Why Carbon Tax is bad – SPECIAL REPORT
If it cant stop Global warming, and Russia China & USA wont introduce it, What is the foundation for Gillard’s Carbon Tax?
(Article, 14,900 words. Est. 75 mins reading time excluding Videos. Take your time. Read a few bits each day. The education is worth it.)
When I first published this article 10 days ago, it still seemed like there was hope to save the day against the Carbon Tax. At the time, I asked the question “Why does this Government think a Carbon Tax is a foregone conclusion?“.
Now that the Clean Energy Bill is finally passed into law through both the Lower House and the Senate, on 8-Nov-2011, it is time to look at the question differently.
So, Why on earth has the Labor Party rammed through – so quickly – a law with such huge repercussions. And without due democratic procedure and meaningful democratic debate on the the propriety of such a tax?
Despairingly, the Senate as a whole has rarely shown the testicular fortitude to act as the democratic bastion it was originally meant to be. Yet again, this toothless Senate has rubber-stamped the decision of the Lower House following strict party-political allegiances rather than the senators themselves using the political and legal system properly and voting with their common sense and their individual consciences.
Who could have conceived that this Labor Party, that only gained power through the barest of margins just over a year ago, and effectively without any mandate for a Carbon Tax from the majority of the population, AND on the basis of an outright lie to the Australian Public, could manage to flout the democratic process and introduce this abominable law come into effect from 1-Jul-2012.
Maybe you think these words are too strong? Hmm.. Perhaps I should remind you …
It is almost too much to bear for a pummeled idealist like myself to watch all this happen in our Country. To sit dumbfounded as good people stood by and did nothing (or too little) whilst this folly came into being. To watch the apathy spread like a fungus.
Our only slim hope now is Tony Abbott and his ” No! To Everything” Party coming in at the next election, and fixing the Carbon Tax debacle. Even then, though, he will really have his work cut out for him unraveling the horrendous mess that’s been created. He will have to –
(a) repeal the Clean Energy Laws themselves;
(b) unwind the legislative changes to the income tax law including the new higher Tax-Free thresholds,
(c) lay to waste the millions to be spent by Gillard establishing the carbon tax, and Abbott must spend more again to compensate those businesses and companies who will seek refunds from having paid the ill-conceived Carbon Tax already collected to that date
(d) with difficulty sell the concept of more reforms to the Australia Public just to presumably “get us back” to the status quo of today. Unless he can come up with the kind of ingenuity not usually afforded conservatives such as those in the Liberal Party.
Perhaps, below, after we take a closer look at the science, the logic, the psychology, the rhetoric, the purported solutions and the agenda’s of the big players in this little puppet show, we will be able to scrutinize more closely the motives of politicians like Gillard who don’t declare (and possibly aren’t even aware of) government conflicts of interest with big business and corporate lobbyists.
Even some smart, well-intentioned folk can be misled
About three months ago, when the rumblings about the Carbon Tax started to show themselves as a real threat, a trusted old friend of mine surprised me by saying that he supported Gillard’s proposed Carbon Tax legislation. I thought he knew better. It really bothers me how intelligent people could have fallen for this nonsense. Maybe, because he is a public servant working as a Regional Health Inspector, he felt overwhelmed by the need to be ‘green’. I don’t know.
1. This article is not about whether air pollution is “bad” or not. I say “Yea, Verily! Of course it’s bad” ….
2. ( …and I cant stress this enough) This article is not about whether global warming exists, and whether we should do something about it. Again, I say: “Yes it appears to exist” … And …”Let’s!” But let’s just be sure we both understand it better, and also target the true cause for it.
3. My objections against a carbon tax are partly based on science, but primarily based on the fact that it is bad politics.
The so-called Carbon Debate raises a number of axes to grind, quite separate from those just listed. So for the record, then, here is my little rant on why the Carbon Tax is bad. You may use it to enlighten your own misguided friends.
Dear, …<Insert name of Your Favourite Gillard Carbon Tax Supporter here:>…
First; Because it has been so since forever, I claim that every Man, Woman and Child should be entitled to freely use energy, and in particular fossil fuels, without reference to corporate intimidation or any form of regulatory control. Short of a World War III, there is just no compelling reason to mess with such a fundamental right. Just buy energy as/when you need it. [….”Yes, I know this is a controversial declaration. But listen to the entire argument before switching your mind off. Okay?]
Second; Be warned that as soon as Politicians, Banksters, Oil Producers etc. gain greater and greater indirect control over how / when people use their energy, true freedom will become crippled.
Third; Let’s hypothesize: If the world were on the brink of destruction, would you be happy to give some great dictator the right to tax you for functioning, eating or moving because they told you it was “for the greater good”.
… Well guess what, the world isn’t ending tomorrow…. But a carbon tax – if imposed – will effectively allow others (e.g. government, corporations, or the open market) to put a price on, and then tax you for essential freedoms like eating, moving, transporting, building, and warming yourself because ALL of these things rely on energy consumption and fossil fuels. Are we such fearful children that we should relinquish such essentials to a “great protector” like the government.
Now, don’t get paranoid or anything. But what if the “great protector” was not what you thought they were? … And what if “the great fear” was not as scary or dangerous as what they said it was? … and what if the “doomsayers” had some more nefarious agenda than just “saving the world from pollution”.
Don’t forget that Gillard has promised 10% of all revenue raised by the Australian Carbon Tax will go immediately to the United Nations for “their purposes”. No questions asked. Since when did we suddenly owe a tithe to any foreign entity?
And then, of course, after a very short 2-3 year period, this Carbon Tax system will turn into an Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Such a scheme is being set up for the wrong reasons. It is a grand charade. It is created by opportunists like the Gillard Government as an illicit revenue raiser because this mis-managed government can no longer keep account of, or pay for, their ‘Tax and Spend’ policies.
