Campaign update: Q&A on the climate debate

Posted by
27th June 2011

While politicians argue about whether the climate debate needs a face-lift or a fist-fight, a referendum or legislation, it’s time we heard more about the facts behind the fight.

We’re not climate scientists, but we’ve done our research – and found some great resources along the way. We want to share them – and keep the climate conversation going. If you’re still a little sketchy on climate facts, the carbon tax, or you know someone else who is, we want to help link you to the research that answers your questions.

Reading on the run? You can check out these Android, iPhone and Nokia apps.

Ever heard someone say, Why am I being taxed on breathing? Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it’s a natural element!

Here’s the answer: carbon, and carbon dioxide, are natural and essential compounds – but this doesn’t mean they’re not harmful in excess. The level of CO2 has risen rapidly in the last century, and is now about 30 % higher than at any time for 800,000 years. Also, we’re not being taxed for the air we breathe – ‘carbon pollution’, while not a scientific term, is used as a short-hand catch-all term for greenhouse gases emitted by human activity.

The world is warming at a rate unprecedented in human history – the average temperature has risen by about 0.75°C over the last 100 years. In Australia, some areas have experienced a warming of 1.5°C to 2°C over the past 50 years. This isn’t a natural phenomenon – and volcanoes emit less than 1% of the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere in a year.

Why Australia? Why now?
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached 385 parts per million (ppm) in 2008, higher than at any time for at least 800,000 years. We’re already trailing the 31 European countries and major US states such as California that have put a price on carbon pollution – some for over a decade. Even New Zealand has already priced pollution! Per person, Australia is currently one of the biggest polluters in the world – even more than the US and almost five times that of China. The longer we leave climate action, the worse the situation will become, and the more it will cost us to convert to clean energy.

How does a price on carbon pollution work?
Paying for their pollution means those big companies will have a reason to clean up their act – because we’re rewarding the ones who go clean. Then big power users and generators will use more clean, renewable energy. And that will help make clean cheaper for everyone. The carbon price is to be paid by less than 1% of businesses, who are responsible for 75% of Australia’s carbon pollution. Check out these seven reasons to put a price on pollution.

Where does the money go?

It’s a key feature of a carbon tax to develop a mechanism that maintains budget neutrality. It’s true that putting a price on pollution will make some products more expensive, but the overall impact on cost of living is expected to be small – an increase of 1.1% for the average family. A price on pollution will add less than 1% to the weekly shopping bill – less than $1.60 a week. This is likely to be balanced out, given that the Government has committed to spending every cent raised to help households with bills, support workers and businesses as we move to a clean economy, and to tackle climate change.

I don’t understand how this is going to help the environment…
It’s been suggested that a system that goes hand in hand with other measures – including a cap on pollution, assistance for households, direct investment in clean energy and support for renewables – will be the most successful. Unlike other models, a price on carbon will raise the revenue to do so – and you will be no worse off.

What about Australian jobs?
Unlocking Australia’s clean energy resources will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Analysis by The Climate Institute shows that a price on carbon would unlock billions of dollars of new investment in clean energy and create over 30,000 new jobs – mainly in regional Australia.

What about our place in international marketplace?
A price on pollution can be flexible to make sure Australia is adaptive – according to outlines by the MPCCC, “a mechanism to price carbon should be sufficiently flexible to respond to changing international circumstances, including improvements in international accounting rules, developments in climate change science, and tangible international action to deliver an effective global solution.” According to the Garnaut Climate Change Review, wise use of revenue from a carbon price can reduce the cost to the economy, and promote productivity above what it otherwise would be.

How will we make sure it works?
The Garnaut Climate Change Review recommends that Here’s how to go about climate campaigning for the shy types.. It’s best printed out double-sided and folded into thirds.

If you have more questions about the climate campaign that are still unanswered, post a question below.

Share with Friends
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Nikkoh

    The Level of Co2’s is now about 30 % higher than at any time
    for the past 800,000 years. How the hell could you possibly know this we have
    not been recording Co2 levels for the last 800,000 years please explain. This
    is a false statement we have only been recording temperatures for the last
    maybe 130 years and more accurately in the last 30 to 40 years, science doesn’t
    even know if carbon dating is correct because it’s starting to prove that it
    may not be an effective way of dating.


    The temperature have risen by 0.75% in the last hundred
    years once again a false statement temperatures have only been recorded more
    accurately in the past 30 to 40 years because we didn’t have the technology to
    do so.


    Temperatures in Australia
    have risen in some parts by 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees well not in Sydney I can remember allot
    hotter summers 30 years ago. And what about Europe why are some parts of Europe experiencing some of the coldest winters? Or doesn’t
    that count.


    Why Australia
    Why Now? Why is it ok for Australia
    to sell Coal to the high polluting Countries Why do you call us the highest polluting
    per capita? Who cares, China Is the highest polluting Country in the world and
    as their Citizens get richer and richer they will be the biggest polluters per
    capita in the not so distant future so why are we selling them our Coal?


    How does the price on carbon dioxides non polluting gas
    work? Another lie The Gillard government doesn’t even know yet, I haven’t seen
    any information yet so how could you answer this questions, as for rewarding
    the ones that go clean, why are current renewable technologies swept under the
    carpet what makes you believe that putting a TAX on Carbon Dioxides will make
    renewable energy be released to the public? Please explain why after a tax and
    not now.


    Where does the money go? This has not fully been explained
    by the government yet so what ever you think it’s only guessing but I have
    heard that 40% goes to the UN is this true? A price on pollution will only add
    less than 1% to the shopping bill, are you willing to guarantee this to all
    your members? Will you put your money were your mouth is? Will you be liable
    for damages if it goes up by more than 1%? The Electricity companies have been
    gearing up for this since 2007 and already electricity in the last three years
    has risen by at least 50% so as to when the carbon tax comes in place it won’t
    look like electricity has risen by that much but in fact it has been rising
    since 2007, 1% yeah right, I think you have forgotten a few Zero’s at the end.


    What about Australian Jobs? It may create the so called
    30,000 jobs if you want to believe that but you forgot to tell us how may jobs
    will be lost, so please tell us if 30,000 new jobs will be created how many
    jobs will be lost?

    And one more thing and the most important why don’t you hold a poll to see how many members are pro Carbon TAX? What are you affraid of? Why are you behaving like the Government and not give us the right to vote on something of such Global Importance? I chalenge you to hold a Poll GetUp.

  • Nikkoh

    First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not
    the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system
    currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming,
    and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s
    seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the
    Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons,
    and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even
    try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward
    revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter
    may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is
    expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported
    that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth
    suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to
    being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that
    Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now.
    Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that,
    “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is
    being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both
    Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic
    ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon,
    Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is
    now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites
    that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter
    than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this
    information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who
    claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in
    our current climate change.

  • Joe

    Its a rort and any right thinking person knows it, a Government introduces a tax in the name of “Dangerous Climate Change” and loves it’s new revenue stream, Do you think they want to seriously lessen carbon emissions? It would be like making Tobacco illegal and losing the said $7 billion in taxes a year it wont happen. The danger with all the people who feel this needs to be done is they do not realise it is straight out revenue raising, carbon emissions will not abate and if companies struggle they will move overseas, the government would not like to see an environment were there where no emissions because then they would lose the projected $11 billion this would raise in its first year and increase every year. Does this not alarm people, the people who can least afford this realise but it seems a percentage of lefties out there are stuck in a political dream and think they are doing good. It is nothing but revenue raising based on a fear campaign of corrupt scientists and governments around the world who have to come up with new incomes stream ideas.Plant trees for Gods sake.

  • Gj Griff

    I appreciate the facts Kelsey, particularly as they come from a great majority of the world’s scientists.  I am also prepared to pay more to clean up the world, I wouldn’t expect that fixing a problem like this would come cheap or easy.  It makes complete sense, and being selfless for the sake of our children’s futures, couldn’t do any harm.  Thanks.

  • Gj Griff

    I appreciate the facts Kelsey, particularly as they come from a great majority of the world’s scientists.  I am also prepared to pay more to clean up the world, I wouldn’t expect that fixing a problem like this would come cheap or easy.  It makes complete sense, and being selfless for the sake of our children’s futures, couldn’t do any harm.  Thanks.

  • David Lennon

    I condemn GetUp for it’s campaign to stop Lord Christopher Monckton from speaking in Australia.

    You say you have the answers for those who don’t believe in global warming? THEN DEBATE HIM. He will, and has always welcomed it. Prove him wrong in a public forum.

  • Pedro

    You people are off the planet, just tools of the Global Elite & their New World Order.Rothchild’s want to control the ETS for the Pacific region.and Malcom Turnbull will make Heaps out of this, no wonder he wants an ETS
     Climate change is perfectly normal the same as the way coastlines change.If you had been to Turkey & seen how the Ancient city of Ephesus was a seaport 2,000 years ago and now the sea is 5 Km’s away.
     If you people believe all this why are you so scared of a debate?,there are thousands of scientist who disagree with you but do not get the funding.Big money is buying a lot of lies to the Australian public for Agenda 21. Peter

  • Di

    I too, condemn GetUp for it’s campaign to stop Lord Christopher Monckton from speaking in Australia. I do not believe the members of Get Up joined to have the right of free speech and opinion muted and this is precisely what this is.

  • Mick

    Nikkoh from overseas experience, apparently for every green job created, two current jobs are lost. This is a fact getup, labor and the greens don’t want you to know. About the 0.75 degrees, well last year alone the global temperatures declined by over 0.6 degrees (can be checked) so I guess we are back to the 1800′s. The temperatures have not risen since 2000 so for anyone to claim that the globe is currently warming is fraudulent. Also in the near future there will be reduced sunspot activity which will bring cooler temperatures with it. Basically the world is taking care of itself. Considering that co2 has risen since 2000, the temperatures have not, they have gotten cooler which goes against the AGW logic. One thing I’ve learned from warmists Nikkoh is that they point to AGW for every climate event that happens whether it is possibly the cause or not. Brown blamed the qld floods on AGW but the CSIRO said they weren’t. They tried to make out it was an event more extreme than had ever happened before, which it wasn’t. We’ve heard about sea levels rising and flooding kiribati but I have been looking at old photos and comparing them to current ones and it even looks like the water was higher in the war years. Kiribati is an atoll and atolls evolve over time to the point that they go under. It is entirely possible kiribati is going down rather than the sea level rising. But then how is it possible that the sea level may have risen in kiribati but at other islands the sea level is actually lower? It’s true, Some islands have a lower sea level. Some islands have actually gained in size. Apparently the plate that Australia sits on moves about 1 inch per year. What is the effect of this movement and movements of other plates? There are so many possibilities. Oh and do you know who one of the biggest beneficiaries of the co2 tax will be? The banks. Yes, when prices rise we need more money to buy things, that includes cars houses, businesses, whatever you borrow money for, If you are sickened by the profits of banks, they will rise quickly under a co2 tax. It really is a distribution of wealth. To say only the polluters pay is an out and out lie. Everyone will, one way or another.

