Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

DMM: New DMM "Belay Master 2" screwgate. I-beam construction and plastic clip. (State of the Art!) N/B Only 1 left!  $25.00
28% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Poll Option Votes Graph
Yes. Tax me please. I love taxes. 59
75% 
No. Are you nuts ? 14
18% 
Ha ha, I don't pay any tax. 6
8% 

 Page 4 of 9. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 170
Author
OT: Plebiscite
spicelab
22/06/2011
4:55:48 PM
On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>So a newspaper in China in 2007 points out Australia's higher per capita
>emissions. Hardly a big deal. If we stopped exporting coal and iron ore
>tomorrow and shut down our power stations, China would still be on track
>to massively increase their emissions.
>
>As Kevin Rudd so tastefully put during Copenhagen "those Chinese rat f*ckers
>are trying to rat f*ck us".

I guess that's a "no" then.

Followed up by some typical denialist ground-shifting.

In any case, staggering cheek from Kevin Rudd to lambast the Chinese. Rudd, a political animal of the nastiest variety, cared not-at-all about AGW policy and only ever saw it as an opportunity to wedge the Coalition.

maxdacat
22/06/2011
5:20:02 PM
On 22/06/2011 uwhp510 wrote:
>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>>BLAH BLAH (liberal party denialist propaganda) BLAH BLAH
>
>On 22/06/2011 Everyone else wrote:
>>(Concise rebuttal)
>
>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>>Ah-ha but I bet you haven't considered this (unrelated tangent subject
>designed to divert attention from previous rebuttal)
>
>
Why don't you say why you think the carbon tax is such a good idea instead or what i've said that is incorrect instead of trotting out the denialist label? What you have called my tangents were responses to other post about the EU and the No Dams campaign

Eduardo Slabofvic
22/06/2011
7:57:01 PM
On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
> the No Dams campaign

Not a tangent. But a rejoinder to Doug Bruce's comment on poorly worded Plebiscites. This being a thread titled Plebiscite - discussion of plebiscites is relevant.

I raise the "No Dams" campaign by way of promoting discussion of what to do when faced with a poorly worded plebiscite options - as is the case with this thread. I asked who remembers because I was 16 at the time and only just remember it.

For the record - from the ever faithful WikiIcan'tbebothereddoingproperresearchia "On 12 December 1981, the state government held a referendum, the Power Referendum 1981, in an attempt to break the deadlock.[6] The referendum gave voters only two choices, one for each dam proposal. In rounded figures, 47% voted in favour of the original Gordon below Franklin scheme, 8% for the compromise Gordon above Olga scheme, and 45% voted informally.[6] There had been a significant campaign for voters to write "No Dams" on their ballot papers, and in total more than 33% of voters did this"

billk
22/06/2011
9:15:45 PM
On 22/06/2011 Gavo wrote:
>Is the OP the same person who stated in another climate related thread
>that ocean levels have remained unchanged for the last 50 years?

Yes

Gavo
22/06/2011
10:33:16 PM
On 22/06/2011 billk wrote:
>Yes

Brilliant

IdratherbeclimbingM9
22/06/2011
11:43:48 PM
On 22/06/2011 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>I raise the "No Dams" campaign
(snip)
>I was 16 at the time and only just remember it.
>
>For the record - from the ever faithful WikiIcan'tbebothereddoingproperresearchia
>"On 12 December 1981, the state government held a referendum, the Power
>Referendum 1981, in an attempt to break the deadlock.[6] The referendum
>gave voters only two choices, one for each dam proposal. In rounded figures,
>47% voted in favour of the original Gordon below Franklin scheme, 8% for
>the compromise Gordon above Olga scheme, and 45% voted informally.[6] There
>had been a significant campaign for voters to write "No Dams" on their
>ballot papers, and in total more than 33% of voters did this"

Oy, who read my 'No Dams' vote? I thought it was supposed to be secret!
rightarmbad
23/06/2011
1:40:01 AM
Just as an aside, I remember reading in New Scientist, that in Germany (I think) where almost every roof in the city has solar power, that the power companies were complaining that there was too much solar being generated and that they could not scale down the coal enough to accommodate it.........