And lastly – alarmingly – this new law will cause a disintegration of basic legal and human rights. And ultimately (and here’s a shocker) – it will not save Australians nor will it save the world.
All I ask is that people think carefully, because otherwise you will probably put your trust in the wrong hands, and for the wrong reasons. Now let’s see why …
—> Next up … What exactly is “Carbon” ? [article cont’d] –>
What exactly is Carbon?
The ubiquitous Carbon Gas in our environment is an element crucially necessary for life on this planet. We are surrounded by it. We breathe it out. We eat it. Hey, we ARE it!
Carbon (C), however, is not the most abundant atmospheric gas. That honour goes to Nitrogen (N) comprising 78%, and Oxygen (O2) comprising 21% of the total. The 1% remaining balance of the atmosphere is made up of & Argon (0.93%), and Carbon Dioxide takes up the final 0.039%.
In fact, pure elemental carbon in the atmosphere is virtually non-existent. This 0.039% carbon referred to above (i.e. this last four-ten-thousandths of the atmosphere) is chemically compound bonded to other elements. It is therefore actually found as Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s) etc.
Perhaps also, at this point, I should indicate that the total Australian contribution to CO2 Emissions worldwide constitutes only 1.5% of global output. Multiply that out and you get the equivalent of Australia’s contribution to Carbon emissions being the same equivalent to 0.173 mm over 1 kilometer.
Furthermore, living things and no-longer-living things in the biosphere are technically not made of pure “Carbon” either. They are not made of graphite or diamond. They are instead made of complex biochemical molecules containing Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen (or “organic Hydro-Carbons”).
So, to recap: Only negligible proportions of the atmosphere contain pure carbon gas, and atmospheric carbon essentially only exists in compound form at less than four one-hundredths of one percent of the total atmosphere.
Isn’t it interesting that; In order to set up a new Tax, the government doesn’t refer to it’s correct name of “Carbon Compound Emissions”. Instead, (until very recently) they prefer the dumbed-down label of just calling it all ” ‘Carbon’ Tax”. **
Some might consider this to be a mere “innocent mis-labeling” or “abbreviation” by the government. It is not. The devil is always in the detail.
In fact, such mis-labeling is an extremely dangerous thing to do. Why? Because it’s like the government is saying :
“On this earth, every lump of wood living or dead, or piece of coal, every drop of oil, every ameoba, flower, fish, insect, animal, piece of poop or methane fart is actually a ‘Diamond’ … We now own and control all ‘diamonds’ … And we now make laws in perpetuity about how you can own and use all diamonds.”
In this instance, we can see that incorrect naming obscures truth. It causes broad public ignorance of exactly who and what is the culprit / cause of global warming. For those who choose not to analyse as closely as You or I, it also promotes ignorance, mis-interpretation, and mis-direction.
I say: If you want to set up a ‘Global Warming Tax’, they should call it that. Public perceptions, and earth-shattering law reforms that result from such perceptions must not be allowed to stray too far from the fundamental reasons for imposing a new tax NOR from the underlying science justifying the imposition. Lest (for the civil libertarians amongst us) this mis-naming becomes a breeding ground for dis-information and manipulation by those with vested interests.
* * [ Dr. Barry Jones, (a Carbon Tax supporter) in his recent commentary on ABC Radio show “Okham’s Razor”, noted that the Gillard government recently started changing their semantic emphasis from a “Carbon Tax” to a “Clean Energy Future”. Whilst this name-change effectively “re-brands” the Carbon Tax, it also blurs the original stated purpose of reducing global warming as allegedly caused by ‘Greenhouse emissions’.]
<– Click to play
—> Next up … Does the “Carbon Cycle” relate to a “Carbon Tax” ? [article cont’d] –>
The ‘Carbon Cycle’ is more pertinent than ‘Carbon Tax’
The Carbon Cycle refers to the way all carbonaceous materials on the planet rotate. For instance, plants pull in CO2, get eaten by animals, (and fishes) which then die, decay, might become coal/or oil, and then get stored and/or eventually re-emitted as CO2 ready to be absorbed by plants again.
Scientifically, the complex co-dependencies and interplay between carbon compounds on earth (not to mention bio-chemical interactions between atmospheric, terrestrial, marine, and subterranean ecosystems) still requires an enormous amount of research before they are fully understood.
The spanner in the works here, (and by imputation the alleged cause of the global warming) is the influence of man.
By digging up and intensively consuming coal and oil since the 18th Century, man is using up deposits of hydrocarbons that have been laid-down for millions of years. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained around 280 parts per million (ppm) whereas today, Carbon-based emissions comprise up to 390 ppm.
The Carbon Cycle is intricately tied to human actions. We have had thousands of square kilometers of trees cut down in Australia over the last 200 years. And the Lungs of the Planet (the Amazon), alarmingly, continues to be eroded by subsistence agriculture. We have a growing world population of meat-eaters (too many cows and pigs). And we have an insistence by corporations world-wide to stick with fossil fuels as the only viable energy source. Primarily because that’s all that the energy companies will offer.
The planetary Carbon Cycle can only be controlled or regulated by massive global re-forestation programs, and replacing all past used coal & oil back into the ground as used since the 18th Century, and filtering the earth’s oceans to extract carbon compounds absorbed in the top layers of seawater.
The problem is not that you cut down a tree, nor that you burn coal or oil to heat yourself. Nor is it that excess carbon compounds are produced by chemically breaking down organic materials like grass through the gut of a cow. The solution to the problem is not replacing that tree. Not using fossil fuels. And having less cows.