  • Mick

    Your campaign of “say yes” implies that you want us to have a say. I want to have my say, where do I get to have a say? I know you are against us having a say because otherwise you would support a plebiscite or a referendum or another election. Also because you get people to scare the broncos into not letting monkton speak. See you want to destroy free speech. On one hand you want us to say yes, but if we want to say no, you want us to shut up. We have a human right to free speech and to have our own opinion and to have it heard. You want to deny that for us. How can you say you are an organisation that supports free speech?

  • Nikkoh

    Mick they won’t even hold a simple poll to see how many of their members are on their side a simple democratic process that is not going to cost any money for for them. It seems to me any were we look the organisations that are pro AGW just don’t want to answer any questions we are supposed to just beleive them, apparently the general public is to stupid to have an opinion. I have watched quite a few Youtube clips and any reporter that askes Al Gore any questions that chalenge AGW are silenced and their questions are never answered aparently no one is allowed to debate him on any issues. The footage of that Polar bear that was on the slab of ice was taken two years prior in the summer periods when ice does break off, and the other lie is that the polar bears are not declining their numbers are getting bigger. The more you search the more lies you find it’s unbelievable how many lies there are which is making me thing that maybe some of the conspiracy theorists might have some valid points it is starting to look like a redistribution of wealth and a one world Government. This why they won’t let Lord Christopher Monckton Speak because he know’s the truth but were ever a look in any part of the world the truth is silenced but yet they call us the deniers but it’s only because of their actions that allot of us are against the theory of AGW.

  • Nikkoh

    Pedro i think you may be correct it is starting to look like the global elit are the reason for these lies and a one world order is probably one of the reasons i have found out that the UN gets 10% globaly of Carbon taxes i don;t know why because they are a waste of time they couldn’t even stop the US from bombing Iraq, i guess now we will have just another corrupt organisation in the world with lots of money greed and power pretending to do good for mankind, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

  • Nikkoh

    Yes Mick i agree with you but i know nothing about kiribati i’ll have a look at it tonight to see what you mean, and thanks for answering the question on how many jobs are lost because if that is the case that means that 30,000 new jobs will be created and 60,000 will be lost. I to agree with you acording to what i have found temperatures have not risen since 2000 instead they have declined a little, i have also found that the sun currently has no sun spots which will cause the planet to cool many scientists predict a Mini ice Age by the year 2030, we can see evidence of this in Europe they are getting allot colder in their winters, funny thing is that the planet is fighting their lies and is cooling it’s self down, maybe our planet is our GOD and will help save humanity from these lies.

  • Anonymous

    I agree. The blatant silencing of Monckton by GetUp  last night speaking in Brissy, in an absolute disgrace. 
    What a wonderful  free country we live in, when,  IF somebody doesnt agree with your viewpoint you boycott and get the organizer to stop the show.
    Shame GetUp, you have shown your true stripes. If ANYBODY doesnt agree with your stance, you shut them down. 
    I just wish I could de-register from your site, because U dont stand for the populous ideals anymore.
    But then again, I’m not surprised you cant de-register after you sign up on your site, because your advertised numbers would plummet.

  • Bobl

    You have demonstraby NOT done your research, at Gillard rates changing the climate by 0.00004 degrees will cost Australians $11 Bn, That prices each degree C of mitigation at 1/0.00004 x 11Bn or $275 Trillion. So what you say, any price is OK. Well we dont have one degree to counteract we have two! So that’s 550 Trillion – a mere trifle you say. Unfortunately world GDP is only $56Trillion so this costs 9.82 times world GDP to mitigate using a tax. This is the climate sensitivity to tax.

    Get Up should be using its influence to propose a solution that actually has a possibility of working. The tax has none, causes povity, homelessness and adds to starvation around the world by throwing money at a problem that can’t be solved with money. You should be ashamed for supporting it.

  • Nikkoh

    Yes Di, i agree with you i didn’t realise that joining GetUp was giving them the right to silence freedom of speech. Does anyone know how do deregister from being a member at GetUp because i’m searching their site and i can’t find the link, it doesn’t make sense, what once you register you can never get out, surely there is got to be some kind of Law against this I’ll be going to my lawyer as soon as he comes back from holidays to find out if they are breaking any laws thats for sure, but for now i’ll put this question to one of the talkback stations on monday to find out if what they are doing is lawfull.

  • Nikkoh

    I can’t find the link to Deregister Either. Now that i know that getup are against freedom of speech i don’t want to be a part of it anymore.

  • Cam

    Very disappointing for GetUp. Sadly they have now shown to be against free speech, so unfortunately this is one member, who was initially interested in joining, no longer considering it. Disturbing GetUp are exhibiting the old Left-adage of “Yes, we believe in free speech, so as long as it agrees with us. And if you don’t believe with what we say, then you don’t know what you are talking about.”

  • Bobl

    You would pay a tax that is levied at a level that needs 1/2 a quadrillion dollars 9.8 x global GDP each year to actually work ? No i’ts not cheap, its expensive, costs more that world GDP at Gillard rates – you are throwing your money away at this useless gesture when you could be sponsoring a child in poverty instead.

  • Mick

    What shocks me the most is that the unions and labor party know jobs will be lost. They are not standing up for the workers. The unions are supposed to protect workers rights, the labor party….well isn’t that supposed to be the workers party? Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson are both ex ACTU leaders and yet, knowing jobs will be lost, they are not standing up for the workers. Paul Howes said if 1 worker loses their job, he will not support the co2 tax. It remains to be seen if he will stand by his word. To the workers who will lose their jobs, how will the government compensate them for that? How can you get work for someone where there is no work. Look at the livestock industry currently. People have already lost jobs, more people are now on centrelink benefits, adding pressure to the already cash strapped public purse. What we see happening now where an industry is being destroyed is a taste of what’s to come.

  • Mick

    I’ve given this a lot of thought, how will a co2 tax affect the housing industry? The cost of building materials goes up so the cost to buy a house goes up making housing affordability an even bigger problem. Add to that more stamp duty to buy a more expensive home, bigger mortgage (the banks will love the co2 tax), bigger council rates, higher rents because more expensive housing demands higher rents, more expensive home insurance, more expensive home maintenance, higher real estate fees to sell your home, that’s just a few examples of how it will affect housing alone. If you can, buy before the tax. If you want something delivered, yep that will cost more too. How about posting things, postage will have to rise. And with higher electricity and telephone charges, affording your home will be a lot harder too. Yes even your phone bill will be affected. Phone companies have running costs and these will rise. Now for just the few things I have mentioned, how can the government possibly fully compensate us for those things? Oh I forgot, didn’t they say only the major polluters pay? What a lie that is. I have only commented on 1 part of the economy, this tax will affect everything and everyone will pay one way or another.

  • Mick

    The co2 tax gillard wants to force on us will raise about $11 billion per year. Let’s look at how much the European ETS raises – it raises only about
    $500 million a year. I’ll say that again, only about $500 million per year. In one year, this government wants to extract the amount the europeans will take over 20 years to raise.Apparently at $26 a tonne, an Australian carbon tax would
    raise more in three months than the European ETS has raised in five
    I mean, why are we going to be slogged so hard when the europeans are paying so little in comparison?  In the 27 countries of the eu, there are 500 million people so basically each year, they each pay 1 dollar per year on average. I think we could handle 1 dollar per year don’t you? . But what will it be for us? $11 billion/22 million = $500. So on average, we will be hit with $500 each person per year in Australia compared to $1 per year in Europe.  For me that works out to $3000 that on average is the cost to my family.  Government seem to like the per capita argument well per capita we will pay 500 times more than europe per year. Does that make you feel better about this co2 tax? Does it make you feel the rest of the world is sharing the load equally?

  • Mick

    They are exhibiting, dare I say communistic tendencies, isn’t that what dictators do? Isn’t that what tyranny is all about? Stopping opposing voices.

  • Gj Griff

    Facts and figures, thanks Kelsey, the claims you make in your original post are mostly linked to sources of information.  I can’t say that for the posts below.  I am however, genuinely interested in where the information below is coming from and would like to read up on any apparent source.  References or links to sources of information of the claims below, would be extremely helpful.  Otherwise they just appear to be unqualified comments or heresay, which unless proven, are totally irrelevant.  Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    And the European economy is do soooooo well, these days. Bailout’s all over the place, Defaults on the horizon, Total implosion of the whole European economy coming .
    A magic model for anybody thinking a Carbon Tax or an ETS is a good idea.

  • Nikkoh

    Well Gj Griff  there is a thing called Google if you don’t know about
    it yet then you are in big trouble you haven’t woken up yet. GetUp won’t allow
    us to post any links I tried but it goes to the moderator and never gets posted
    but if you feel like you want to look for answers do a search for a documentary
    called “Not Evil Just Wrong” the best source in getting a copy was
    Extra Torrent for me. You can also go to YouTube and research what a hard time
    any journalist is having in getting answers, Al Gore will only answer questions
    from journalists that agree with him but if anyone asks any valid questions
    against his documentary or facts they are quickly silenced how democratic is
    that? Type in AGW Lie there are plenty of good references, research on how much
    of the taxes goes to the UN you will freak about 10% of the total global
    amount, this is all we need another greedy powerful organisation trying to
    control the population.

    Study the role of the World Bank you won’t believe what you will find the world
    is experiencing a Global financial crisis and every Country is in debt and when
    you try to find out who we all owe this money to it’s the same story over and
    over again the World Bank and who owns the world bank once again the same
    families the Rothschild’s the Rockefellers the builder berg group and most of
    the corrupt families and organisations. Were did they get the money to lend to
    the world? No were it was created from nothing. These days you go to the bank
    and you borrow debt not money because money isn’t backed by anything any more
    it’s not like it was in the past when money was redeemable by gold these days
    it’s redeemable by digits it’s Phantom money that never existed and if you
    don’t believe me do the research for your self. Do your research on how the
    stock exchange works and you will be amazed it’s the biggest scam the Globe is
    facing at the moment a documentary that goes into it a little is
    “Capitalism A Love Story” Once again Phantom money and shares that
    never had any value to begin with, the stock market didn’t crash, they deliberately
    crashed it.

