1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice

The Evidence for Human Caused Climate Change Part III

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Murky, Mar 25, 2012.

  1. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,382
    I myself usually vote Libs but voted for Kevin07 :blush:

    I wouldn't count on China till they actually mandate a full carbon trading scheme. A trial is one thing, the full blown product is another. The been completely political about the whole thing, brought down Copenhagen, and now has delayed the start of a carbon market. Maybe the Chinese are getting better at International Politics. Don't count on them yet. ;)
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...licy-up-in-smoke/story-e6frg6ux-1226341126939

    As for my spelling, pffft. It was 7:30 in the morning. The kids had gotten me up. Sue me.

    You can have your "faith", most Australians will have to live with the reality. The carbon tax will hit the economy (large or small who knows, but it will have a negative effect). Our economy is already stalling and set for a big collapse soon. Construction industry is falling (first sign of a recession), layoffs are being announced daily from large companies, and with the Govt so desperate to put the budget in surplus it's halving it's welfare bill in the upcoming budget it's going to hit the average Australian badly. That's the reality. We're living in a declining economy, the Govt is about to introduce the single biggest tax hike in history on the one sector (mining) that's keeping the economy moving (and that's after hitting them with the mining rent tax as well).

    Here's the actual REALITY for you on what business will do. I work for SCA, who manufacture brands such as Sorbent, Tena, Libra, Tork, Handy Ultra and others. Quite a large manufacturer, yes? Well SCA Global announced due to rising costs in wages, electricity and the carbon taxes in AU and NZ made the Australasian business unfeasible. They sold 50% of the company, now we are no longer part of the global business, and just last week they started layoffs. Some of the rumors predict up to 25% of the company will be laid off, but the solid rumors are floating around the 15% mark. That's about 300 employees. The proposal is to start importing paper from Asia instead of making it locally, and closing some of the factories.

    THAT'S your carbon tax reality mate!
     
  2. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    re your spelling no no ... i just can't see what you have to gloat about ...honestly:confused:

    HERE'S your global market reality, mate

    SCA also makes toilet paper ... and has been caught out badly... by the major retailers bringing in subsidised paper products and dumping them in Australian since way back in 2006 ... 38% below normal price add that to our extremely high dollar and its no wonder that your bussiness is suffering ... I feel for you and fellow employees
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cheap-toilet-paper-imports-get-flushed/2009/01/01/1230681664225.html
    But maybe you should thank my UNION... the forestry and minning Union...
    this from way back in 2010
    Spoiler :
    CFMEU media release (February 22)
    Union Pressures Rudd Govt to Act on Dumping as Jobs Put at Risk

    Unions have launched a concerted campaign to force the Rudd Government to overturn a decision to allow millions of rolls of toilet paper to be ‘dumped’ in Australia, threatening local manufacturing jobs.

    The products from China and Indonesia, which were sold up to 45 per cent cheaper than in their home countries, have caused serious concern among timber and paper workers around Australia.

    Several unions have written to Attorney-General Robert McClelland warning that the Federal Government had set a “dangerous precedent” that poses a threat to Australian workers and industry and requesting an urgent meeting.

    CFMEU Forestry and Furnishing Products Division National Secretary Michael O’Connor said the union would also campaign on the issue in the lead up to the South Australian election, where manufacturer Kimberly-Clark has already flagged the potential loss of 1,500 jobs as a result of this decision.

    “There is a groundswell of concern in regional Australia over this decision, which threatens to open the flood gates to foreign companies saturating the Australian market with cheap products in a deliberate attempt to destroy local industry and competition through predatory pricing,” Mr O’Connor said.

    “With up to 20 ‘timber seats’ around Australia, where forestry, paper and timber products are big employers, the Federal Government would be wise to move on this issue now, rather than allow it to become an election issue.

    “Exporters from China and Indonesia are hurting the tissue making industry by selling product at a lower price than is charged in their home markets, a price significantly below what the WTO antidumping agreement regards as constituting ‘normal price’.