At this point in history, human technology is hopelessly inadequate to be able to make immediate massive tweaks to the Carbon Cycle of this planet. We can only chip away at the edges over time. The monopoly by fossil fuel providers might even make you think the notion is preposterous or hopeless. But if people comprehend the bigger picture, then it becomes apparent that the only sensible action legislators can do, (assuming CO2 emissions are a proven cause of global warming) is to directly hinder the proliferation of fossil fuel usage, and to strenuously promote cutting-edge new science and renewable energy sources.
Problematically, carbon tax proponents blame global warming almost exclusively upon human carbon-based emissions. So its now time for us to look into the alleged link between CO2 emissions and the so-called Greenhouse Effect.
—> Next up … The infamous “Greenhouse Effect” [article cont’d] –>
The Greenhouse Effect: Science from the olden days
In order to support her Carbon Tax, Gillard appears to rely primarily on the advices of people like Dr. Barry Jones. For example, if you listen to his commentary above, and to her congratulatory speeches, she virtually parrots his wording and terminology.
Gillard’s choice to favour a Carbon Tax is based on the fallacy of an Argument from Authority. After all, why should Barry Jones be trusted over all other scientists? Weakening her position even further, we should understand that Jones himself relies quite openly and unashamedly on “old science”.
The crux of the whole global warming debate all boils down to the key phrase “Greenhouse Effect“.
You need to be fully understood before we can proceed. This can be simply defined as …
“Average increase in global atmospheric air temperature“.
Based on the presumption that heat can be trapped in an atmospheric envelope,
The Concept suggests that if heat cannot escape normally it will cause a corresponding rise in average temperatures in that envelope.
Here below, my own research uncovers that the ‘old science’ arguments used to substantiate global warming as being due to gases like CO2 in the atmosphere” are sketchy and by no means definitive.
For proponents like Dr. Jones, the conclusive proof of a connection between Carbon and a Greenhouse effect derives from two concepts.
One is that carbon gases both absorb and re-emit heat energy in the infra-red spectrum when their electrons change their energy states around the atom. And
Two is that infra-red heat energy then stays in the atmosphere longer through an alleged Greenhouse Effect
Interestingly, for Dr. Jones (or Ms. Gillard), they don’t seem to appreciate the flawed scientific foundation on which they base their new law. For example :–
1. The science on which it is based was conceived between 100-170 years ago, when the discipline of “spectroscopy” comprised basically observing the colour changes in heated materials and comparing it to the effects on theoretical materials called “Blackbodies”. The “spectroscopy” of that time bore very little relation to the accurate moderate discipline of photon emission spectroscopy.
2. The development of the science of heat transfer by Fourier (1827) and Tyndall (1861) (upon which Arrhenius based his findings) relied on an old-time fictional conception of “Aethereal Heat Transfer”. Or alternately, that energy transferred from one body/particle to another by direct contact. At that time, neither Fourier, Tyndall nor Arrhenius barely understood modern conceptions of Electro-Magnetic Radiation, photon energy, and its links to electrons orbiting around atoms. (Please note: Photons and electrons hadn’t even been discovered until at least 16 years after Arrhenius in 1912 when Rutherford and Bohr developed their prototype atomic theory – See my own article “A Bunch of Quantum” in this here blog).
3. Svant Arrhenius (who created the formula for Greenhouse ΔF = α ln(C/C0) , and who also coined the term “Greenhouse Effect” in 1896) was criticized even back then for inaccuracy in his empirical measurements of energy absorption/emission rates of CO2.
4. Greenhouse Theory doesn’t take into account more recent research which shows that the old studies done in 1827 (Fourier), made absolutely NO distinction between kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer across a thermal contact. What this means is that whilst Arrhenius et al may have obtained allegedly accurate correlations between their experimental and measured data, they rally had no conception of the underlying physics of atoms, photons, electrons, and energy transfer that they were dealing with. I.e. they may as well have “fluked” the perceived accuracy of their data.
5. The original french writings of Fourier in 1827 included mis-translations by Burgess in 1837. Later, these two scientists were again mis-interpreted and generalized by Tyndall in 1861. And then, finally, inaccurate measurements of CO2 absorption rates were mis-applied in at least two ways by Arrhenius in 1896. Such that he :-
(a) improperly ignored the free-flow of atmospheric gases, as though the atmosphere was somehow hard-capped (like a glass greenhouse) and therefore disallowed heat energy dissipation back into space; and
(b) essentially ‘created energy from nothing’ by ‘double-counting’ the heat which is transferred from the atmosphere INTO-and-then-OUT-of the earth’s surface, thereby violating of both Kirchoff”s Law of Thermal Radiation and the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Putting these all “flawed scientific foundations” together, we can conclude that although these old scientists may have correlated somewhat accurate results in small scale experiments, the extrapolation of their findings into the large-scale complex atmospheric systems is essentially based on pure hypothesis.
—> Next up … The Many Causes of Global Warming [article cont’d] –>
The Many Causes of Global Warming
Many eminent scientists (as seen in the linked article) indicate the science is not settled. And show that many of the existing models of global warming are “dismal failures”.
An excellent article at http://www.plantsneedco2.org gives a comprehensive explanation on the drivers of climate change, the dis-proportionality of warming effects as CO2 increases, the accuracy of prediction models versus real life readings etc. I strongly urge you to click on this Hyperlink which takes you to the article). <– Click to open article in separate window
The article shows there are, for example, at least EIGHTEEN (18) discrete causes of climate change (or “drivers”) giving rise to Global Warming (and cooling) effects other than CO2.
Some of the more obscure of these 18 causes include Planetary Orbital Eccentricity, Cosmic Rays, Earth’s Tilt, Ocean Currents, the Sun’s varying heat and magnetic intensity as well as extraterrestrial impacts. The most important ones such as Infra Red energy absorption, Water Vapour and Vulcanism are dealt with in some detail below.