    Go and see who owns the federal reserve bank of America and the Reserve Bank of
    Australia It’s a private company not Government so we have private companies
    printing Phantom money once again, were does the reserve bank get the money
    they lend? No were it was created out of nothing through digits, a documentary
    that goes into that in detail is zeitgeist and like I said we would love to
    give you the links but GetUp won’t let the links go through. I can keep going on
    and on but it’s pointless because I know I will be called a conspiracy theorist
    at the end of the day even though the word conspiracy means a person claiming
    against the populous beliefs and doesn’t have proof to back it but when you
    search you will find plenty of undeniable proof so really once there is proof
    it is no longer a conspiracy.

    What Mick is saying is somewhat correct and if you research it and look for it
    you will find it all you need is some time a computer and an internet
    connection we would love to give you links but they won’t let them go through
    because that would be freedom of speech and Democratic and we all know were
    GetUp stands now and what their true agenda is now so I Guess the truth could
    be damaging towards their plot.


    There is something much bigger happening Globally at the
    moment and it’s not just about money it’s about the redistribution of wealth to
    bring the majority of the worlds population back to poverty levels to control
    us, the people behind it don’t care about money after all they create it every
    day it’s about power they Believe it’s their GOD given rights to do so.

  • Hohcairns

    First time on this site and am pleasantly surprised to see such sensible posts on this great rort of Climate Change. Get Up is doing irrepairable damage to this country with its left wing philosiphy. Afraid that as you get older and have more experience of life you will look back and realise what a fool you were when younger and easily lead !!!!!

  • Jim Simpson

    Kelsey – I too have done my research & have yet to find any impirical evidence that proves carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.  On the contrary everything I’ve found so far shoes it to be a miniscule trace gas >0.039% of the atmosphere & ESSENTIAL for life on earth!,  Nor have I been able to find evidence that proves it is the PRIMARY I repeat PRIMARY cause of Global Warming! – Huh !  What’s that, Warming…  What nonsense.   My latest research into this question shows that global temperatures have clearly stopped rising in 1998 (in keeping with normal solar cycles) & that there’s been a noticeable DECLINE in global temps since then, DESPITE increasing levels of CO2 which itself is an essential plant food for trees, agriculture etc.  Indeed the evidence that I’ve unearthed indicates CO2 levels are in fact too LOW & could increase significantly to the benefit of feeding mankind by way of enhanced growing levels with no detrimental impacts upon neither our health nor our weather!   Your promoting nothing more than Alarmist Propaganda & should be ashamed of your selves. 

    And on a separate matter, it now seems that GetUP have had involvement in having free speech curtailed by the banning of Lord Monckton’s speaking tour at the Brisbane Bronco’s Club.  True ?  Certainly sounds like it.  Now whether you agree with Christopher Monckton or not, that is NOT the way we Aussies work.  If you don’t share his views, (nor for that matter anyone else’s), that fine & your democratic right.  Just turn up & pay your $25 & take him on pubicly!  Don’t use strong arm tactics to muzzle public debate.  All that does in confirm in my mind that you and the likes of the Prime Minister have something to be afraid of – like, dare I say, like The Truth!  You’ve lost all creditibility.  I think a better name for GetUP would be ShutUP!      

  • Bill Koutalianos

    The air we breath in a typical office space has about a 1000 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide, so why would anyone be alarmed about atmospheric levels increasing from 280ppm to 390ppm. “Higher than at anytime in the last 800,000 years” you say, well maybe and maybe not. Chemical measurements of CO2 in the 19th century measured it at levels higher than today. Other studies using stomatal frequency of fossil needles from Mt.Rainier indicate atmospheric CO2 levels almost identical to today’s, occurring 1600 years ago. Given this evidence more research is clearly needed, so it’s quite odd that some say the science is settled and others want to shut down debate.
    Furthermore there is the inconsistency that the alleged problem is man’s use of fossil fuels, yet green groups are also targeting belching cows. If living things are included in this greenhouse gas alarmism, then as living things we should also be concerned.
    Cooling and warming happen in cycles and are completely natural. In the the mid 1970′s, some scientists like Stephen Schneider were warning of a pending ice age. When the trend turned to warming again in the late seventies, he instantly became a global warming alarmist. Some people are just a little excitable, no matter what is happening.
    In the aftermath of “climategate” Prof. Phil Jones, a lead IPCC author, admitted that the medieval warming period may have been warmer than today, so that suggests the alarmist “hockey stick” graph produced by Michael Mann may in fact be incorrect. This is the graph that alarmed the world about global warming with its sudden and unprecedented rise in temperatures and yet Prof. Phil Jones also admitted we’ve had no statistically significant warming since 1995. The satellite data shows that temperatures have plateaued over the last decade. The last warming trend only lasted for 23 years and ceased over a decade ago, and we have government funded scientists, commentators and politicians still arguing warming. I find most people are completely unaware that temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975. The CSIRO have certainly done their bit to paint quite a different picture, using block diagrams to average out the last five decades and conceal the cyclical nature of temperature movements. Why would they do that? No one disputes that the world has had an overall warming trend over the last 350 years, since the depths of the Little Ice age. But very few note that the warming began long before the alleged industrial revolution began and despite the fact that 25% of all emissions from man’s fossil fuel use over all history have been emitted over the past decade, the world has not warmed any further. If more funding was allowed to be attributed to finding answers rather than supporting the “CO2 causes warming ” theory, we might have a better picture as to what is going on. I’d recommend a sceptical website to begin your research, if you have not already done so, but be weary about sites that claim to be sceptical, but are actually alarmist.

  • Nikkoh

    I agree Bill with what you are saying and it’s very well written and i do know of Stephen Schneider he was warning of a pending ice age up until 2000 and has written many books over the years backing his claims but all of a sudden he has become Al Gores Left hand man on the theory of AGW, I have seen him almost in every footage on the left of Al Gore, I can’t understand what happend. How do you go from a life time of study believing the world is heading towards another ice age do a complete backflip and now tell everyone you believe and back the theory of AGW. How can he even be trusted anymore.

  • Mike Elliott

    When a “short-hand catch-all” term for something is a negative term and the complete complete opposite of what the something is – then its dismayingly obvious that it misleading – and I think Australians are finally working that out – fortunately for us all. Lets hope this Carbon Dioxide Tax tom foolery isnt around to much longer.

  • Gj Griff

    I’m confused on the debate on the science?  I’ve tried to read up and qualify claims in this blog, to no avail, so I am really unable to draw any helpful conclusion.  Forgive my ineptitude.  I do know however that through time we’ve had the stone age, the bronze age, the dark ages, the golden age, the industrial age and the technology age.  What harm can there be in moving to a new age, a green age, where cleaner, greener technologies, shape the way we go about our every day lives?  Despite the science, what harm can there be in reducing our carbon emissions?  What harm can there be in building a cleaner greener economy?  What harm can there be in building new industries, particularly in renewable energy?  I can’t find any harm, just benefits.  As for free speech, I am exercising my right to free speech and I am using GetUp as my platform, just like everyone else that chooses to do the same here.  Thanks.

  • Bill Koutalianos

    These so called clean technologies of wind turbines and solar PV panels entail some fairly dirty and toxic manufacturing processes. I don’t believe we can post links here so you’ll have to try googling to locate the precious metals tailings toxic waste dump in China where local children have drowned falling through the dry upper crust of this environmental blight on the landscape.
    Jumping into these infantile technologies which are intermittent, unreliable and exorbitantly expensive means our children will not enjoy the same lifestyle we had in the age of fossil fuels as you would put it. I somehow doubt Four Corners will do an expose on Spain’s green economy experiment, but 2.2 traditional jobs have been lost for every heavily taxpayer subsidized green job created. In other words they now have over 20% unemployment and going broke due to their green revolution. It’s not the sort of thing you would wish upon your children, but this government seems hell bent to take us there through programs which in some cases commit thousands of dollars to reduce a single tonne of CO2.
    History through the ages, is about man’s technological evolution and advancement. There is no precedent in history for government to decree the end of a technological era in order to replace it with an inferior technological era, except perhaps after a conflict or war, where the conquerors have imposed draconian laws and hardship on foreign populations in order to benefit their own.
    If the science confuses you google “climategate” for more clarification.

  • Gj Griff

    Woah!  Just sounds like conspiracy theory at its worst!  Have you ever been fishing, you know that great Australian past time?  The feeling you get when you bait the hook, throw the line in the water, then get that big bite…  it’s an amazing feeling!  Still, on a serious note, you missed answering a couple of questions I had. Science aside, what harm is there in reducing carbon emissions?  What harm is there in building new industries in renewable energy?  Substantiate your claims dude!  And if you haven’t noticed, I live in Australia, not Spain.  As for the manufacturing processes to build wind turbines and solar panels, please provide a reference?  And if all else fails, check out Fleetwod Mac’s 1976 live rendition of “Rhiannon” on You Tube, it rocks.  Now that’s a reference, cheers.

  • Nikkoh

    Bill thanks for giving us an intelegent debate we need people with higher intelegence to come on this site to explain things to those that don’t get it, i try but i can’t write it the way you do. I tried to answer this morning Gj Griff questions in the way i see things but once again GetUp has taken it to the Moderator i was carefull to what i wrote using no links but still it didn’t go through so much for freedom of speech, let see if they allow it. Please keep coming back with more information.

  • Bobl

    Let me try to intelligently answer your question Bill.

    There are several big problems with green technologies at the moment.

    1. They are not portable enough, for example you can’t charge an electric car battery in the same time it takes to fuel your car. Nor does this technology scale without infrastructural support, IE the electric truck translates to electric train. Can be done but not economic.

    2. The energy taken in creating most of the green technologies involves a large portion of the energy they produce. So overall they are very, very inefficient on a whole of life basis. For example the energy a photovoltaic cell produces returns only about 120% of the energy put in to making it. So really PV cells are a bit like a non-rechargeable battery in a way. Worthwhile yes, but barely. Hopefully things will improve given time.