    “Even the Government’s own Customs and Border Protection Service has admitted that this dumping of 20,000 tonnes of toilet paper has caused injury to local industry.

    “All we are asking is for the Government to implement an antidumping system which prevents the targeting of Australian jobs and guarantees local industry’s right to compete on a level playing field.”

    would the libs do any better at saving Australian jobs from dumped overseas product or would they maintain woolies and coles postion in suport of free trade and the market ecconomy to deliver cheaper products to the cosumer and the right of near monopoly retail companies to deliver maximin profits to their share holders....
    nothing is ever black and white mate...;)
    if I send Abott a thankyou card will you send one to my Union...:mischief:
    nothing we can do about the high dollar tho... thats hurting everyone even the minners, tho they caused it ...


    edit# and finally you should read your company's press reports
    yeh sure carbon tax caused the job cuts ... not getting into bed with a private equity company
    Business is like politics ... some always gets a knife in the back
     
  3. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    You're missing the point. Australia is a very minor contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon trading scheme in Australia is completely worthless.


    Worthless, for two reasons.

    First, the world community has no teeth with which to actually hold China to its own commitment. They say they're implementing a carbon trading scheme, but you're going to discover that nobody outside China will have any way to verify the system even actually exists or that the Chinese government is actually enforcing it.

    And second, Chinese population growth is by a huge factor outpacing the country's efforts at sustainability and greenability. Any benefits from an (alleged) CO2 trading scheme in China will be impossible to measure because they'll be completely swamped by the country's rapidly growing population.


    Population growth is really the entire crux of the global warming problem. Reducing per capita emissions is pointless when the number of capitas keeps going up.


    How do you intend to force China into such a scheme? You can't. The only way to do it is by threat of violent force, and outside the U.S., everybody's tired of war and unwilling to engage in another one. And China knows that. Demand that China join an Asian trading scheme, and they'll simply snicker into their shirt collars and say "that will be difficult". Which is the Chinese way of saying "no", because over there it's considered impolite to actually, directly, say the word "no".

    Of course it will. Problem is, there's no way to force business to assume those costs, because they can simply move to places where you can't enforce them.
     
  4. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,382
    I actually meant your temporary gloating.

    Of course, companies ALWAYS tell the full truth to the public. :rolleyes:

    SCA's and KC's market shares haven't changed much at all due to dumping. Both companies lowered prices to meet the new competition. The issue is that costs couldn't be lowered to match so profit margins were wiped out. Libra was the only market still meeting targets. Seems chicks don't want to use cheap, dodgy Asian tampons and pads. Don't blame them. End of the day, profits were wiped out and now looking to be a loss with the three factors I mentioned above.

    Anyways, your bringing up of politics into the thread took us all way off target (like IPCC models really :mischief:).

    EDIT: Why the carbon tax WILL fail: NEW research predicts Australia's carbon price could collapse to about $4 a tonne by 2020 and that the scheme, as designed, risks failing to support either renewable energy power development or the switch from coal to gas needed to slash the nation's emissions. Until the global carbon market is fixed, it will simply NOT work, NOT support change, and NOT reduce emissions.
     
  5. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    ahhh ... makes sense now
    see even you Know it has nothing to do with the carbon tax....:D
    more to do with market/ profit ratio's/ cost cutting... sack workers to make up for loss profits, happens all the time when a bussiness has a change owners...

    ummm... did you not start this by saying the public don't care about the enviroment...
    to which i responded that we only have a carbon tax because Melbourne voted in a green lower House rep. to which you responded it was only because of Abbott's political wheeler dealing that that happened... I can only quote Doc Phil and ask "hows that working for you???"

    not signing up to pay for murdochs next hoilday to a London court.... maybe you could link some actual research....:rolleyes: but it dose seem to assume a market in carbon will be opperating... don't you trust markets to work??? :mischief:
     