First off, it’s mportant to understand that many of these “drivers” inter-relate with each other. For example, cooling oceans will absorb more CO2. Warming will release CO2 from the oceans like a warming carbonated soft drink. Magnetic and Solar variations cause volcanoes. These in turn can also release more CO2.
Let’s now look closely at how global warming can be affected by some the various drivers. By doing so, we should note that the majority of Carbon Tax supporters seem to selectively ignore the importance of these other affects as they try to freight-train the passage of their flawed legislation.
Elemental Carbon atoms in the atmosphere absorb light photons of energy in the daytime just the same as any other gases such as Nitrogen or Oxygen or Argon. Atoms also become agitated in sunlight, and may also generate heat in different atmospheric layers through friction.
Then, at night time, carbon atoms re-emits that absorbed photon energy as infra-red radiation. The major gases Nitrogen and Oxygen would also absorb and re-emit photon energy, but not so much in the heat or infra-red wavelengths.
Note: the Carbon Atom re-emits photon heat / light at virtually the same rate of re-emission as the more abundant gases of Nitrogen and Oxygen. They don’t retain or release their energy any differently. Only the wavelengths of emitted photons differ.
If re-emission of heat energy in all carbon-based gases is the same as nitrogen or oxygen, and carbon gases are only 4/100 parts of 1 percent compared to other gases in the atmosphere, why is carbon being targeted by law-makers?
The argument is that because carbon-based gases capture and re-emit infra-red photons, this heat energy on average allegedly builds-up in the atmosphere, causing global warming more readily than other wavelengths of light received from the sun.
Another plausible hypothesis is that global warming due to the Greenhouse Effect is either magnified or reduced based on the sun’s light being reflected or refracted by dirt or smog particulates in the atmosphere. This “light blocking” also known as “albedo” [not “libido“] could be from any source including natural environmental causes, natural wildfires causing smoke, and even chemical or other particles from uncontrolled human air polluters.
In clear air, 100% of the heat/light energy comes in from the sun through space, but the randomly re-emitted infra-red heat either goes down towards the earth’s surface (50% downwards) or back into space (50% upwards).
On the planet Venus – where it’s non-transparent or ‘dirty’ air in the atmosphere is unable to re-radiate back into space – only the top reaches of the atmosphere that can still see space will radiate their 50% upwards. The rest of the atmosphere below conceivably retains heat energy in the Venutian atmosphere and radiates (on average) much less back into space. This traditional argument has in the past been used to theorize a Greenhouse Effect on the planet Venus.
Surprisingly, however, scientists have actually shown that on earth an opaque atmosphere actually causes a negative greenhouse effect. For example, ash, smoke and dirt particles from volcanoes interfering with transparency can actually have a cooling effect on global atmospheric temperatures.
Such cooling tends to occur for 1 to 3 years after huge volcanic eruptions. For example, Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines in 1993 threw up about 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. In fact, average global temperatures dropped by 0.8 degrees Celsius during that time.
Scientists realized that this effect wasn’t caused by the volcanic dust and ash itself, which tended to take around 6 months to settle back to earth, but by the sulphur dioxide, which takes about 3 years to dissipate. Sulphur dioxide bonds to water molecules in the atmosphere creating an optically dense haze that actually increases the reflection of solar radiation, and thereby causes a cooling effect. (Note: CO2 gas does not electrostatically attract water molecules).
Whilst we are on the topic of albedo (i.e transparency of air) let’s not confuse a dirty atmosphere for a carbon saturated atmosphere.
In other words, even if microscopic man-made or otherwise smoke, ash and smog particulates might contain some carbon compounds (and/or other chemicals), this shouldn’t be mistaken for “carbon” per se. The ash itself does not absorb or interact with infra-red radiation in the same way as CO2 gas. Each year, volcanic eruptions of ash like those in Chile and Iceland, cause billions of tons of atmospheric emissions. Only a small amount of which contain carbon.
Importantly, we must understand that (a) these volcanic eruptions dwarf total human carbon emissions by many orders of magnitude. Volcanoes have a much greater influence and effect on air temperatures than any CO2 or carbon emissions from man-made or natural sources, and (b) The process of interaction of cooling and warming in the atmosphere are far more complex than merely being a correlation of atmospheric CO2.
Water vapour: The ‘600 Pound Gorilla’ in Greenhouse.
Water vapour (H2O) exists in either simple gas form or in the form of sun-blocking clouds over water or land. This accounts for between 35 and 95% of the greenhouse effect (fluctuating daily) by itself.
In Wikipedia’s comprehensive article on water vapour, it states that “Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from a trace in desert regions to about 4% over oceans“.
Don’t forget, of course, that CO2 remains globally consistent at less than 4/100ths of 1 percent of the total volume of the atmosphere.
Water vapour, as a gas, clearly influences climate change and temperature to a much greater degree than carbon gas (C) or by the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions by humans.
Consider the importance of water vapour’s effect on air temperatures by way of this simple example. The next time you are in the desert, try noticing that the temperature fluctuates wildly between 45+°C in the heat of the day, down to below freezing at night. Upon realizing this, just think to yourself: …. “Is there as much CO2 in the desert atmosphere as there is in the more temperate zones?” (Answer: “Generally, Yes.”) … “And if so, what is the only difference between Here and The Desert that might create a ‘warming blanket effect’?” (Answer: Clouds and Water Vapour).
Water vapour on its own is able to absorb, retain and transfer heat through entirely different physical and chemical mechanisms than CO2. E.g. Water Vapour affects via Reflection of sunlight (tops of clouds), via Convection, via Evaporative Heat Transfer, via Indirectly affecting Vegetation which can itself trap heat, via Chemical Interaction, via Osmosis, via inter-molecular friction, and via Opacity or Transparency of Cloud Cover and shadow etc.