    3. They are Part-time, PV only generates electricity when the sun shines and wind when the wind blows. So they can’t really be used for baseload power. Also baseload in generated in “chunks” of lets say 200MW (eg size of each generator in a plant) you cant shut down the steam until you take each unit off line, you cant smoothy scale the fuel supply to the boilers, because the steam temperature is set in the design of the plant (which mostly need “Dry Steam”) You can’t reduce baseload untill you can aggregate a reliable replacement capacity. For example the aggregated PV input to the network needs to be reliably 200MW before you can take a unit off line. That probably means to take 200MW of baseload off, you will probably need about 1000MW of solar, so that if widespread shading (clouds)  occur you don’t undersupply the grid. So with input credits at 0.44 per KW hour, that means a cost of maybe $2.20 per KWh of “reliable PV”.  Now do you see why this forces up your electricity bill ?

    4. Many technologies are detrimental to the biosphere, or cause human starvation, eg Biofuel reduces the world food crop yield as excess produce is consumed by fuel digesters instead of being shipped as food aid. Burning hydrogen (the hydrogen economy) results in the combining of Hydrogen with Oxygen permanently removing oxygen from the biosphere (Unless hydrogen is sourced from water electrolysis which is only maybe 60% effecient – more power goes in than comes out). Carbon  dioxide sequestration by deep well burying, likewise removes 2 atoms of oxygen from the biosphere for every 1 carbon atom it sequesters, rather than returning that oxygen to the biosphere through the natural oxygen cycle. These technologies just substitute one problem for another. Geothermal would seem to be about the only green technology that bears any hope at all at the moment, but it has its own problems at the moment.

    So, while there are “greener” technologies out there, they aren’t ready for primetime, they are far too inefficient, expensive or otherwise problematic. Time and natural evolution of technology will gradually get us there, but you can’t force it. We need to leave well enough alone, and provide some incentives for development, but these technologies wont just “appear” because we have a tax, some fundamental problems need to be solved first.

    Let me put an alternative view

    Now let’s say we continue to do what we do now and support the natural oxygen cycle through reforestation, for example if we simply legislated that all farmland must devote 5% of land area to trees, and they could be food trees like mangos, then we would make a 20% dent in our emissions, make a profit on the mangos to boot, and increase world food supply, and produce more oxygen from the CO2 we reduce, increase that to 10% then that represents 40% reduction in emission. Plant those trees in salinity affected areas then we can also clean up the salinity. No risk, we lived with more trees before, I’m sure we can do it again. So it IS possible to address the problem effectively now but NOT using technology and be profitable in the process. All this would take is say a tax deduction on costs of land that has newly planted forestry or orchards on it.

    What I want is GetUp to recognise that this plan is counterproductive to its social justice ideals, that this tax unneccessarilly  this hurts people, wont affect the climate and change tack to ONLY SUPPORT ACTIONS THAT IMPROVE THINGS.

  • Nikkoh

    I’d like to suggest Bobl for the next prime minister in one post you just put everything in contex for us i’m very impressed only problem is i can’t fully understand everything you just said but i will try to study it if that is possible, do you think you could explain it a little more simpler. I thought Hydrogen was the way to go but you think otherwise i kind of understand what you mean but not fully. Can you tell me what you think of magnetic energy and check out a Queensland invention a few years back i think you can find a YouTube clip if you Type in the search Magnets4Power i’d be very interested to hear what you think of that Technology. Thanks Aggain.

  • Bill Koutalianos

    Carbon Tax. Why Australia? Why now? Well that’s a very good question. Here’s my list of 10 potential reasons, in no particular order:
    1. The globe is starting to cool and as it gets colder, it will be even harder to sell global warming.
    2. It’s very hard to sell global warming alarmism to countries in colder climates, so Australia is a better prospect as well as a soft touch.
    3. It’s very hard to sell global warming to any third world nation or any war zone because people are simply too busy trying to find food and trying to stay alive.
    4. A lot of money has been invested convincing Australians about global warming and the investors now want to see some return on their investment.
    5. Well they couldn’t do it just after “climategate” broke because everyone was becoming suspicious, so it had to be delayed for a while until people forgot about it.
    6. Labor and the Greens now realize, the longer they leave it, the more people are waking up to the scam, hence the urgency. As Rudd once said “The clock is ticking”.
    7. Julia got away with misleading us or lying at one election, but it’s unlikely she can pull that trick off again, so the time is now.
    8. If Australia gets a carbon tax, it’s easier to sell the carbon tax to other countries, because pointing to Australia on the map, enhances the credibility of the scam.
    9. The best way to bring down a democratic, prosperous, sovereign nation is by infecting us with the EU green disease, also found in some parts North America.
    10.The green lobby group infrastructure in Australia is now so well established and has infiltrated so much of the media, as well as educational institutions and the corporate world, that polls indicating 85% of the public are against this tax, can simply be ignored. Just use Cate Blanchett to calm everyone down.

  • Bobl

    Problem with hydrogen is this, Hydrogen is the diatomic molecule H2 and Oxygen is the diatomic molecule O2, now two molecules of H2 combine with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of water. This reaction gives off energy which we can power ourselves with. You can break apart the water into hydrogen and oxygen again but you have to put energy in to do that; the same amount of energy you took out before and since every system has losses you always lose a bit (about 40%) each time around.

    Anyway with water (H2O) there are few natural processes that break it apart again (perhaps lightning), so the bulk of hydrogen that is burned to water stays as water. So for every 2 hydrogen molecules burned, you effectively permanently remove one oxygen from the atmosphere, just exchanging one problem for another.

    2H2 + 02 -> 2H20

    With Carbon dioxide we react Carbon with Oxygen to get CO2 and energy (well its a little more complicated than that actually) for every carbon we burn, we extract an oxygen, however unlike water if we emit this CO2 into the atmosphere there is a natural process that will put the energy back in (derived from sunlight) and break it apart. Plants breathe it and through the magic of photosysthesis turn the CO2, some water and sunlight into Carbohydrates (food and fuel for us) and oxygen (for us to breathe) if we do anything else with the CO2 we effectively prevent plants from returning the Oxygen to the atmosphere and once again exchange one problem for another, depriving ourselves of food and fuel (carbohydrates) and Oxygen. Near some cities Oxygen has been measured at 14% below normal oxygen levels. There is also some evidence that our CO2 levels are too low at 385 ppm and that the CO2 flux is too low to maintain oxygen at 16% – no-one ever talks about this

    I hope its clear here that the only thing that can be safely done with C02 is to feed it to plants. The earths natural Oxygen biocycle must be obeyed and we with the carbon tax are in part trying to disobey it whenever we do something that doesn’t return Co2 to the biosphere.

    With regard magnetic energy, treat all magnetic “Free Energy” devices with a lot of scepticism as many violate physics. Personally though I recognise that there are likely to be energy sources that are unavailable to our science now that exist within static fields (like Zero Point Energy,  gravity, or static magnetic fields) and work might be distilled out of them if there is a way to “pump them” from place to place. At the moment I’m not convinced about any of them except magnetic refrigeration (the giant thermomagnetic effect) and the Casmir effect which have a theoretical basis for working. Pretty much all our over unity energy pumps at the moment are heat pumps but in theory I don’t see any reason why the same energy pump principle wouldn’t work with other energy forms. Anyway my take is that this is one of the technologies that has a few pretty basic hurdles to be worked out. Look for these in maybe the 22nd century assuming such things are even possible.


  • Tristan Cooke

    Before, I say something I want to say I’m a Get Up supporter generally and donate to the carbon action campaign.

    I want to know what is the bases this claim: “an increase of 1.1% for the average family. A price on pollution will add less than 1% to the weekly shopping bill – less than $1.60 a week.”  
    It’s not referenced and you’ve not named a specific policy you support.

  • Nikkoh

    Thanks for the information Bob1 but I’m having a hard time
    understanding what you say about Hydrogen. I thought that if you separate the
    two molecules H2 from water then you are left with one molecule O2 after you use
    the H2 molecule as energy mixed with the two molecules O2 to create energy you
    lose one molecule O2 as carbon dioxide gas and the one molecule O2 that is left
    mixed with H2 = H2O.


    In my mind that sounded correct but the one Molecule of 02
    that we lost as carbon dioxide will be absorbed by plants and turned back to
    two Molecules of 02. I might be sounding stupid but I have experimented with
    hydrogen on demand and what I have noticed is that allot of water comes out of
    your exhaust, I thought by combusting H2 with O2 that the final result was H20 again
    a reusable energy that never runs out and completely clear of any traces of
    Carbon Monoxides only traces of carbon dioxides. I do understand though that
    you will have loses even if it is 40% you have a 60% gain. I don’t understand
    why you lose the one part of oxygen permanently wouldn’t that turn to Carbon
    dioxide and go through the process of being absorbed buy plant life and turned
    to O2 again.  Well there you go just when
    I thought that I new some thing I now realise I nothing again. You completely
    lost me on 2H2 + 02 -> 2H20 I’ll have to look that one up I have no idea.


    CO2 flux is too low to maintain oxygen at 16% Well I didn’t
    know about that and off course no one will ever talk about this how else are
    they going to sell us the lies if people talk about the truth so it doesn’t surprise


    As for magnetic I have plans and schematics of such devices I
    remember at the time when  reading it in
    theory it made sense and I was convinced, but I have never put it to practise
    because I found it to hard for someone of my intelligence at the time.

  • Nikkoh

    HaHa, Excellent way to put things in perspective for us
    I totally agree with these 10 points. Are you reading GetUp this is the real
    world and when you GrowUp and realise what you have done, it will be too late.
    You now think you are saving the environment but later you will be trying to
    save humanity.

  • Bobl

    You need to know a little chemistry to understand my posting I’m afraid.  Let’s put it this way, there is no effective way to chemically convert water to Hydrogen and oxygen so you can burn the hydrogen to water again. Because of the losses you need about 1.4 Watts of electricity to get 1 watt worth of Hydrogen. So where does the 1.4 Watts come from? Its a chicken and egg thing. So what chemists do is source hydrogen from Natural gas, which can be done chemically but that process doesn’t put the oxygen into the atmosphere that breaking up water does. So when you burn this Hydrogen, it combines with oxygen to form water, which then is lost (because natural gas is the source of the hydrogen) the water never gets turned back into hydrogen and oxygen.