What a bugger of a problem.

Doug
23/06/2011
6:08:33 AM
On 22/06/2011 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:

>I raise the "No Dams" campaign by way of promoting discussion of what
>to do when faced with a poorly worded plebiscite options - as is the case
>with this thread. I asked who remembers because I was 16 at the time and
>only just remember it.
>
>For the record - from the ever faithful WikiIcan'tbebothereddoingproperresearchia
>"On 12 December 1981, the state government held a referendum, the Power
>Referendum 1981, in an attempt to break the deadlock.[6] The referendum
>gave voters only two choices, one for each dam proposal. In rounded figures,
>47% voted in favour of the original Gordon below Franklin scheme, 8% for
>the compromise Gordon above Olga scheme, and 45% voted informally.[6] There
>had been a significant campaign for voters to write "No Dams" on their
>ballot papers, and in total more than 33% of voters did this"
Yes. And I was one of those. Amazing - and heartening - level of civil disobedience, given the very hard push by the Laborials to try to convince the general populace that they only had two choices. As it turned out, and what the huge majority of Tasmanians are glad that it did, especially with the ongoing parlous state of our economy, was the third choice prevailed: No Dam. If we'd had to pay off the dam we'd really be fcuked. As an aside, if the pulp mill that Gunns want to build in the beautiful Tamar Valley ever gets built, it's the Tasmanian taxpayer that will end up footing the bill for that too when they can't sell their pulp at a profit.

evanbb
23/06/2011
8:45:42 AM
On 22/06/2011 Pat wrote:
>What happened to a cap and trade system linked to a reduction target? It
>seems to be the better way to go if you put a price on carbon emissions
>and a cap and allow the market to generate credits.
>
>Does anyone know if this is working in other countries?

The proposed 'Tax' is likely to be an actual Cap and Trade system in the future. The reason it's being called a tax now is that the price is capped.Remove the cap and it is a trading system. Credits can (probably, details not finalised) be traded currently, but for a maximum value of $20.

evanbb
23/06/2011
8:48:15 AM
On 22/06/2011 Linze wrote:

>i think the proposition generally is more.... Democracy

A bunch of smart stuff. _like_

My understanding of democracy is that every 3 years (or 4, whatever) you get to decide who makes the decisions for the next 3 years. Democracy is not about voting for every decision.

evanbb
23/06/2011
8:50:59 AM
On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>Part of that reality Bruce is that Australia's emissions are a drop in
>the ocean when compared to those of the rest of the world especially China.
> Post Copenhagen, no global consensus for action exists so unilateral measures
>are futile. New Zealand is now considering scaling back their own ETS
>by reconsidering the planned inclusion of agriculture and the doubling
>of the carbon price.

Okay fine Max, nail your ethics to the mask. Essentially you're saying 'if no one else is doing anything, I won't either'.

My ethics are different to yours then. I see a problem and have already made the sacrifices to make a difference. No one else has done it? Who cares. If your ethics extend only as far as the lowest common denominator, that's your choice. Just state it clearly.

evanbb
23/06/2011
8:53:29 AM
On 22/06/2011 widewetandslippery wrote:
>What direct benefit does a carbon tax give me? I am not interested in science
>unless, it tells me extra tax makes my life better at least $4$ in 2
> years

The deets aren't released yet, but smart people will benefit. The cost of electricity will go up, and the flow on costs of everything that uses electricity will go up. The Government plans to compensate you for this, but assuming that you will make no lifestyle changes. So, if you change a couple of things, and reduce your exposure to the tax, you will be overcompensated.
maxdacat
23/06/2011
9:02:00 AM
On 22/06/2011 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>> the No Dams campaign
>
>Not a tangent. But a rejoinder to Doug Bruce's comment on poorly worded
>Plebiscites. This being a thread titled Plebiscite - discussion of plebiscites
>is relevant.
>
cheers for the clarification.

evanbb
23/06/2011
9:02:13 AM
On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>So a newspaper in China in 2007 points out Australia's higher per capita
>emissions. Hardly a big deal. If we stopped exporting coal and iron ore
>tomorrow and shut down our power stations, China would still be on track
>to massively increase their emissions.
>
>As Kevin Rudd so tastefully put during Copenhagen "those Chinese rat f*ckers
>are trying to rat f*ck us".