In fact, even very slight changes in the average distribution of water vapour in the atmosphere, can have titanic influences on everything from on ocean temperatures, to evaporation levels from rainforests (called evapo-transpiration), altitude, chemicals and particulates in the atmosphere that attract water molecules.
Almost ingeniously, the planetary Water Cycle – which includes water vapour and cloud cover – creates a quickly self-healing system in many ways. For example, if there are more impurities / burnt ash or smoke (man-made carbon compounds) in the atmosphere, more clouds are produced because water droplets condense and form more readily around air impurities. These in turn reflect more sun back to space causing cooling. OR they retain more heat energy in the atmosphere like a blanket. At the same time, however, more clouds produce more rain. More rain, in turn, then clears the air of particulates and cools the land and air through evaporation and radiation of the heat.
So… if Affect 1 or 2 or 3 as listed above are part-way correct as being some of the scientific reasons for global warming (and they are), why is the government focussing on “carbon emissions” and “carbon taxes” as being some kind of panacea to redress any imbalances in global warming ?
Let’s be blunt. Looking at the effects of Volcanoes, Water Vapour, and the over eighteen different causes of climate change referred to above, CO2 has a virtually negligible influence. Moreover, since Australia’s CO2 emissions are less than 1.5% of the world’s total, this government’s ludicrous agenda to curb global CO2 emissions – even if it were immediately 100% successful in Australia – would still take up t0 1,000 years of effort by Australians before it would affect the global temperatures by more than 1 (ONE) degree Celsius.
Given the Gillard desperation to get this Carbon Tax through, you’d have to believe there were some agenda other than the raw science forcing the passage of this legislation. Wouldn’t you?
Let me further sow seeds of mistrust against our politicians and their alleged “fix global warming agenda”. Remember that excessive man-made smoke based on burning fossil fuels, is not what’s being targeted by a Carbon Tax. This new tax isn’t targeting smog or pollution. If it was, they would call it a “Pollution Tax”. Instead, they are expressly and misguidedly targeting Carbon (i.e.Affect 1, above), and expressly ignoring pollution in any climate change and global warming equation.
—> Next up … Modern Views on Climatology [article cont’d] –>
Global Warming – Modern science vs. politics
Global Temperature vs. Amount of CO2
Of course, global warming exists to a measurable degree and is incontrovertible. Or more accurately, we should say, “Global Temperature Variations over time” DO exist. So let’s not hide behind our finger, here. We can see from the incline gradient in the first graph below (The 5 Million Year chart), taken from ocean core samples, that warming has increased over geological time.
But let’s get some perspective here. My position on Carbon Tax does not deny global warming. All I’m saying is that, looking at the big picture, perhaps its a little infantile and panicky for the Australian government to suddenly be bulldozing through such draconian carbon tax laws in the hope of stabilizing global temperatures.
According to the Encyclopaedia of Earth, correlations have been found between the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and mean/average global temperatures over the last 300,000 years. In other words, it seems that as it gets warmer, there’s more CO2 released into the air.
What does this mean? Well, whilst some scientists might automatically put the cart before the horse and say that the CO2 caused the temperature increase, proper scientific method requires that you must also not preclude that CO2 levels may simply drop because temperatures dropped (ie. less vegetation due to an ice age, etc.).
Does it not make sense that if temperatures dropped (let’s say because the sun decided to go into a cold spell solar hibernation for a few hundred (or few thousand years), then forests and carbon based life forms would tend to emit less gas as they grow, procreate, spawn, rot etc.? Especially if they are under a few miles of snow and ice due to an Ice Age?
Let’s now further extrapolate this point; If Carbon Tax Proponents assume a Global Warming effect occurs when there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere causing overheating, then conversely, less CO2 would cause the earth to go into an Ice Age. Right? …. Therefore meaning that during an Ice Age, there’s less CO2 in the atmosphere. No problems so far?
Ok. Then by this line of reasoning, doesn’t that mean there’s now no way to warm up the planet through CO2 alone, since there aren’t enough forests or animals emitting copious quantities of the gas ? If that’s the case, how on earth IS the Earth ever going to re-start the warming process again (via a CO2-generated Greenhouse Effect) to re-warm the planet ?
Based on this rationale, ONLY a big outside influence other than CO2 (maybe a solar maximum or perihelion) will actually change the status quo. CO2 therefore seems to be a consequence, not an primary driver/initiator of global warming.
For me, this simple Catch-22 argument is a big nail in the coffin for Carbon Tax Proponents trying to demonize CO2 as being a primary cause for any runaway global warming effect. Shortly below, we will look away from CO2, and examine in greater detail some of the other (far more potent) external causes of global warming.
The Misrepresenting of “33 degrees cooler/warmer”
It has been argued (e.g. by Dr. Barry Jones) that the earth would be 33 degrees Celsius cooler without a Greenhouse Effect.
For example, in his “Okham’s Razor” commentary, Dr. Jones claims that “the mean temperature of earth would be about 33 degrees Celsius colder” due to the existence of Greenhouse Gases [see Timecode 03 Min. :02 Sec]. Dr. Jones cites the 150 year old work of John Tindall, and then simply lumps together “Water Vapour, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Ozone” as all being “Atmospheric gases that all absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infra-red range.” [see Timecode 02 Min. :31 Sec].
<– Click to play
This walloping generalization by Jones truly sits at the heart of the confusion propagated by Carbon Tax enthusiasts.
For the record, the calculation that the planet would be 33 degrees cooler without a greenhouse effect is as follows:
Scientists calculate that with approximately 240 Watts/meter^2 at the top of the atmosphere, that the Earth’s temperature would be 255 degrees Kelvin (K). ). So with the current temperature being 288 K, greenhouse must therefore cause 33 degree K or C of warming. Based on this 33 degrees, the impact of CO2 can be calculated, [and would be] about 1.2 degrees [if CO2 were doubled].
