“The most obvious is that following an inconclusive federal election outcome in 2010, the carbon tax is essentially a political device born out of a negotiation to form a coalition government with minority partners whose ideology demanded genuflection to a lofty, if theoretical, carbon reduction strategy. The carbon tax may serve worthy agendas, but seriously addressing climate change is not one of them.”
IF the answer is a $23 tax per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions from July 1, what was the question? Can you remember or suggest what specific problem we are trying to solve with this tax and its successor, the emissions trading scheme?
Let me propose several possible options and rate their likelihood on a 0-5 scale, with 0 meaning implausible and 5 denoting an issue to which such a tax is the most logical response.
Remember that Australian households, our cars, industries, farms and animals contribute about 1.4 per cent of global emissions. These are said to be causing a long-term warming trend possibly responsible for environmental and climate catastrophes in the decades ahead. Notwithstanding 20 years of warnings about damage to our ecosystems, global emissions are growing at record rates of about 4 per cent annually (that is, each year by three times Australia’s total emissions).
The carbon tax is the centrepiece of Australia’s response to this global issue and its earliest impact, which sees financial rebates to low-income households and individuals, has just begun. Framing the questions should be straightforward and here are the most obvious ones.
Using your 0 – 5 scale, ZERO is the impact of this impost on climate. For starters, see http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html and verify that if there is no linkage of CO2 to temperatures, the carbon tax for that purpose is total subterfuge.
There are better ways to spend your nation’s money. This purported attempt at climate modification is not one of them.
“…Australian households, our cars, industries, farms and animals contribute about 1.4 per cent of global emissions.”
This is a lie. It is only true if you change it to read, “…1.4 per cent of humanity’s global emissions.” That is a HUGE difference in meaning.
When I was young I read somewhere, “the best way to lie is to tell the truth, just don’t tell all of the truth.” Alarmists and other propagandists understand this principle very well.
Wood – more telling, if the entire truth be told, is that human emissions are roughly 5% of total global emissions. So the honest way to say this is that 1.4% of 5% of global emissions, or 0.07% of total CO2 emissions, on average. Which is similar to the requisite math to understand the true significance of CO2 overall in climate. Which is to say, small to the point of insignificance.