  6. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    sorrry for the double post... just trying to keep the diffeent arguments apart...:)

    China, India,japan south korea, Taiwain,Australia, New zealand, demark, France, finland, rep of Ireland,Sweden, United Kindom,Norway, switzerland and parts of Canada, and parts of the United states of America
    Not when we are the highest emmitters behind the USA, can not expect china to be bothered when we don't do anything, and china acknowledges they looked very closly at the Australian proposals before commiting to their own scheme

    .
    you do realise the targets are a 20% reduction to the 1990 levels of emmisons, china might fudge it around the edges ... but that is their stated aim and they are still building the more expensive Nuclear power plants (24 under construction), not to mention their 4G ones due to come soon
    http://www.china.org.cn/china/2011-03/17/content_22166536.htm


    I don't think Australia will say no to China when they establish an Asia Pacific trading scheme
    our high dollar has a far greater effect on that than our carbon tax ever will...
    again i point to the USA... has not having a Carbon Tax stopped this from happening and we are taxing the top 500 producers of CO2... and they can not move overseas...
    so each ton of carbon they stop or or trade for adds directly to their bottom line...
    Large scale Solar becomes attrative to these engery companies... they are not coal companies they are energy companies... they understand this, they are quite smart;)
     
  7. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,382
    Since you alarmists love the term, call it the tipping point. BTW, we found out today that SCA is going to turn China into the global production hub and move European and Australian production there, and move North American production to Central America. That's how business responds when you jack up production costs.

    If you're going down that line, look back to what Czereth was saying. ;)

    Registration is free if you cared to look. BTW, did you know Rupert is a warmist? Anyways, here's a rego-free link for you. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rom-new-research/story-e6frg6xf-1226348261790

    It makes sense, if a company can buy its carbon credits from overseas for half the price of local ones, it will. And then that means reduced funds for the Govt. So the price drops to promote purchase of local credits and guess what. That means reduced funds for the Govt. Either way you look at it, the carbon market will fail unless the global carbon market is fixed first. But that's what you get when you rush into something without planning it out properly first. :mischief:
     
  8. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    once again you show that it has nothing to do with the carbon tax...
    with your observations about North America

    you miss the obvious ...there has to be a global matket to buy carbon credits overseas... and the aim is not tax raising... but a transition to a market trading scheme... by 2015 , just 3 years
    a locale coal power station could buy up Brazilian rain forest (even tho Brazil has just decreased its % of retention or it could invest in Solar Harvesting or Thermal recovery power plants in south Australia, at Coober Pedy, or at Mildura in VIC yes they are expensive (the first couple but they just get cheaper the more you build, isn't that why china can pump out massed produced coal power plants it works with lend lease and the Mining Infrastructure i project manage... it works with Australian base hospitals with lend lease pumping out 6 in two years across Australia... as the cost of alternate power becomes cheaper it would more that compete with coal... especially when you no longer have to buy your fuel

    when they talk about all the jobs the transition can create ... well some of them are your mates among the 300 you company is getting rid of... Australia does this all the time... Snowy's in the 50's A wheat silo in just about every country town in the 60/70's
    South Australia in the 80's with SANTOS/S.A. Govt. building of gas pipe lines and building power stations, to transition to natural gas

    A transition to Green power generation could be the major jobs driver for the next 20-30 years in Australia and it would be high paying skilled jobs at that

    the high Australian dollar is going to send jobs offshore anyhow here as your own Company shows... a transition will give us cheaper power in 20-30 years and when China stops buying our coal and is pumping out 4G nuclear plants, what will your Grandkids do for a job... plant trees maybe for a Chinese Airline to ofset their CO2 footprint probally not... China is investing in high speed train net works to cut travel times between cities well aware that short trip air routes have a high CO2 footprint
     
  9. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,382
    Your foolishness is showing through. Carbon tax is a production cost. Okay, technically not directly but it's an indirect production cost through being passed on down the production chain. But it is a cost, and for an electricity intensive process it's a significant production cost. If your margins are already at the wire due to other factors and then you suddenly have to pay for increased inputs due to carbon tax, then the company must make a decision to absorb the cost, pass on the cost, or move to avoid the production cost increase. My company decided to move.