Click this link for a great read on how Carbon Tax advocates mis-quote the science to hype-up and scare-monger the importance of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect and essentially ignore other ‘elephant in the corner of the room’ factors such as Water Vapor.
If you looked past the rhetoric of Carbon Tax proponents like Barry Jones or Al Gore, you would realize that CO2 (from any source) only attributes a minor fraction of that 33 degrees.
Carbon Tax advocates claim that CO2 is more important to Greenhouse because it is a “forcing” effect in the troposphere which adds additional heat into the system, whilst at the same time they claim with little scientific backup, that the 600 Pound Gorilla in the room (water vapour) is nothing more than a benign “feedback effect”. I.e. “Too much water in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation.” In other words, they claim that the net average effect of water vapour is zero because of its transience. This is despite the fact that water vapour causes temperature fluctuations (plus or minus) of 10’s of degrees in discrete locales world-wide.
Nevertheless it is rather well-established by NASA and other ‘accepted’ mainstream scientists that – with an anticipated doubling of CO2 emissions from the current levels, average global atmospheric temperatures will rise by between 1.94 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. Strange, isn’t it, how a huge doubling of CO2 would yield such a disproportionately small increase in air temperatures ?
Remember now, Gillard herself won’t have time to do the research herself. So she relies on her experts like Dr. Barry Jones (now retired) who is boldly proclaimed as a “National Treasure”.
Individually, “Greenhouse Gases” are not all created equal. Each of the different atmospheric gases affect temperatures in hugely different ways, and to enormously different degrees. Unfortunately, (in the mind of the vast majority of the population) the phrase “Greenhouse gases” has demonized Carbon so completely that the public has little idea of its relatively minor importance.
The carbon tax proponents and politicians misrepresentation is widened even further when Dr. Jones fails (or is unable to) distinguish exactly (a) how little of this 33 degrees is due exclusively to carbon-based gases like CO2, and (b) how much atmospheric heat can be trapped by water vapour alone. For the purposes of this blog, you will find that information in the first paragraph of “Affect 3” on Page 5 in this article.
Given the timing of Dr. Jones ABC.NET.AU commentary on Carbon Tax, it’s clear that his words are meant as a political treatise, but it is masquerading as a scientific statement. Especially so, given that it is published in the Science Section of the ABC Website.
For example, Jones makes such declarations as “…The consumer pays for the coal, but takes no responsibility for the cost of disposing…” [see Timecode 05 Min. :30 Sec]. But hang on … didn’t he already just say that consumers already paid for it ?
… And later [at Timecode 05 Min. :55 Sec] he says: “…This is treated as a ‘free good’ by the purchaser/user; A spectacular example of market failure … the downstream impact of consumption … is a long term contribution to atmospheric pollution … taking decades …[or longer] … to disperse.” Whoops, hang on again : If the right to burn coal has been a “free” since time immemorial, then who the hell are You (the government) to now suddenly impose a tax upon me for this behaviour, especially when you’re making no real attempt to curb the oil / gas / coal industries ?
It is patently misleading to the public at large. After all, not everybody agrees with the Australian Labor Party (A.L.P.) doctrines. But here we have (former) Labor politician Dr. Jones pre-adopting a socialist agenda for his entire commentary. This is already at odds with – I estimate – at least 50% of the population who didn’t vote Labor at the last election. Not to mention the current Labor supporters who are disgruntled by Gillard’s lie which brought her into government in the first place.
Dr. Jones’ ultimate sin here, is that he fails to be truly objective, and fails to fully clarify that —– CO2 and Carbon are only a miniscule component of the worldwide “Greenhouse Effect” – dozens of far more potent effects causing this 33 degree temperature differential than CO2, – that 95% of the “Greenhouse Effect” is actually due to Water Vapour, – the Greenhouse Effect is not entirely due to CO2 (and infra-red radiation emission). I strongly invite the reader to check out the following excellent articles, and some books debunking CO2 as being the cause of Global Warming :
—> Next up … How to distinguish “Greenhouse Emissions” from plain old methane [article cont’d] –>
Semantics: Choose your words carefully, Grasshopper
Unfortunately, with all the supporting propaganda of vested interest groups, it can be very difficult to dispel public ignorance of the science underlying “Global Warming” and the “Greenhouse Effect”.
For the purposes of our article, we see politicians continuing to generalize “Carbon Bonded Compound Gases” as being merely “Carbon“. As we have shown above, this is erroneous.
People similarly generalize the science underlying the “Carbon Cycle” and without understanding claim it relates directly to the “Greenhouse Effect“. No! One relates to the re-use of carbon in the environment by natural processes, the other refers to the science of increasing air temperature.
Moreover, politicians continue to promote fallacy by claiming that the “Greenhouse Effect” is primarily a by-product of “CO2 Emissions“. As we can see from even our modest analysis of the science, above, this too is erroneous, because the sun, water, smog and other chemicals have much greater primary effects.
The wholesale ignorance on labeling in this area is endemic. Every wrong label that’s used with vested intent by a politician, or media commentator spawns a new fallacy. Thereby heaping more confusion and indifference upon the lay person.
Eventually, of course, the average citizen capitulates and accepts the “official version” spawned by ‘supposedly trusted leaders’ who in fact know little more than the next Joe Blow. Do you think the same thing didn’t happen in the past? Just look at the question of fluoridation of our drinking water.
Needless to say, EACH of the “Greenhouse” phrases highlighted above mean different things. Each phrase also involves its own compartmentalized scientific disciplines. So if you hear anybody using these phrases haphazardly or interchangeably, your ears and your common sense need to prick up sharply.
The key to the introduction of the Carbon Tax is the so-called “Greenhouse Effect”. So long as you remember the exact definition of “Greenhouse Effect”, irrespective of what different people say may be its cause, you won’t be lost in all the terminology. Quickly re-visit here to refresh the meaning of “Greenhouse Effect”.