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you actually need this explained to you? I'm assuming your ignorance. Don't take offence because you've given me no reason to assume you are not ignorant.

Australia, the US, and Europe are all advanced economies. Services based, high standards of living, high energy use per capita. We got there, ahead of China and India, by digging up and burning cheap coal. We spent a lot longer doing it than China and so benefited from destroying the atmosphere. It is widely argued that since China ad India are less developed they deserve the chance at cheap electricity to develop to the same point.

China are increasing their emissions, but per capita they are MILES behind us. Everyone is. Australia is currently third in per capita emissions and number one by some distance in stationary energy emissions. We are also the world's largest exporter of coal.

One of the major reasons we emitt so much is aluminium smelting. There are half a dozen smelters in Australia, each one a SIGNIFICANT energy user. The Newcastle Alcoa plant uses 27% of NSW grid energy. Smelters have traditionally been built in countries with the cheapest energy sources; there are smelters in Greenland using hydro, also Brazil I think, and big plans for resource processing using Icelandic geothermal. So the smelters move in and sign direct purchase contracts with generators. It is no accident that Bayswater power station and Alcoa smelter are near each other.

Australia could significantly cut their emissions by abandoning the aluminium smelting sector. If it employs more than 10,000 people I will be very surprised.

evanbb
23/06/2011
9:03:30 AM
On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>Tasmania gets most of its power from hydro so obviously they have some
>dams, which is a good thing or a bad thing depending which green prism
>you view it through.

Tasmania was a net importer of electricity last financial year. Droughts.

The 'prism' you speak of balances the desire for on-tap, clean energy with the need to flood a valley and all the methane that produces. The WWF do not consider dams over 25MW renewable.

StuckNut
23/06/2011
9:05:40 AM
Evan for PM?

evanbb
23/06/2011
9:07:38 AM
On 22/06/2011 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>I raise the "No Dams" campaign by way of promoting discussion of what
>to do when faced with a poorly worded plebiscite options

Fascinating. And the Greens party was born.

kuu
23/06/2011
9:10:03 AM
TANGENT WARNING!

On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>
(snip)
>
Democracy is not about voting for every decision.
>
But think about the possibilities if we did!

Current technologies could easily provide a mechanism for the populace to vote on every (major?) issue put before our parliament. Two buttons -- one labelled "Yes" the other labelled "No" and we all get to press one of them to decide the matter. Could even make politicians redundant eventually I suppose with the addition of a further mechanism allowing citizens to put forward matters for discussion and decision.

Press the "Yes" button for Kevinism. (Not the Rudd type!)

maxdacat
23/06/2011
9:10:46 AM
On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>
>My ethics are different to yours then. I see a problem and have already
>made the sacrifices to make a difference. No one else has done it? Who
>cares. If your ethics extend only as far as the lowest common denominator,
>that's your choice. Just state it clearly.

I would disagree my ethics are bottom of the barrel, they are more geared towards opposing bad policy. As stated above the reason I consider the tax bad policy is because it does nothing to achieve it's aim of reducing carbon emissions, due to the compensation element. It is also unilateral action which given the lack of international consensus can be likened to pi$$ing in the wind. These are two quite big issues with the proposal and fairly compelling reasons not to support it. I haven't heard yet heard a cogent rebuttal on here from you or anyone else, in fact i've been characterised as a "moron" and a "denialist". The quality of arguments for the pro side seem a bit lacking.

rodw
23/06/2011
9:20:17 AM
On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:

>Australia could significantly cut their emissions by abandoning the aluminium
>smelting sector. If it employs more than 10,000 people I will be very surprised.

Tell that to the 10,000 people who depend on it...comments like that really undermine your "lets all hold hands and do our bit" mantra.....your bit to turn off a heater or two...their bit to loose job, house income and future.....

 Page 4 of 9. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 170
There are 170 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints