates, or does one say 'Oh well, it's going to flood anyway, so we'll just open the gates up a little bit more.'? Sensible, logical, unselfish, informed humans would close the flood gates to reduce the damage.
You keep on taking about the 'business case'. It's not a business case. It's the survival of biodiversity. It's a decision to make by individuals with incentives by all the governments of the world.
The less each person consumes and the less each person contributes to CO2e emissions the longer we'll have to save this catastrophe.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:03:15 PM
Rob Driver said
02:14 PM Dec 3, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:
Buzz, a repeated question and a bigger one .... addressing the root cause.
What will we achieve? I have asked you that before. If we were to achieve the best reduction targets, what difference would it make to the temperature?
It would prevent the global temperature getting to a level in which humans can't survive.
Can you imagine going to the boss (any business) and saying "We should spend money on this ..." yet not be able to state what it would achieve? What is the business case for throwing money at climate change?
So that humans can live on this and we don't have to spend heaps more money to make the earth liveable.
In an earlier post I said I was not a climate change denier, but pointed out that Australia can do nothing meaningful, while the biggest polluters are putting their economies first. If the biggest polluters do that, why should we put ourselves at a financial disadvantage when our best efforts will achieve miniscule results.
But the bigger question is (assuming you are a believer) ...
"What is the root cause of climate change?"
If you are a believer you will probably say pollution and greenhouse gases. But that is not the root cause. They are symptoms. What has caused this growth in emissions?
People.
If we had a billion people on the planet we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the undeveleloped world people are starving because their natural lands can no longer support the numbers. And as we push for helping them, that drives their consumerismm which results in more pollution.
So, Buzz, instead of going on about a situation we can do virtually nothing about, what would you suggest to address the root cause? And please answer the first question about what we could achieve in temperature. You keep on referring to FACTS but fall short on producing them.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:30:33 PM
I totally agree that the population is the problem. The best thing one can do to prevent climate change is not have children, but what government is going to say that people can't have children.
The Chinese, that you seem to be down on, did have a one child policy that worked for a while.
The better thing for biodiversity would be to kill of the humans but whose going to suggest that? It looked like a pandemic would help a bit, and getting rid of the anti-vaxxers may be a benefit, but that's to science, that many people are now rejecting because of fake news and stupid beliefs, we have a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Most developed countries have next to zero or below zero population growth. The increase in population is in the underdeveloped countries.
All we can do is educate those underdeveloped countries about birth control and keeping the population down and that could be financed by the money that the developed countries have promised to provide in the COP.
Meanwhile, we need to reduce the consumption of the world's population and minimise the impact of CO2e emissions to prevent this climate crisis.
If one sees the water rushing out of a dam that's going to cause flooding, does one close the flood gates, or does one say 'Oh well, it's going to flood anyway, so we'll just open the gates up a little bit more.'? Sensible, logical, unselfish, informed humans would close the flood gates to reduce the damage.
You keep on taking about the 'business case'. It's not a business case. It's the survival of biodiversity. It's a decision to make by individuals with incentives by all the governments of the world.
The less each person consumes and the less each person contributes to CO2e emissions the longer we'll have to save this catastrophe.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:03:15 PM
So Buzz you would close the floodgates and ruin the dam and then have no way to collect life saving water from that dam again (until it was rebuilt) rather than suffer flood which to a large degree is controllable by floodgates.
And you want us to adopt your way of saving the world.
You obviously have no idea about bushfires or floods.
Buzz, read the article by norto under the topic INOBTANIUM and then come back and tell us all a countrys economy is not a Business Case.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:16:41 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:55 PM Dec 3, 2021
@Rob,
I have provided many links to support climate change, to show debunking of climate deniers and even why climate deniers think the way they do. I have followed most of the links that you and others have provided. Some of those I provided links to the debunking of what was offered.
Did you read any of the links that I provided? You don't appear to have commented on any of them. Maybe if you read the articles by climate scientists, scientific magazines and peered reviewed publications you might understand the climate crisis that we have put ourselves in.
Let's look at the recently provided Mark Mills video.
There is a factory in Victoria that recycles batteries so another video statement debunked. And why would Mills produce such a video? Maybe because according to this URL:
Mills is financed by the fossil fuel industries with vast investments in fossil fuels. Conflict of interest? Definitely.
As I've said before, and it's getting tedious repeating myself, ask yourself the qualifications of the sources you provide? Are shock jocks, non climate scientists or people with fossil fuel investments or finances really going to give informed, unbiased opinions? No, but deniers keep on clutching at sources that support their beliefs.
Rob,
I have tried to provide information about climate change and climate deniers. You come back with personal insults. Could you please be more civil?