From this point, we can now visit some of the linguistic abominations that certain people (but not proper scientists) use and mis-use when talking about this area of science.
By way of example, let’s look in detail at an often-used MIS-used phrase “Greenhouse Emissions” to see what it might actually mean :–
|Science shows us that||“Carbon”||is NOT the same thing as||“Carbon Compounds”|
|But we can safely say||“Carbon Compounds”||are a component of||“Carbon Compound Emissions”|
|But, it’s only a term of art to equate||“Carbon Compound Emissions”||as being the same thing as||“Greenhouse Emissions”|
|And, there’s no 100% scientific certainty that||“Greenhouse Emissions”||contribute even minimally to the||“The Greenhouse Effect”|
|Ergo, it’s a fallacy to say||“The Greenhouse Effect”||should be blamed upon||“Carbon”, or “Carbon Compounds”, or “Carbon Compound Emissions”, or “Greenhouse Emissions”|
So, using pure logic, phrases like “Greenhouse Emissions” actually means —
” … some (presumed) ‘Emission’ that causes a (presumed) ‘Greenhouse Effect’, but (definitely) not pure ‘Carbon’, and (presumably) not ‘Carbon Compounds’, nor ‘Carbon Compound Emissions’ “
… OR, alternatively, you could accurately say that the phrase “Greenhouse Emissions” identifies “that thing which you blame for causing a Greenhouse Effect“. And then for the political purposes of setting up an Australian Carbon Tax, just go ahead and ignore water vapour, volcanic eruptions, the natural Carbon Cycle, sunspots, Solar perihelion, radiation fluctuations, Eleven Year Solar maxima and minima, chaos theory of wind and oceanic patterns on global temperature. Then, of course, with “all guns blazing”, you target that pesky 0.039% of the atmosphere that may result in Australia causing the global temperature to rise by one degree Celsius in 1,000 years.
And so, gentle reader, what you have just read is the absolute highest level of meaning that is available to Australians to the utterance “Greenhouse Emissions” and its equally ridiculous cousin “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”.
These are the kinds of deceptions, mis-directions and linguistic logical fallacies (flaws in logic), that cause idiots like our parliamentarians to make conceptual leaps between “Carbon Taxes” and “Greenhouse Emissions” without having a real clue about what they are trying to legislate.
—> Next up … Identifying the real culprit in the Carbon Debate [article cont’d] –>
SO WAKE UP! Carbon itself is not the culprit
If not Carbon, then what is to blame? Well that’s simple :
Its over-population of course. You Ninny! It’s destruction of the rainforests. Its rampant consumerism. Its the unfettered and completely misguided belief by nations and economies that growth, consumption and materialistic expansion is the goal for all mankind. Why else would China (according to a 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal) be building and opening one new coal-fired power station every ten days?
Oh!, And just because I appear to challenge the very foundations of everyday politics and economics here, doesn’t mean I am automatically talking about pie in the sky solutions.
The science and the economics are not really all that complicated. It’s more about vested interests and vested ignorances not wanting to look at dealing with the real problems.
Even thought politicians might argue their political interests semi-eloquently, and even talk about long-term economic ramifications, these issues are usually only red herrings to avoid dealing with real science. Instead, politicians mis-interpret, mis-use, and mis-direct what little science they actually know, so as to justify sham policies.
Listening to the parliamentary and senate debates over recent weeks, and worse-still, listening to Gillard sycophantically praising the “trust in science” whilst awarding the science prize (on 12-Oct-2011) on the same day as having passed the Carbon Tax through the Lower House, you could be forgiven for thinking Labor were “supporters of science”. In truth, politicians themselves actually know very little about the competing science. Just because a Labor Party politician might listen to a Barry Jones commentary does not automatically make them an expert on global warming.
True Scientific Method does not suffer fools with their platitudes. Science not only needs to be done, but it needs to be fully updated and understood before it is implemented as law. To become more knowledgeable, you must trawl through the guts of scientific research papers for yourself. Fighting your own ignorance and boredom all the way. Perhaps then, even if you end up not being correct, you can at least say that your scientific opinions are truly your own.
—> Next up … Is carbon capture and sequestration a panacea ? [article cont’d] –>
Carbon Sequestration: Capture, Management and Storage Schemes
This following section is for those readers who are die-hards who wouldn’t know a linguistic fallacy like “Greenhouse Emissions” if it poked them in the ire [no spelling error here]. OR its for those who haven’t done their own scientific research. OR its for those who believe that leaders like Gillard and Labor have any real credibility but are still prepared to trust them with the “benefit of the doubt” even though their promises have been inconsistent (broken) in the past. Lastly, it is also for those who feel they are powerless to do anything to stop this inexorable march to a Carbon Tax.
For the time being, let us indulge (for just a little longer) this fantasy that Carbon Management (with or without a Carbon Tax) has any meaning. We shall quickly look at the unavoidable topic of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (or “CCS” for short). CCS is a technology that claims it can ‘mop up’ excess carbon and store it away or bury it in the ground.
So let’s now hypothesize that “carbon” emitters should be taxed. And upon being taxed, that certain schemes like Carbon Capture could be used to “save the planet” from heat death (tsk).
In the mainstream of carbon emission demonizers (such as the European Union’s authority on CCS, known as Z.E.P) currently view “the carbon problem” and its “solutions”. For example, in the video below, (without any real scientific examination), it proceeds on the premise that CO2 causes global warming …. AND that there are solutions to global warming by directly managing excess carbon emissions.