    In contrast, if I emit Co2 instead of water (H2O) then plants do the hard work of returning the oxygen from the Co2 to the atmosphere, and I can use it over and over again.

    Regarding the magnetic devices, I have never built one and i don’t understand the math the proponents have put forward to describe them, so I can’t be sure they work, they might but I remain sceptical because the proof isn’t there yet – Bit like climate science all theory and supposition and little observational fact.

    Just a point here for you about climate, I understand physics enough to say that CO2 does behave as an energy store (absorber) and that in lab experiments has been shown to cause a type of greehouse effect but pretty much everything else is a guess. On its own CO2 can’t do much warming (a fraction of a degree) the climate models use a feedback term which is mostly extra water vapour caused by the Co2 warming. Problem is  water acts as a warming agent if it is a gas, but reflects sunlight and causes cooling if its a cloud. Also cloud during the day causes cooling while cloud at night causes warming. You know that from experience – cloudy windless days are cool, cloudy windless nights are warm. So to figure out the mean temperature in 50 years you need to know how much cloud there will be and what time of day it’ll be there. Cloud cover varies radically over all timeframes, and until we understand what drives cloudiness we can really never solve this. Climate models address this with a fudge factor, a guess if you like, or they just ignore what they don’t understand. If climate drivers are omitted from the models they give garbage results. Fact is we just don’t understand all the forces at work here.

    So what the combined effect of the greenhouse effect of water and the effects of cloud will be is anybodies guess. This is where the main argument lies. Not whether CO2 can cause heating but rather “Does it after all the climate effects are accounted for” we will probably never know.

    One more thing, since the theory of warming requires more water in the atmosphere, its logical that most polar climates will become more tropical, tropical climates have more even temperature ranges. For example if Melbourne has a temperature range of 0-40 and Brisbane 6-38. Then the average for Melbourne is 20 and Brisbane 22 so increasing average temperature doesn’t necessarily make climate more extreme, in fact the warming is much more likely to make Melbourne more like Brisbane with a milder, less extreme climate that is more favourable to animal and vegetable life. While the doomsayers forecast a rise in temperature, they naively assume min and max are affected the same and thus the max will increase to 42 in Melbourne. This is a question that is very important

  • Nikkoh

    To anyone that is intrested Alan Jones who i don’t like very much held an interview with Lord Mongkton on 2GB this morning, you can go and listen to the interview online on 2GB’s website. Alan starts of with mentioning Lord mongtons qualifications before he goes onto the interview and in my opinion Lord Monkton sound like he is one of the most leading scientist on the globe. Now i understand why they are trying to block his speaches, he makes allot of sense and he has undeniable scientific proof that AGW is a lie. I would be advice all skeptics to listen to the interview, go to the 2GB web site it’s there on their front page. Hopefully i’ll be attending to one of his speaches tonight or tomorrow night in Sydney, that’s if GetUp doesn’t block him again.

  • Davidjo

    Perhaps Nikkoh should have listened to the interview Lord Monckton had with Adam Spencer rather than listening to Alan Jones. Spencer asked Monckton if he had ever had any academic or research position with any institution involved with climate and the answer was no. He may have some scientific background but not in climatology. Rather than going to Monckton’s talks you will learn more from people who have spent their lives studying climate and who overwhelmingly think that the climate is changing.

  • Nikkoh

    So what about the biggest con artist in the history of the
    world, Al Gore, how much scientific background does he have? He is the one that
    started this not the scientific community. What about the 30,000 scientists and
    climatologists in the USA
    that are trying to sue Al Gore don’t their opinions count? Why is anyone who is
    against AGW silenced doesn’t that alarm you? Lord Monkton doesn’t need to have
    any academic or research position with any institution involved with climate
    because he is a well known Academic in science and he knows how to read graphs
    and knows how to find mistakes, which he has, Like many more scientists, did
    you even bother to go and listen to what he said. The IPCC went and changed
    reports after the scientist signed of a reports what don’t you understand about
    that? The Hockey Stick graph has been manipulated and is totally wrong what
    don’t you understands about that? What Al Gores Mansion Uses in power for a
    month you can run a hundred houses for a year, Al Gore Has set up all these
    Green Companies which he will profit when a tax is passed, our own government
    is hardly investing in any Hybrid Cars as Government cars, there are still
    Government buses using diesel fuel. What is the Hurry? Why now at a time that
    the globe is suffering from a global financial crisis?

    Instead of the NBN why didn’t Julier invest the 50 Billion dollars towards
    renewable energy, since the big tidal waves are on their way and the end of
    humanity is coming at an alarming rate? I’ll answer all these questions for you
    and others that are still asleep, BECAUSE IT IS A LIE INFACT THE BIGGEST LIE

    I am a common man a hard working Aussie Battler with no fancy diplomas or
    certificates and non academic skills but even someone like my self with low
    intelligence can solve this problem, I would get 25 of the best scientists from
    all over the world and give them 1 billion dollars each, but they all have to
    work together, to find a solution or to invent a renewable type of energy, I’m
    sure they will come up with something. I would then get another 25 of the best
    scientists in the world in the field of medicine to find a cure for the
    pandemic the world is facing at the moment with the alarming rates of cancer to
    find a cure, I’m sure they will find the cure. Once we do develop a renewable
    energy and find the cure for cancer we can then sell the idea to the rest of
    the world and get the 50 billion dollars we invested a thousand times over. So
    you see our government just like all the other governments in the world
    couldn’t save humanity even if they did truely want to because of their stupidity and greed, so what makes you
    think that a tax will save the planet or better still humanity.

  • David Lawrence

     Have you ever been fishing, you know that great Australian past time? The feeling you get when you bait the hook, throw the line in the water, then get that big bite… it’s an amazing feeling! (to borrow a phrase from Gj Griff).
    I agree with this sentiment untill I have to pay for a fishing licence in NSW brought in by the previous labour government.
    That’s all that Labour governments do to deal with perceived problems – introduce a new tax.
    They have never been able to manage money so they tax the people. And for what gain? certainly not the climate or the environment or the future of our children but only for their own lust for power.

  • David Lawrence

     Have you ever been fishing, you know that great Australian past time? The feeling you get when you bait the hook, throw the line in the water, then get that big bite… it’s an amazing feeling!
    (to borrow a phrase from Gj Griff)
    I agree with this sentiment untill I have to pay for a fishing licence in NSW brought in by the previous labour government.
    That’s all that Labour governments do to deal with perceived problems – introduce a new tax.
    They have never been able to manage money

  • Landcare Coordinator

    What a sham Getup is. Supposedly you have over 500,000 members and only just over 17,000 Facebook Likes (many of them only hit the
    Like button to enable them to let you know how they really feel about some of your more radical ideas).  The numbers just don’t add up. The disillusionment has begun.
    I for one no longer wish to be associated with your antics. Many may have seen you as a good idea to start with but now you are just being seen as a joke when it comes to the Carbon Tax issue.
    Threats and Blackmail is no way to be seen as credible. 

  • splash the cash

    The proposed carbon tax does Not reduce pollution, when the pollutters pass the costs onto consumers who in turn are compensated,therefore no incentive for anyone to reduce emmissions and especially with all the other kick backs. Aussies know this carbon tax is a Farce, its a tax grab as it does nothing to reduce pollution.

  • Helsie44

    How long before Get Up publishes the names of the members of the Groceries Council who will not disassociate themselves from the campaign against the carbon tax?
    It is not blackmail. No member or supporter MUST cease buying from those who support the continuation of free damage to the environment.
    The local Foodland runs a continuous campaign urging customers to buy South Australian and provides booklets with the names of the SA businesses in them. That is not blackmail, just providing information to consumers who are keen to support local businesses and those concerned about food miles. Helen Finch

  • Helsie44

    I am a member of the Port Adelaide Football Club that refused to provide a venue for that man and I and a number of club members who I have spoken to support the club’s decision. He attacked a respected Australian scientist by personal abuse and not on the basis of his analysis of the data available. There is too much personal abuse and spite in this “debate” to the extent that respected scientists have been threatened with physical violence. I heard him on ABC local radio, and the tenor of his diatribe to radio announcers who have over time given tacit support to any climate denier who wants to support that point of view was such that I can understand how some people are roused to make threats given the pressure family finances are under at the present time. The rising costs of utilities, food and housing have nothing to do with with a price on carbon.
    I am old enough to remember a time when the “greenhouse effect” and rising levels of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution were not disputed and not part of a divisive campaign by people with a political agenda. It was the first topic covered in the high school Geography book I had in 1958. I will not personally have to face the problems that come from global warming, but my grandchildren will and they are entitled to have a livable environment. I am concerned about the truculant antintelectual attitude fostered by Lord Monckton, shock jock radio performers and some members of parliament. 

  • Mike Elliott

    @Helsie44 …Helen….. it is blackmail…. there is not one ounce of evidence that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is damaging the environment … not the IPCC nor the CSIRO nor the BoM nor the RS nor the Climate Commission nor the Critical Decade report, nor Flannery and definitely not Gaurnaut offer one bit of realworld evidence that demonstrates that man-made carbon dioxide is contributing to dangerous global warmiing … not one bit ….so it is blackmail … you need to stop being so blind to your cause and look for evidence before you go to print. Mike 

  • Mike Elliott

    @Helsie44 …. Hi again Helen ….. the problem is the respected Australian scientist you speak of is probably not respected by everyone.  Sceptics are concerned there are too many advocacy scientists on the scene …. ie they have vested interests …. these scientists dont ever want to be in a public debate … why not if they are so confident what is their problem?… Sceptics generally conclude its because those scientists will lose the debate.  Tactics to stifle scientific debate are bad for this country and for the world … all debate is aimed at is getting to the truth so we can all make good public policy and hence legislation based on sound thought through rational debate. The footy club stifling the debate is a political move driven by fear and emotion – it is good for no one.  Im not a big fan of the shock jock method I prefer following the science process method – but the fear tactics were started by the alarmists and to me its just a bit of healthy fightback on the same terms.  BTW my schooling was in the 60′s so Im old enough to remember when rising carbon dioxide was blamed for ‘global cooling’ back in the 70′s and if I recall rightly it was by many of the same proponents who are now spreading the fear about its global warming effects today - you really have to wonder what these people are up to? I think my children will be fine.  Mike

  • Anonymous

    Even if you were correct about the lack of empirical evidence that climate change was false (which you are not – all of those sources cite reports based on science and observational data which clearly indicate that the earth is warming due to the influence of man – we don’t make the CO2 but we do release it from natural stores, so man-made is a poor term) this would STILL not make this action blackmail.  