    The Govt will get 20% off each Australian credit. That's a tax.

    The "jobs" will only occur if the companies buy Australian carbon credits. If they buy from overseas, the Govt does not get the 20% tax revenue and none of the money stays in Australia. Benefit to Australia == zero. Cost to Australia == full cost of credit.

    But to be expected since the Greens have never made economic sense.
     
  10. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    This list being what, exactly? A list of territories that already have carbon trading? You kinda left out what the list was. Anyway, if that's what this list is, then the fact that some people are already doing it doesn't change the fact that carbon trading schemes are worthless.

    You're not. The U.S. is further down the list than you would think (both in per capita emissions and total emissions), and in addition, all the lists are different. The core of the problem is that the numbers for greenhouse gas emissions are estimates.

    There's no reason the U.S. should be expected to set the example. In fact, on most other issues (most notably in human rights topics) most of the Earth completely ignores the U.S. example.

    From your end of the climate change issue, however, you really have no choice. You have to find a way to get China involved without the involvement of the U.S. You MUST stop global warming from destroying the planet, there's no way to get the U.S. government to take part in the solution, and no solution is possible without Chinese participation.

    They'll fudge it straight up the middle, no edges about it. You will find it impossible to verify whether or not they're fudging, and if you somehow did find out, there would be no way to get them to stop fudging. Most likely they would simply claim your claim of fudging was false.

    You're placing an unwarranted level of trust in a government that has already demonstrated itself to be not trustworthy.


    Of course you won't. Irrelevant. The problem is, the trading scheme won't actually do anything to solve the problem.

    Yes they can. By going out of business completely, whereupon somebody else (overseas) fills in the gap. A number of factors, including the crappy economy, have caused various green-energy companies to either crash or close up shop. T. Boone Pickens and Solyndra being two of the most recent examples.

    Further: the existence of carbon trading in the United States is not having any measurable impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we actually have it is not the problem; we have it, but it doesn't solve the problem.


    We need a solution that will actually solve the problem; it needs to be independent of international enforcement (which is impossible in today's world political environment) and it needs to be cheap and profitable so people will want to do it. Wind and solar aren't going to cut it. The only solution I see is nuclear.
     
  11. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,382
    Just a question, but since you brought it up, did you mean the union which engages in completely illegal tactics to try to force honest businesses working on community beneficial major projects to provide "jobs-for-mates"? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/union-used-strikes-for-coercion-20120507-1y93b.html#ixzz1uDoqql6v I hope your name isn't "Derek" by chance. ;)

    Don't worry, no need to register for the Green-aligned Age. :mischief:

    Spose it comes straight from the Union operations handbook. I mean, look at how "honest" the HSU is. Just ask Labor MP Craig Thomson. You might find him at the Federal Court in the defendants box. :mischief:
     
  12. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    your Foolishness is showing
    1. you tell us the US is moving to Chile, because of Carbon tax ...complete rubbish
    2 you have not even read their web site to find out why
    3 you should read the SCA website it has great big banner telling us about ALL their environmental plans wait several slides and read about their Geothermal commitment in NZ a pretty big investment.... :rolleyes: then click their sustainability link at the top of the page and see if their targets are any different to the greens... and read about their Bio fuels and wind power on their own forest land
    does BOLTY think they are part of the Communist plot or just that they don't understand business :crazyeye:

    I think I will send SCA a thank you letter:D

    here you better read about the liberal party's own carbon targets
    http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/Environment%20Policy.ashx

    notice the 20% are in the link title... do you want a direct tax on households by Abbot and give away money to the polluters for free where is the incentive in that... that is just plain dumb... god... that is almost socialist... but definitely makes no sense because it gives no incentive to reduce carbon

    this is why I always go to the source of claims not after its been recycled by blogists:rolleyes:
    probally we are a redneck group as a whole forrestry/minning /Construction ;)
    but wait for the court case before you find us guilty its a standard tactic to attack our officals ... there is a royal commision doing it... usally comes to nothing tho
    but then Bolty lost his racial vilifiction case in the federale court didn't he ...:mischief:
     
  13. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Something else you should worry about, Graffito.

