Subscribe via RSSWhat is Carbon Pollution
Why Carbon Tax?
Why do we want a Carbon Tax? This is a very good question and we will attempt to answer it.1. We want to save the environment...
Saving the environment is all well and good, but is a Carbon Tax actually going to do this - we think not. Simply put it is a very indirect way of causing change in the environment. For instance did you know that the impact the tax will have on the global climate is at tops just 0.00007 degrees? Seems a lot of money for very little end result don't you think?Also given the Tax on Carbon is taxing an 'end result' - its quite likely that there will be unforeseen consequences for people and the environment -i.e. your action in fixing one thing results in a problem some where else. No wonder economists find the study of taxes and incentives such a fascinating area.
2. We need to develop our local green industry
Actually, the trouble with the Carbon Tax is that it will send exactly the wrong signal into the market to create a strong and independent green business sector. For starters government backed money or grants are always seen as 'easy money' - it often comes with very little strings attached. This in of itself will cause a whole generation of 'grant focused' businesses being set up with very little focus on their long term business models. Anyone remember what happened when the Pink Batt's grants stopped - yep, a whole load of businesses went to the wall at their fundamental business models can't work without the government money to hold them up.Also the other problem is that even if we do somehow get some proper businesses out of this mass money free for all - they will have to compete on the global stage. This is very hard to do, as shown by the recent collapse of Evergreen in the US.
Myself I would prefer to see the government take GST off solar hot water heating and geothermal heat recovery systems, these have a direct positive environmental impact - although you don't need to put in place a massive Carbon Tax to get such useful benefits...
Follow the money...
Basically, I think this tax has more to do with wealth redistribution and a government trying hard to buy itself into the nest election...As for the end result in this for the environment, its going to do very little positive. In fact I think its more likely to do more harm to the environment over the longer term than anything - people are going to be left with a very bitter aftertaste if the Carbon Tax does go ahead and that will set back rational sensible environmentalism many years.
Follow us on Facebook, click here!
Comments left
- Tassia said:
How can a site that deseminates blatant lies (there is concrete data showing temperatures have already increased 0.5-1 degree globally) be promoting itself as Eco friendly and sustainable. How about taking a look at what the actual scientists are saying rather than desseminating propaganda put out by those with vested interests in burning of fossil fuels.
ON Fri, 12 Aug 11, 5:21am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Eco Guy said:
Yes, temperature has increased but it has more to do with being in a warming period after the last ice age than to do with the level of Co2 in the atmosphere, see my link - the Co2 is at a historical low compared to the historical record yet we are still here...
ON Fri, 12 Aug 11, 5:35am probably from United States Reply to this comment
- Eco Guy said:
Also we do care about the environment, but moderate that care with a hard logical based point of view on whats going on. I suggest you read 'Confessions of a Greenpeace drop out' by Patrick Moore if you really want to tune in to what this site is about.
ON Fri, 12 Aug 11, 5:38am probably from United States Reply to this comment
- Antonia said:
Climate changes all the time. Always has and always will. The only intelligent response to it is adaptation. The only problem with adaptation is that the Greens won't attain their fantasy world and shut down all the non-renewable power stations. This whole debate is political, not scientific. Remember too, that only rich countries can afford to clean up their environments; economic basket cases can't.
ON Mon, 15 Aug 11, 6:02am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Eco Guy said:
- Kel said:
So what if you are wrong? This is about the future and I think stopping putting billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere is a good thing. No? Should we put in more to help the environment? It seems to me people like you want to be right more than you want to help others.
ON Wed, 11 Jan 12, 4:15am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Eco Guy said:
Hi Kel,
First off the level of Co2 in the current atmosphere is not 'pollution'. We basically do not know how much of the Co2 is level is directly due to burning fossil fuels - the methods of measurement are effected by natural processes that also influence the isotopic ratios (such as certain gases or bacteria). Also the current Co2 level was dangerously close to the 150ppm level, below which plants stop working...
I agree we should help the environment, but we should do that from a logical and fact informed basis. The current crop of 'green techs' have either Co2 neutral or negative footprints when you consider their whole life cycle. We instead need to focus more on dealing with localized environmental pollution and degradation - did you know that a third of the Chinese coastline is banned from fishing on due to pollution? And where are all the solar panels and wind turbines made....ON Fri, 13 Jan 12, 12:23am probably from United States Reply to this comment
- Bob said:
hi :)
ON Mon, 12 Oct 15, 4:04pm probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Saveenergy said:
Fact: CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 400 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects. We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die! The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years.
CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.
There is not a single instance of CO2 being a pollutant. Ask any chemistry professor.
To put the “carbon” scare into perspective: CO2 has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 …. in 150 years.
How much of the total "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?....... Just 0.28% see graph http://tinyurl.com/pgjy5pm
Simple explanation here - www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
“Should we celebrate CO2?” Lecture by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. http://tinyurl.com/ou7eczxON Thu, 15 Oct 15, 6:56pm probably from United Kingdom Reply to this comment
Got a question or comment about this?
Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.