    Letting companies know that the decisions they make and policies they adopt will not just be public information, but will be publicized, is NOT blackmail.

  • Nikkoh

    It’s Black Mail Why can’t you see it. It’s like this agree with us or else, they are trying to silence freedom of speech. There is no proof of global warming the only proof i can see is that the earth stoped warming since 1990. If it where so important to make a change because the earth is doomed and the big TIDLE waves are coming then why don’t all the leaders of the world invest money into finding a renewable source of energy? Even in the movies this is what Governments do. If we lower Carbon Dioxides Plant life will strugle and we will starve to death.
    Because Americans figured it out and they realise that it is a lie the American Government is doing nothing about it and it doesn’t look like they will, the type of TAX our Government want’s to put on us is probably the only type in the world, because they know we are an easy tarket Australians have been asleep for years and Governments push us around with out any problem because we have adopted the philosophy of she’ll be right mate. I don’t know what happend this time though because the majority have woken up this time and i don’t think that JULIAR expected this. Look at what happend two elections ago the Liberal Government where doing an exeptional good job taxes where lowered the the bad debt that the Labor Government left was paid off and they where able to bring the country into a Surplus so much for that the labor Government spent that in less that a year. So why did labor get in? oh i know we needed a change so it wasn’t broken but we needed a change. After that the labor Government destroyed the destroyed everything in other words it was broken we decide to put them back in and now this Government has completely destroyed everything and don’t worry by the time they finnish Australia will be Bankrupt because of JULIER.

    Strykes Please make an efford and use your brain how does the data clearly show that the earth is warming when it’s clear that no debate is allowed world wide, most of us have clearly seen data from the skeptical scientists and it clearly shows otherwise infact it shows that we Maybe heading for a mini ice Age. Doesn’t it alarm you that they have gone as far as changing the word from AGW to Climate Change because the world is clearly cooling, go and have a look at Europe how come they are experiencing some of the coolest winters and summers, why is the ice on the north pole starting to get bigger infact it has almost gone back to normal, Why do they call carbon Dioxides a Polutant when it clearly isn’t, they are just playing with words it’s part of the brain washing. Go and study Sigmund Freud he was the leader in this type of brain washing infact i think he was the one that discovered it, go and study his work and you will see that Governments are using this type of brain washing on us these days.

    Strykes, Mike Is right It’s BLACMAIL.

  • Anonymous

    It’s so clearly not blackmail.  It’s laughable to call it such.

    The decisions made by these businesses will be a matter of public record.  What is the threat here?  Do what I tell you or I’ll tell people something they already know (or could freely choose to find out)?

    No. they’re saying “we’re going to inform our users to your decision and encourage them to make their opposition to your stance felt by not using your business”.  If you dont object, then you don’t have to do what Getup says now do you?

    Of course, if you want to redefine blackmail to mean ‘choosing not to use a business because of a personal objection to the practices of said business’, then we might have a different story.

    On the same hand, under your definition, the next time you decide not to go to the local shops because the guy behind the counter was rude to you, you’ll be guilty of blackmail.

    As for the climate change information you provided.  Seriously, it has no relevance to the blackmail accusation I commented on, and is nothing more than a distressing blend of falsehoods and nonsensical rhetoric.  Sorry, but there is not a verifiable fact in there.

  • Anonymous

    Also, I’d rethink coming at me with references to Freud.  I’m well across the subject.

    I you want to go that route however, why don’t you go look up ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ and ‘Confirmation Bias’.  The former being a narrower definition of Freud’s ’denial’ concept, and the latter being a subset of the former, whereby a person will accept any an all information, no matter how ludicrous or unsubstantiated, which matches with their own preconceived ideas.

    In light of this new knowledge, go and take a look at your posts and tell me what it says you dismiss or ignore posts supporting climate change, but instantly respond in support of those who post comments you agree with.  Have your own views moved over time do you think?  Could your beliefs be based on whatever some stranger has happened to say in here?

    While you’re pondering this, lets explore the science of sceptics.  Or more precisely, being sceptical of the ‘sceptic science’.  I cant post URLs in here without waiting ages for the post to be approved, so lets do this instead.  

    Go to google and type “skeptical science arguments”.  The one you want is the one titled something along the lines of “Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and … – Skeptical Science”.

    Take a look at the list of arguments and find the ones you believe, then click on the “what the science says” paragraph for a detailed explanation.  Many pages have a basic and intermediate version of the explanation of the actual science and empirical observational data.

    If you feel like the information is incorrect, post a message on the forums there, but I warn you they suffer foolish questions lightly.  

    If you feel the information is biased, then take a look through the references they used and see if you can find another way to explain it.  Again, the guys at the message board would love to hear your theories I am sure.

    Do these things and THEN come back here and tell me how I need to use my brain.

  • Nikkoh

    Ah!!!,  It’s so clearly not blackmail.  It’s
    laughable to call it such. I think you better look around you because you are
    the only one laughing. No they are saying that if you go against us on a carbon
    tax we are going to black list you.


    And I quote exactly what they said,

    “It is our intention in the next few days to provide
    easy to use
    product information to our membership such that they can boycott goods
    and services that are linked to the scare campaign.


    “they can boycott goods and services that are linked to the
    scare campaign” So GetUp calls a difference of opinion a scare campaign, The freedom
    of speech a scare campaign.  So if you don’t
    shut up and want to voice your opinion or better still you just refuse to agree
    with C02 Causing climate change we will BLACKMAIL YOU  into changing your mind, by telling our
    members to boycott you if you don’t do as your told.


    And Quote,

    “We’re not just going to roll over and allow industry
    to hold our
    climate to ransom, which is why we’re clarifying individual companies’
    positions and seeking to hold them accountable. We’ve
    asked company CEOs to answer a series of questions, including whether
    they accept the science of climate change, whether they back a carbon
    price, and whether they would consider resigning from the industry body,
    and we intend to make that information public.

     This doesn’t sound
    like BLACKMAIL to you? Come on our side or else. We don’t care what you think
    or what your opinion on this whole climate thing is, it’s not our problem if
    you suffer go bankrupt pack up and go overseas we don’t care just do as you are
    told and agree to a Climate change/AGW and a carbon tax fill in the form and
    send it back to us and you better pray you made the right decision.  BLACKMAIL.


  • Anonymous

    No … it doesn’t sound like blackmail.  Not even a little bit.

    Allowing people to use their collective voice to boycott a company, for any reason, is NOT blackmail.

    But please enlighten us.  Who is being strong armed into doing anything against their will?  You’re at Getup.  If they say go, will you boycott?  No … I didn’t think so.  So what are they doing that upsets you so?  Letting us know which businesses want to use their business to play politics?  This is blackmail?  Please.

    Corporate citizens can quite rightly be held to account for any stance or action they may choose to take.  This is how.  By the consumer refusing to use their products or services until such time as the perceived problem is rectified.

    Nobody is saying that these companies cannot take whatever view they like. They are just being made aware that we will know which choice they make. We as consumers can then take whatever action we see fit.

    You can rant to your hearts content … it doesn’t make it blackmail.

  • Allanvn39

    If putting more carbon into the atmosphere causes warming why has there been no cooling since 1998 and autumn 2011 is the coldest on record since 1950 or in some cases the coldest recorded to date. Source bureau of meterology Australia.

  • Allanvn39

    Sorry typo there, read “no warming since 1998″.

  • Mick

    because a lot of climate scientists say so. :)

  • Mick

    Nikkoh you can’t reach people like Stryks, they are too far gone. The difference that people like Stryks cannot see with this is that the reason is not to do with anything illegal but it is to do with what a person believes and it is the non belief in a co2 tax that is being used against them as a way to force them to do something they don’t want to.  This is about being persecuted for your belief.

    Stryks, some definitions of blackmail for you. I assume you have a computer and internet so you can look them up too.

    ‘any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.’ (payment does not necessarily have to be monetary)

    to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone’s actions I could go on explaning blackmail from the common law viewpoint but for now these will suffice.

  • Anonymous

    That information is not correct.  Go to google “skeptical science arguments”, click the entry named something like ”Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and … – Skeptical Science”, and find that argument in the list.  Click on the short response to get the detailed view.

  • Anonymous

    Nice post there Mick.  I like the way you try to blend some sleight of hand (defining blackmail but dismissing the legality) with an attempt to discredit me on the basis that I believe something different to yourself.  Too far gone indeed.

    These are not people, they are corporate entities.  They have no beliefs of their own.  They are not being persecuted.  They are not being forced to do anything.  

    As corporate citizens, they spend millions on positioning themselves as positive influences in our lives in order to increase customer conversions and loyalty.  They have this ‘persona’ to make us like them.  Their stance on this issue, should they choose to take a stance, also feeds into this ‘persona’.  The threat to these businesses is that this new aspect will diminish their standing in the public eye.  This is not due to any action by any outside entity.  

    And as for the definition, you would have to consider information in the public domain to be a revelation to apply.  Clearly this is not the case.  If we are in a room of 100 people and I say to you “You’re wearing green pants – go change them or I’ll tell everyone”, it is not blackmail simply because it doesn’t require me to tell anyone for them to know.  They just have to look.

    If they were threatening to reveal something secret, that’d be a different matter.  But it’s not.

    Regardless, there is little point arguing about it.  It’s not illegal (as it would be if were actually blackmail) and from my perspective not even immoral.  Getup is entitled to forward what ever information they choose to their members, and they are, in turn, entitled to take whatever action they see fit.

  • Nikkoh

    Thanks I did go and check out skeptical science arguments
    and it looks really good very good site but it is unlike this web site because
    they have a good debate happening and sounds like it’s from people that may
    have some science background. The thing you are forgetting though is that
    science is based on theories and it doesn’t mean that what science believes now
    will be the same in 20 years. The one thing I noticed is that there is a good
    balanced debate happening so I can’t understand why you sent me there it’s not
    like they know the answers.