    A carbon trading system merely creates a disincentive to produce carbon--it does not specify how to stop producing carbon. You seem to be assuming companies will switch to something like wind or solar. Not true. Most likely, energy companies will switch to the solution you probably find least favorable: nuclear.
     
  14. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    I can only referr you to "Dales" company to see their enviromental soulutions

    and who said "I" don't support Nuclear... tho solar and geo thermal would be cheaper to build... especially as our uranium industry has allready done deep drilling and identified several Good sites for geo thermal ( south of Roxby downs) which would free up natural gas to be sent to victoria who's power stations need to be upgraded or rebuilt anyhow... the power company's have already got a price increase for general upgarding of infrasture after having done nothing for 20-30 years tho most of that is the transmision network that will still make it cheaper for Geo thermal to sell power to the eastern states.

    heck it would not surprise me if the Uranium minners team up with Santos our natural gas minners and build the dam thing (geo thermal plant) they have the perfect track record for infrasture projects like this and they would stil sell their existing products uranium to CHINA/INDIA and natural gas to South Australia
     
  15. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Plain old probabilities. Most people who advocate action on global warming also oppose nuclear power. If you don't, you're the exception to the rule, and you get five points for not toe-ing the environmentalist line on the issue.

    Surprisingly, there's a large number of environmentalists who also oppose solar and wind power! :eek: No, I'm not making this up. They don't want mankind expanding its land usage. And, wind and solar require a LOT of land. Mainstream environmentalists these days are trying to get the human race to "just use less". Cue generic remark about Don Quixote.

    I'm fine and dandy with whatever your industry wants to do; most probably your industry is also an exception to the rule. Mainstream industry will want power that's cheap and reliable without gigantic farms of windmills and solar panels (mostly because of red tape thrown at them by environmentalists) and nuclear is the only workable alternative that will actually have an impact on global warming.
     
  16. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    do i get another point for never having seen "an inconvenient truth"... ;)
     
  17. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Not really. Whether you've seen it doesn't tell me what your reaction would be if you did.
     
  18. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    touché... ouch :D ninja'd ;)
     
  19. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,382
    No I didn't. Geography and reading fail.

    Like I said, companies ALWAYS tell the truth to the public in their decisions. :rolleyes:

    Yeah it's quite a good read. The internal website is ever better. They're making squillions off their forestry and biofuel schemes selling them back at highly inflated prices to dumb greenies. :lol:

    I doubt Bolt even knows who SCA is since they don't advertise under that name in Australia. Plus, I don't presume to know the opinion of Bolt till it's expressed.

    I look forward to reading it on Essentials (our Intranet site).

    Hmmm....... how to explain this. You see the "%20" in the link title? In web terms that indicates a space. You know, "Policies and Media/Environment/Environment Policy.ashx". I will also assume you didn't actually read the policy either and just went off incorrect The Age bashings of the policy. Or did you read Brown's blog about it? :mischief:

    Your analysis of the Libs policy indicates otherwise, but if you say so. :)

    That's okay, it's members money (ie: yours) that senior union officials are propping up the sex industry with. :mischief:

    You're telling the story. Actually speaking of which, I can't find the study right now but the University of Washington actually published a study saying that all conservatives are racists. :lol:
     
  20. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Absolutely Sane

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    25,546
    Location:
    High above the ice
    I'll summarize:

    Al Gore: "I already knew it in the 70's!"

    The end.
     

Share This Page