You, and some others, are obviously a lost cause. As the links that I've provided show, there is nothing that I, or any other logical argument can provide, will change a climate denier's mind. Why do I waste my time still providing information knowing that it will be rejected and I'll be insulted?
I only hope that there are some people reading this that are willing to think about what's happening and maybe they are willing to think for themselves and make a difference to this crisis. That is the reason why I persist. Not to change the climate denier's minds but to help those who are 'on the fence' or haven't yet fully grasped the situation, make an informative decision.
I would be happy to pay more.
I think the hard part is how to make sure the money is directed to the right items. That correct direction of funds is beyond me, most of the population and probably the government. Many people suggest the government tends to make funding directions based on many things not necessarily always the common good, and naturally there many opinions about that
Good God! A willing soul.
How much more per year would you be happy (not forced) to pay in direct and indirect tax:
$1000 direct - $1000 indirect
$3000 direct - $1500 indirect
$5000 direct - $3000 indirect
$10,000 direct - $5000 indirect
Let's put some numbers on motherhood statements shall we....
Part of the problem with matters about these extra costs is that as a mere citizen, I have not seen any real structured Benefits Analysis or seen a Net Present Worth analysis that ordinary citizens can compend.
By the way, I would also be prepared to pay more vehicle registration if it translated into better roads and transport systems.
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 03:37:25 PM
And you're never going to.
No government is ever going to say (or had the knowledge/ability to say) "if we each pay an extra $5000 in tax we can limit global warming to 1.5d."
Much of the bickering at the recent Glasgow conference was from Third World countries who want to know how much The West is going to pay them as compensation for climate change so, I ask again, how much are you willing (not forced) to pay to developing nations? btw I believe China is a dveloping nation.
Enough with the motherhood stuff - put your money where your mouth is....
Ok. I will put the minimum amount as per your post. Does it really matter for your discussion?
But how do I justify it? Maybe it should be more or less? How do we ensure contributions are made in an appropriate way from the appropriate contributors? Too much for me to work out.
We citizens, don't have any "tools" to justify what is Value for Money.
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 04:08:44 PM
-- Edited by watsea on Tuesday 30th of November 2021 04:09:33 PM
I am sure Buzz will know, dont you Buzz?
Just a slight problem methinks.
Well they say it takes all types.
To be willing to pay a tax and/or send money to someone or an organisation an not knowing its destination is absolutely bizarre.
I will PM my bank deposit details to you guys and just feel free to deposit a few dollars a day into that account.
I promise I will send it to China or any country that is currently polluting the world.
Trust is an incredible thing, I am so pleased that anyone donating doesnt want a statement indicating the monies distribution.
I will promise you all that it wont go into the Rob and Angie general revenue account.
So there, that should fix it.
Loved it .Should be in the joke section.
I would gladly be part of a carbon tax scheme as long as the subsidies to fossil fuel industries was paid into that scheme rather than the pockets of the fossil fuel CEOs. Probably all that money would make the carbon tax in credit.
@Rob I have been in private practice and business and paid my due taxes. I believe in paying one's fair share to benefit all. It sounds like you don't.
Who knows where all his or her taxes go? Does all the fuel tax go to transport infrastructure? No; Does all the GST get distributed to the States? No; Does all the land tax get used for administration of the land titles.? No. You pay taxes but you can't say where that money will go and that will be the same with a carbon trading system.
We already pay money to developing countries, why not use that money to combat climate change that will truly benefit all? Especially the low lying nations who are being inundated by rising sea levels.
If you don't contribute to CO2e emissions then you won't have to pay for the carbon tax. Those who do contribute to CO2e emissions will pay more to a carbon trading scheme.
Ideally, a smart government would implement a carbon trading scheme to keep the money in Australia rather than have Australian producers have to pay tariffs to other countries to sell their products. But the naive, selfish, short sighted minority are foolishly ruining the world.
A motherhood statement.
*Show me the money*
How much of your income are you prepared to sacrifice?
How much of the finance for the public services you use (hospitals, roads etc) are you prepared to sacrifice.
Because - and I know this will come as a shock to many - the Magic Money Tree has *stopped working!*
So, in order to give cash to "developing" nations we'll have to take it from you Buzz and the services you use.
I just read this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/0-why-are-we-irrational-how-a-logical-flaw-stops-us-solving-problems/
It explains why it's hopeless to expect rational thought in climate deniers.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 11:12:04 AM
Are they like holocaust deniers?
Buzz,
Your demands of all of us to adopt your stance is irrational. ( there, now it has been said )
You and your group are rushing headlong into a disaster with our wallets in your pockets.
BTW Buzz the link you quote goes to the Milonkovitch Cycles.
Have you finally seen the light? or are you just being very incandescent??