    Offcourse I wouldn’t leave a comment there because that debate is beyond my intelligence
    but  I have noticed that others that do
    and that are not so informed don’t get slammed so what do you mean. You try to
    act intelligent and perhaps you are more intelligent that I but I still have an

    I have never tried to make out like I’m intelligent in fact I have admitted
    that I am just your every day hard working little battler with no certificates
    or diplomas I’ve worked all my life never received any benefits and listened to
    my father who was adamant that I should pay my home as quick as I can and then I
    can live my life more comfortably. I have done that I have no loans the house
    is paid of so are the cars and everything and I find my self struggling more
    than ever. A tax is not the way to solve the problem because now I am going to
    struggle even more and I feel sorry for all those little battlers that are
    still renting or paying of their homes because if I’m struggling I can’t
    imagine the position they are going to be in.

    Strykes I am not the only one that said the words blackmail but of course you
    picked on the weakest the one who is not as smart as the others I’d like to see
    you pick on Mick who is highly intelligent more than both of us, go and have a
    debate with him, Because he will rip you apart. I have looked at my posts and I
    don’t understand what you mean I’m just expressing my opinion, my freedom of
    speech it may sound stupid to you but it may sound interesting to others, they
    sound ok to someone like me with lower intelligence, so others that are at my
    level will understand what I am trying to express.

    And Strykes don’t pretend that you have studied Freud, be cause if you had you
    would realise that it’s his Psychology that governments use on the general
    population. So like I said if you think I sound dumb and that my posts sound
    dumb it’s because I am dumb Buddy, so it is pointless to argue with me because
    you think your more intelligent than me so Go and have a debate with MICK who
    is more intelligent than your self and try and convince him of your beliefs.


    And one more thing you say I dismiss or ignore posts
    supporting climate change, but instantly respond in support of those who post
    comments you agree with, isn’t that human nature don’t you yourself do that and
    yes you are right I do do that, you are correct 100% and the reason is because
    my studies tell me that a AGW is a big lie so offcourse I’m going to respond to
    those that have the same beliefs as me, So what exactly do you Mean? I dismiss
    or ignore posts supporting climate change because I have read the science from
    both sides from leading scientist and for some reason I tent to agree with AGW
    is lie, maybe that is stupid of me and maybe in the future I will think how
    stupid of me, but for now I haven’t found no source to make me think otherwise.

    And Strykes once again It Is BLACKMAIL and if you can’t see that perhaps you are of lower inteligence that my self.

  • Nikkoh

    AAHH???? Mate you really make no sense. I must be Dumber than i thought becuase your logic to your argument sounds silly to me i tend to agree with Mick.

  • Anonymous

    I sent you there so that you can find out some information from factual sources, instead of the repetition of propaganda found here.  I thought you might get something out of it.  Like, for example, that climate change is not a hollow theory, but is in fact backed up by highly reputable observational data and modelling.

    Believe it or not, I’m not of the opinion that you are dumb.  I wouldn’t waste my time trying to point you in the direction of useful information if I did.  What would be the point if you were unable to comprehend what you saw there?

    I have in fact studied, among others, Freud.  He explained quite a few observed behaviors in ways that were quite revolutionary in their time, but he has no ownership of our thought processes, and many of his interpretations have since been superseded, however popular they remain.  

    The Government do no doubt approach many issues from a psychological standpoint, as do most entities which interact with people.  This is not to say that ‘brainwashing’ is what they are trying to achieve, or that brainwashing is in fact even possible in real-world scenarios.  If it were possible, then they are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it don’t you think?

    For the record, I never attacked anyone, let alone someone I perceived to be the weakest link.  In fact I never initiated discussion with you at all.  I merely responded to your comment on my post (which was to Mike Elliot) to let you know that the information you provided was, in my opinion, incorrect.  No attack.

    If you still think that AGW is a lie after reading the information on that site then I’m afraid you might need to go back and read again.  It’s all right there for you.  On this issue, you can determine the level of your knowledge instead of ignoring the information and labeling yourself dumb.

  • Anonymous

    Of course you do … it’s called confirmation bias.

  • Nikkoh

    Hey strykes, the website you sent me is a really good site
    and I thanked for it and I will definitely go and read all the information, I didn’t
    have the time on the weekend but I will definitely try and go through it, but I
    am sure that even if I do change my mined that AGW is really happening because
    of carbon dioxides, I don’t think that I will be convinced that a TAX is the
    way to tackle the problem, first off all I have completely lost faith in this
    Government but maybe with a change of Government who knows I may be convinced.


    When I talk about brainwashing what I mean is for example, Gilied
    addressed the nation and lied by saying the words it’s a TAX on pollution when
    it clearly isn’t a pollutant, even if they are correct and lets say carbon
    dioxide is causing AGW it is still the main essence of life and to call it a
    pollution is an outright lie if we where talking about carbon monoxides then
    she would have been correct.


    It makes me  believe
    that the only reason they decided to go with Carbon dioxides is because most
    renewable energies still produce Carbon Dioxides so even if we head down that
    track they can still tax us because no renewable energy emits carbon monoxides
    for example Hydrogen energy. Don’t you think they are Brainwashing people by
    saying the words it’s a TAX on pollution? Who doesn’t want to clean the air of
    carbon monoxides for better health but it’s not carbon monoxides they are
    trying to tax. They are lying to scare us and to get us on their side by repeating the word Polution, Polution over and over again, so how
    can you agree with a Government that has continued to lie from the minute they
    got into power.


    What if by reducing carbon Dioxides and i really mean if because i don’t really know, what if plant life struggles to
    produce the food we need what is the point of saving the planet at the cost
    that humans die from starvation because we can’t produce food quickly enough to
    feed the worlds population. I would rather take my chances with AGW which mayor
    not be happening rather than killing the most important source of food for
    plant life which we all know is correct and is part of our food chain.

  • Nikkoh

    it’s called confirmation bias, that statement can go both ways Mate you know that.

  • Bill Koutalianos

    Satellite based temperature data is generally considered the most reliable source of global temperature data. Google UAH satellite temperature data and go to the drroyspencer site. UAH stands for University of Alabama Huntsville. There are several other similarly respected sites and their data is fairly closely matched. Apart from the 1998 El Nino peak and the 2010 El Nina peak, we have had a remarkably flat temperature trend for over a decade now.

  • Anonymous

    Yes it is called confirmation bias, which is why I called it that.  But I’m not the one who just backed someone else’s point of view regardless of evidence or substance. It seems you chose to back it out of feigned lack of understanding instead.

    I on the other hand have presented evidence to you regarding the validity of AGW.  Evidence you have not refuted.  This credible evidence suggests that I am not evincing confirmation bias in this instance.

  • Anonymous

    Well, the tax is a different matter altogether to the science.

    I’m not really going to defend the tax … I don’t really think it needs me to.  It’s not my area so I’ll leave it to better minds than mine to determine the best course of action.  I have reservations … there are a lot of unknowns.  Having said that, I do believe something needs to be done – but I’m stuck for making alternate suggestions of my own.  As I said, it’s not really my area.

    The science on the other hand is widely misunderstood, and I think that we, as a country, need to stop listening to the messages being put out in the media and by both sides of politics, and really take some time to get an understanding of the science.

    That site is a good starting point, and I hope you do get a chance to take a look (there is a topic in there discussing CO2 in the natural environment which may shed some light on your point in the last paragraph).

  • Nikkoh

    Strykes I went to the site Sceptical Science and I don’t
    know mate to me it just sounds to much like another environmentalists site,
    Their articles are to one sided, as impressive as they may sound I have read
    more impressive articles against the theory of AGW in depth with more detail,
    the problem is it doesn’t all sink in and i forget allot of it.

    I’ll keep checking it out to be fair to my self and I’ll see
    what I think but it annoys me because I feel like I’m in an environmentalist


    Styles the tax is bad mate at least the GST we new roughly
    what it was all about, they told us 10% and it has remained at 10% for the last
    10 years or so and they knew how it was going to work because they had studied
    other currency’s that had something similar.


    The scary thing about this tax is they have no idea and
    because no other country in the world has anything like this tax it could end
    up being a disaster. 10% of the money they collect they sent to the UN, it’s
    like a tax I suppose, how do we know that the UN won’t ask for a bigger % later
    on, the Government would have to raise the tax to $25.00 a tone or $30.00 a ton
    how can we guarantee that this can’t happen if we still have no idea on any


    The Government has been put there by the people to manage
    the Country, so if they are about to make the biggest change in the history of
    the country shouldn’t we have the right to voice our opinion, shouldn’t we have
    the right to have complete details, which fully explains what they propose to
    do. Shouldn’t we have a right to agree or disagree on their proposal, after all
    we are there Employers, we do pay there wages, we give them a great career by
    funding it, and a huge Bonus at the end it’s not like they are doing us a
    favour we pay dearly for it.


    What they should be doing is investing in renewable
    technology they could have invested the NBN money there, after all they keep
    telling us that we need to act now.

    There are a couple of guys that invented a magnetic device
    in Queensland
    that they claim have broken the laws of physics which is possible because
    science is only fact until proven different. I’ve seen the schematics and it
    looks possible,  why not start there,
    what if these guys have really broken the laws of science and together with the
    help of Government Australia develops this revolutionary device, imagine the
    money that the Government can make if Australia is the first to Paten such a

    But we will never know because we have to settle with a
    stupid TAX like that’s going to solve the problem. The cost will be passed on
    to the consumer and the profits will go to the new business of politics, we
    really are moving forward aren’t we.

  • Mick

    Stryks my last comment is off to the moderator so I’ll try this one. you don’t understand business or business people Stryks. Businesses, even those that are legal entities in their own right are run by people who have an interest in the success of the business. In many cases the Ceo’s and directors are shareholders so they have a vested interest in the success of the company. Some are partnerships which once again are run by people who are interested in the success of the business. What getup is attempting to do is to say to businesses that if they support the advertising campaign or don’t believe in AGW then they will inflict financial pain on these businesses by encouraging about 500000 people not to buy from them. Sounds a lot like blackmail. Let’s look at your comment,

    “If they were threatening to reveal something secret, that’d be a different matter”.

    Isn’t that exactly what they are trying to do? Do you know if those businesses are involved or support the advertising campaign? Do you know if they believe in AGW? Do you know if they are willing to withdraw their support or resign from whatever organisations they belong to? No of course not, That is the information being sought so in that respect it is secret so by your own words they are threatening to reveal something that at the present time is secret,  in order to discourage people from using those businesses if the answers are not in line with the ones being sought. Once again, sounds like blackmail.