I thought ( and i'm not a big thinker) that we already payed enough for vehicle registration(administered by the states) to cover the cost of better roads, if you start to add in the federal taxes and levies of gst on everything we buy for vehicles, the 3 x3 tax Howard slugged us with, the tax on fuel an now we have toll road coming to various states , kind of make you wonder where all the money went.
do you really think that a carbon tax or what ever you care to call it will fix the problem, most of the money will go to the fat cats back pocket and achieve very little for our dollar
must be a better way . Some thing that i have been reminded of was when lpg was the source of cheap fuel for cars , after some of us spent to convert their cars they started to increase the taxes ,don't see many lpg cars around now government got to greedy
-- Edited by dogbox on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 10:34:37 AM
-- Edited by dogbox on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 10:48:24 AM
Yes. As explained in the article. No matter how logical the argument, climate deniers can't be convinced so it's illogical to try. It is just trying.
There are those who probably think that we shouldn't listen to science and still be using horses and carts as the main form of transport. If that were the case then we probably wouldn't be in this terrible situation. Then there are those who listen to scientists and benefit from using computers, medicine, etcetera. At some stage some people seem to just stop listening, as the article mentions, because it doesn't fit their beliefs. They just don't understand why they can't see the logic.
There's a problem with the GN interface. I've removed the link. People will just have to cut and paste the URL:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/0-why-are-we-irrational-how-a-logical-flaw-stops-us-solving-problems/
As previously mentioned (and it's getting very tedious that some people just can't comprehend) I agree with the Milonkovitch Cycles. The IMPORTANT thing to UNDERSTAND about that theory is that those cycles affect the climate over 10s Or 100s of THOUSANDS OF YEARS. NOT over 100s of years or decades as THE current anthropic climate change is happening now. Please COMPREHEND that.
Buzz
Reports that some Australian coastal towns will be under water from back as far as around 2005.
It was predicted that this would happen in Port Lincoln. This false report slowed the real estate sales quite significantly at the time.
It didnt happen, in fact the sea level has not risen by any true measurable amount at all.
This rubbish was not only reported for Port Lincoln but several other areas in Aus.
You and your co-Horts should be held responsible.
I open an article on the internet and they have included pictures of flooded houses in Brisbane in 2011.
This flood was nothing but a*rain event* You and your Co-Horts should be charged for false reporting.
Flooding of built up areas occur because of the fact that it is a built up area being added to with carparks large buildings and other developments on land.
The fact is where there used to be open land where water ran off to natural watercourses it is now being redirected so as to permit the use of those soakage and drainage areas for more development.
The same goes for the recent bushfires, this is not due to climate but it has been found that arsonists are to blame.
There are more houses burnt in present times on a bush fire because there are more houses on that land.
Some of us wonder were these arsonists just climate change pundits trying to create a false situation to prove their misguided beliefs.
This is only a few incidents and reports. Many paragraphs of crap that we read on almost a daily basis generally have no credible foundation or source.
This is just more scaremongering to remove money from the gullible.
You know Buzz, none of this false reporting happens in reverse. The reports of true climate change are factual and based on science and more to the point no one is asked for any money to fix something that just does not exist at the scale of doom and gloom that you, Greta and the likes, continue to bleat on about.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:17:52 PM
Buzz, a repeated question and a bigger one .... addressing the root cause.
What will we achieve? I have asked you that before. If we were to achieve the best reduction targets, what difference would it make to the temperature?
Can you imagine going to the boss (any business) and saying "We should spend money on this ..." yet not be able to state what it would achieve? What is the business case for throwing money at climate change?
In an earlier post I said I was not a climate change denier, but pointed out that Australia can do nothing meaningful, while the biggest polluters are putting their economies first. If the biggest polluters do that, why should we put ourselves at a financial disadvantage when our best efforts will achieve miniscule results.
But the bigger question is (assuming you are a believer) ...
"What is the root cause of climate change?"
If you are a believer you will probably say pollution and greenhouse gases. But that is not the root cause. They are symptoms. What has caused this growth in emissions?
People.
If we had a billion people on the planet we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the undeveleloped world people are starving because their natural lands can no longer support the numbers. And as we push for helping them, that drives their consumerismm which results in more pollution.
So, Buzz, instead of going on about a situation we can do virtually nothing about, what would you suggest to address the root cause? And please answer the first question about what we could achieve in temperature. You keep on referring to FACTS but fall short on producing them.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 2nd of December 2021 12:30:33 PM
And that is why we need to change our habits.
Cheers,
Peter
Civil disobedience is just not acceptable.
Brain washed peanuts of whom most of them being already a drain on government money.
I bet they dont forfeit their Centrelink payment to support their misguided cause.