    What you did stryks is what is commonly referred to as “scoring an own goal”.

  • Anonymous

    This information is also incorrect.  Follow the instructions below to follow up if you are of a mind.

  • Jim Simpson

    Hi Nikkoh – You’re right to be suspicious about that web site that Stryks sent you to.  It’s been debunked some time ago – go and Google ‘motls blogspot john cook’ and let that information ‘wash over you’.  Enjoy. 

  • Anonymous

    Thanks Helen. Since we were in touch with the AFGC member companies, we heard back with plenty of positive replies, and confirmation that they wouldn’t be supporting a multi-million dollar scare campaign – so at this stage, that campaign is on hold. Thanks for your kind support!

  • Anonymous

    Hi Tristan

    Thanks – I got your email about this yesterday. I’m working on tracking down the source of where this came from, but as far as I’m aware, it comes from modelling done pre-policy announcement and in conjunction with research gathered by our friends at SayYes Australia. I absolutely understand your concerns and am looking into it further!

    Thanks again!

  • Nikkoh

    Jim, thanks very much this site is really good, Lots of information i am enjoying it. I think stryks needs to go and check this out.

  • Nikkoh

    Stryks. the site Sceptical science Is definetly an enviromentalists site it’s to one side and it doesnt convince me at all it only angers me more, i gave it ago but not for me you should go and check the link that Jim Simpson suggests, it’s good to go and check what the other side is saying i just did it.

  • Bobl

    Here, I’ll show you how to use your brain.

    We pay 8Bn per annum for 5% reduction that isn’t a reduction ( or about 15 Million Tonnes Co2 Per Annum), now how much warming reduction do we buy. (about 0.00004 degrees or at best 0.0002), Now lets assume that the whole world does that enough to offset 2 degrees of warming and how much does that Cost ?   well – About 100- 550 Trillion dollars or 2-10 times Global GDP. So can you see here that from an economics point of view taxing CO2 can’t work ?  If you are really serious about reducing CO2 you need another way, because a tax (or ETS) – of any amount CANT DELEVER SUFFICIENT ABATEMENT.

    If you really are a true progressive and believe in the environment, social justice, ending world hunger, saving the whales and so on then you need to back a method that delivers other benefits aside from Carbon Dioxide abatement – Otherwise all the money that is sucked into this fiscal black hole doesn’t find its way to the poor, the disadvantaged or to tackle real environmental problems and you make these other things much worse while you hardly fix global warming at all. For example the thrust for biofuel has reduced the world supply of food-aid. As another example, how many starving children could we feed with the money being used to shut down hazelwood.

    Those of you out there who truly believe in progressive policies need to get out from under the carbon tax blanket and only support things that truly help the poor, the innocent, and the environment

  • Anonymous

    Bobl – how exactly are you going to show me how to use my brain?  Perhaps some more horrendously flawed calculations about no CO2 emissions reductions and just planting trees to offset.  What a shocker of a stuff up that concept was, and this one is no better.

    Your misguided calculations aside, if you remove emissions credits from the pool, then guess what, regardless of the cost paid per credit, you STILL get REAL reduction to the limit the credits are capped at.  There is a cost to reduction equation, but given your track record I think I’ll take my advice from, well .. you know … experts.  You clearly don’t understand the issues here, and until you educate yourself you should refrain from commenting.

    And misdirection wont cut it either I’m afraid.  Social injustice is NOT a key target to be achieved by applying a tax to carbon.  They are targets worth achieving, perhaps by some plan designed to achieve them.

    Those of you out there who truly believe in progressive policies need to be sure not to confuse the carbon tax /ETS with other policies which help the poor, the innocent, and the environment.  All are good and worthy, but the former is exclusive to all the latter.

  • Bobl

    Until you refute my mathematics with mathematics I shall note your acceptance that I am right about this. This is how you need to use your brain,  prove that the total cost of carbon abatement for 2 degrees of cooling  will be practical which means less than about 1 trillion dollars P.A. (about 2% of Global GDP) otherwise you are probably killing someone from hunger… The math isn’t hard – Good luck. While you are at it do your own math on forestry, and look up the oxygen cycle that we are apparently trying to evade with CCS. Have you for example read the scientific papers around atmospheric deoxygenation.

    So, undoubtably I understand the issues much netter than yourself my friend, ecological, social and economic because I have bothered to do my own research and calculations based on the scientific literature. Global warming poses no threat while famine and disease clearly does – The trillions being spent on this non-problen are frankly better spent elsewhere.

    Taxes mathematically are incapable of solving this particular problem and our Government are absolutely barking up the wrong tree wasting billions that could be used to help improve the human condition. The irony is that both can be addressed together but you don’t seem to want to.

    I’ts a travesty

  • Anonymous

    My friend, you can note whatever you want to note, however misdirected you may be.  I will state emphatically that I most certainly do not agree with you, and you offer very little to persuade me to do otherwise.

    You want to stand on your research and mathematics, and by all means do.  I meanwhile, will stand by the fact you posted one of your ‘researched mathematics’ theories claiming a CO2 sequestration rate of 550 tons per hectare requiring 0.17% of Australian farmland to match our current emissions.  Assuming you have read my dissection of that claim then you will understand why, in my opinion, your ‘understanding’ of these issues is lacking in the extreme.  You were clearly incorrect, with more realistic figures to the tune of 20% of all farmland or 11.7% of the entire country with the majority of the usable plantation land in the same place as the bulk of the Australian population.

    You proposed this in lieu of ANY CO2 reduction scheme, which would inevitably lead to a greater plantation requirement to meet our ever growing emissions.  This oversight alone is enough to discredit your opinion, strident though it may be.  And all these things before the latest report suggesting effective sequestration rates are overestimated by 20%.

    If you HAD done your research of course, you would have seen elsewhere on this board that I do not intend to argue in favour of or defend the carbon tax (though I clearly believe it to be the best approach I have seen).  Had your keen eyes been reading my above posts in fact, you would have seen that I was discussing the climate science and the stretching of the definition of ‘blackmail’.  I was NOT discussing the carbon tax.

    Yet you post your random theories about a subject I did not raise and yet expect me to refute or accept your stance.  Well, I’m afraid not my friend.  I’m not here to be your sounding board or to walk you through the deficiencies in your logic.  I’ll not even defend the tax, as I have stated previously on this board, because it neither requires or requests my defence.  Why waste words on something that will either be, or will not be.

    I’m not fool enough to think that my words in a forum will change the outcome one iota.  It seems I am in a minority in this belief.

    Believe what you will however, I have wasted enough words on you and will waste no more.

  • Nikkoh

    Oh Stryks, come on mate you sound allot more intelligent than
    this. Just try and understand what most of us are saying mate, you don’t try
    and fix a problem with another TAX. First of all another tax such as this one
    will destroy the Country, we are trying to TAX an invisible odourless Gas how
    the hell do we even measure that, I mean how do we know that we will be taxed
    fairly. At least with the GST we have an idea but with this tax we have no


    Styks Most clean energy even though they produce very little
    Carbon Monoxides “Pollution” Still Emit a High volume of Carbon dioxides, so
    even though we may clean the planet of air pollution we might still be emitting
    high volumes of Carbon Dioxides so when does the TAX STOP I mean do we pay, do
    our Grand children still pay, or even our Great Grand children when does it

    My guess would be that governments might find a clean source
    of energy but I bet you that it will be one that still emits Carbon Dioxides
    because that will keep the money coming in, once they pass this TAX it will
    never be lifted and generations will continue to suffer.


    I know you care about the environment and so do I and most
    of us on this site but the problem is that the Governments don’t care because
    they would have done something about cleaning the planet along time ago and
    they probably would have stopped dropping bombs all over the world which they
    are still doing. Off course they appear like they are trying to do something
    and they are very convincing with their scientific facts from their side of the
    science but look at how much they have to gain.

    You see they have all the power because the individual person
    forgets who Politicians and prime ministers really are, they are just public
    servants working for us the public.


    Any Government who tries to force something that it’s people
    doesn’t want or does it in a sneaky or suspicious way is in contempt of it’s
    people and as far as I’m concerned in a democracy they are breaking the law, in
    a Dictatorship or a communist regime it would be different it would be within
    the law. Any Government who tries to suppress freedom of speech or tries to
    suppress individuals who have a different opinion and tries to suppress media
    and journalists in my opinion is in contempt of it’s people and as far as I’m
    concerned in a democracy they are breaking the law, in a Dictatorship or a
    communist regime it would be different it would be within the law.


    Stryks are you not a little suspicious by their actions, and
    are you not suspicious by their timing of this TAX, please have a look around
    the globe and see the real problems the world faces at the moment. Mate if Italy falls then Europe
    has a major problem that will affect even us, economists are predicting another
    Global financial crisis. If the US
    falls which is starting to look more likely we then will have a Global
    depression and we all studied the great depression at school well this time it
    will be at least 10 times worse.


    Stryks it’s good that people like you and me care about the environment,
    we all have been saying this for years that we need to clean the planet but not
    at the cost of human life, what is the point of cleaning the planet if we destroy
    human life. If let say our government cared about human life why did they allow
    Ethanol fuels at the risk of putting a strain on our food supply, how many
    third world Countries are suffering because of our and Global governments decisions.
    We should be feeding the poor not using that food supply as Bio Fuels.


    Stryks the reason why most us are upset is because they are
    lying by using the words a TAX on pollution when clearly Carbon Dioxides are
    not a pollutant they are trying to give us the impression that they will TAX
    the smog which they are not but if they really where at least there would be an
    end to the TAX at some stage but taxing carbon dioxides I believe there will
    never be an end, and at least Smog can be seen to the naked eye but carbon
    dioxides are invisible. If they were trying to tax Carbon Monoxides “Pollution”
    I think I would not have not been so suspicious of them and would have accepted
    it because I have been always arguing that we need to clean the Planet of
    Pollution for better health.


    Does it not anger you that the prime minister lied, I know
    that all politicians lie with broken promises, but this time it was not a
    broken promise this time it was deception and a straight out lie which affected
    the outcome of the last election. Are you not a little bit suspicious that we
    went from the word AGW to climate change, did you not realise why they changed
    the word because Europe was experiencing some
    of their coldest winters, I don’t know but to me I smell a rat.


    We all want the same thing, we all want to live in a cleaner
    planet but I don’t believe that a TAX can possibly help solve the problem.

blog comments powered by Disqus