Get a job you clowns and cease preventing honest people earning a living, paying taxes and paying their Centrelink payment.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-activists-to-block-major-brisbane-cbd-roads-in-peak-hour-protest/news-story/baa3877da48387795572ef2d68bee0fa
More fake news. The bushfires were mostly started by lightning strikes. @Rob where do you get your information from?
Oh you are back again Mr Incandescent Bulb,
You have spruked absolute rubbish on here in recent topics that you claim as fact but not once can you substantiate anything you say related to climate change as fact.
You have questioned by several forum members for an explanation of both their questions and your claimed statements of *fact* Not once have you provided any explanation.
Fact is fact when it can be substantiated not when you tell us all that it is.
But what a change, now everything you dont agree with is *fake news*
Just as a quick exercise, I opened a random article on a google search and this is a statement from that article.
* In addition to natural causes of bushfires, many human-led factors influence its spread. While we only blame natural factors for wildfires, statistics have an entirely different story to tell. Nearly 50% of forest fires are caused by humans, and these are the results of campfires, burning debris, arson, or just plain recklessness.*
By the way Buzz, did you take the 5 minutes to watch the video on UNOBTAINIUM.
It is a topic in the sub forum *I Digress*
Here is the link.
https://youtu.be/RqppRC37OgI
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:00:05 PM
I totally agree that the population is the problem. The best thing one can do to prevent climate change is not have children, but what government is going to say that people can't have children.
The Chinese, that you seem to be down on, did have a one child policy that worked for a while.
The better thing for biodiversity would be to kill of the humans but whose going to suggest that? It looked like a pandemic would help a bit, and getting rid of the anti-vaxxers may be a benefit, but that's to science, that many people are now rejecting because of fake news and stupid beliefs, we have a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Most developed countries have next to zero or below zero population growth. The increase in population is in the underdeveloped countries.
All we can do is educate those underdeveloped countries about birth control and keeping the population down and that could be financed by the money that the developed countries have promised to provide in the COP.
Meanwhile, we need to reduce the consumption of the world's population and minimise the impact of CO2e emissions to prevent this climate crisis.
If one sees the water rushing out of a dam that's going to cause flooding, does one close the flood gates, or does one say 'Oh well, it's going to flood anyway, so we'll just open the gates up a little bit more.'? Sensible, logical, unselfish, informed humans would close the flood gates to reduce the damage.
You keep on taking about the 'business case'. It's not a business case. It's the survival of biodiversity. It's a decision to make by individuals with incentives by all the governments of the world.
The less each person consumes and the less each person contributes to CO2e emissions the longer we'll have to save this catastrophe.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:03:15 PM
So Buzz you would close the floodgates and ruin the dam and then have no way to collect life saving water from that dam again (until it was rebuilt) rather than suffer flood which to a large degree is controllable by floodgates.
And you want us to adopt your way of saving the world.
You obviously have no idea about bushfires or floods.
Buzz, read the article by norto under the topic INOBTANIUM and then come back and tell us all a countrys economy is not a Business Case.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Friday 3rd of December 2021 02:16:41 PM
@Rob,
I have provided many links to support climate change, to show debunking of climate deniers and even why climate deniers think the way they do. I have followed most of the links that you and others have provided. Some of those I provided links to the debunking of what was offered.
Did you read any of the links that I provided? You don't appear to have commented on any of them. Maybe if you read the articles by climate scientists, scientific magazines and peered reviewed publications you might understand the climate crisis that we have put ourselves in.
Let's look at the recently provided Mark Mills video.
Oh yes. Debunked in March 2021:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/is-there-a-shift-from-disbelieving-climate-change-to-attacking-renewables/
There is a factory in Victoria that recycles batteries so another video statement debunked. And why would Mills produce such a video? Maybe because according to this URL:
https://leahy.substack.com/p/a-perfect-storm-of-misinformation
Mills is financed by the fossil fuel industries with vast investments in fossil fuels. Conflict of interest? Definitely.
As I've said before, and it's getting tedious repeating myself, ask yourself the qualifications of the sources you provide? Are shock jocks, non climate scientists or people with fossil fuel investments or finances really going to give informed, unbiased opinions? No, but deniers keep on clutching at sources that support their beliefs.
Rob,
I have tried to provide information about climate change and climate deniers. You come back with personal insults. Could you please be more civil?
You, and some others, are obviously a lost cause. As the links that I've provided show, there is nothing that I, or any other logical argument can provide, will change a climate denier's mind. Why do I waste my time still providing information knowing that it will be rejected and I'll be insulted?
I only hope that there are some people reading this that are willing to think about what's happening and maybe they are willing to think for themselves and make a difference to this crisis. That is the reason why I persist. Not to change the climate denier's minds but to help those who are 'on the fence' or haven't yet fully grasped the situation, make an informative decision.