NOTE: Whilst the above video gives one (skewed) perspective on the CO2 problem, it’s reliance on CCS technology – is tragically and fundamentally flawed. Because:
1. (In my opinion) the premise that we must remain dependent on fossil fuels and then use CCS to ‘fix’ it is slavish mainstream thinking. Locking us into a future of fossil fuel reliance, it’s surprisingly unimaginative.
2. As a plan for our future, it is unreliable. The corporations on whom we rely to do CCS are too heavily vested in the fossil fuel industry. Their motive is profit. Pure and simple. You’ll wait forever for CCS to be implemented, then you’ll need even more complex/creative tax schemes to monetize the incentive for corporations to use CCS effectively. More tax! More legislation!
3. CCS doesn’t address the disease itself (global warming). Let’s be blunt, all it does is give a partial solution to some of the alleged symptoms.
4. CCS has a major fundamental drawback. (Not addressed by the video). CCS technology is in itself energy intensive. That is, it creates more fossil fuel wastage to condense and then pump that “waste carbon” back into the ground. Are we happy to use more fossil fuels for that task, as well ?
Don’t get me wrong. I say that even if we are not 100% certain of the effectiveness of Carbon Capture / Sequestration, there is no reason we cant use it in the meantime to repair a good proportion of toxicity caused by carbon emissions. (We will address what I mean by “toxicity” below). We just have to be sure that the scientific research backing-up CCS and any such technologically-based solution is sound and reliable from a holistic point of view. i.e. That the studies consider all possible effects of interfering with the delicate balance of (say) the Carbon Cycle in the ecosphere.
Unfortunately, world-wide corporate willingness to spend their profits on carbon capture and reduction is very low at this time. Corporations have no obligation to do so, and in many countries, companies usually operate on the fringe of “what they can get away with” rather than “what is right“. Companies are very generally much like young spoilt children in this regard.
The more power corporations are given without a formalized ethical foundation, the more unaccountable they are for their transgressions. Without rules and ethical parameters, companies (which are considered at law to be “persons”) will act on the basis of “what they can get away with…” and “what maintains their profits / popularity…” This is a psycho-logical (sic!) system which is entirely amoral, self-interested, and – if you’ll permit the “person” paradigm – it is a form of sociopathy.
If you really want to see large companies spending money to reduce their pollution, then just outlaw pollution with increasing severity over time, and then just stand back and watch them develop new clean energy alternatives.
—> Next up … Is it possible to break reliance on fossil fuels ? [article cont’d] –>
The end of fossil fuel reliance
There are certain proven (but as-yet unknown) technologies that can offer truly free energy. Once companies (and even You as the reader) finally open eyes to real energy alternatives, carbon emission problems (and taxes) can be ignored and even laughed at.
Here is a hint of what I mean by “free energy” : (Apologies for the poor quality video… but note that the content is incredibly important.)
Youtube Video – “Nikola Tesla ★ Free Unlimited Power Energy Secret Cold Fusion Documentary ♦ The Race To Zero Point 2“ (15 mins)
For now, I will just say, there are literally thousands of ignored Free Energy technologies out there.Why are they being ignored?
… Reader; Stop! Wait! … Just ask yourself that last question again. But this time ask it this way: “Why do I remain ignorant of these possibilities?
For later … if you have time, just go to Youtube and search for “Free Energy”. Or you can just check out some of these sample links)
Fusion: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html Cold Fusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt2JqEmaUGc Hydrogen Powered Vehicles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX2RxlXCZKA Magnetic Energy: http://youtu.be/Nbr9ZMp5nE4 Orion Project: http://youtu.be/DtWPBiQqF2o)
Note; Dear reader. I’ve made this section intentionally short, so you can take your time and look through some of the hyperlinks above. Don’t want to spoil the surprise, but I plan to write another article on these “way out” alternative energy systems in the future.
—> Next up … Can we end pollution as well ? [article cont’d] –>
Can we do anything about pollution (not just carbon)?
There is good reason to raise concepts of pollution in this discussion. Note firstly that the entire alleged premise of the Carbon Tax is to alleviate the effects of a ‘heat’ pollution problem. That is, so-called ‘Carbon’ pollution causing global warming.
It should be clear from my views expressed so far, that excess CO2 is not a disastrous problem from the global warming perspective. In theory, the vast wastelands of frozen tundra in northern Europe and Russia could potentially even become habitable by modest increases in global temperature. Things don’t necessarily have to remain “the same” to be “good”.
Nevertheless, I would definitely acknowledge that there has been an increase (since the 19th Century) of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. No question, that’s probably a bad thing.
But this ‘badness’ is for toxicological reasons (Ie. toxicity of environment and of organism), and not for the reasons of global warming being touted by the government du jour. To best understand this issue of carbon as a “toxin”, we need to think of it as “pollution”. Ie. whereby unmanaged concentrations of a substance may cause ecological imbalance or even poisoning. For example there is some good science to indicate that–
(a) the levels of upper ocean layers are being Carbon saturated due to too much carbon absorption. This saturation can facilitate algal blooms, which in turn can affect light filtration into the water, and then affect changes sea level temperature gradients, affect food chains etc. Fortunately, over long periods, (Yes, decades) nature can self-correct this problem and re-dress a carbon imbalance in the oceans. Perhaps with some help from man, it can happen faster via the CCS technologies mentioned above.
(b) Similarly, Carbon Monoxide (CO or CO1) from fossil fuel emissions is poisonous. This gas is generally a by-product of incomplete burning of organic compounds. It is toxic to humans and animals. Problems occur through exposure to cigarettes, improperly vented gas, kerosene, charcoal heaters and grills, propane-fueled forklifts, cars, trucks and motorboats, gas-powered concrete saws, and through inhaling spray paint solvents etc.
But note carefully, dear reader, these types of environmental and organic “toxicity” problems are not the particular stated problem of “global warming” nor “climate change” being targeted by worldwide Carbon Tax legislation. As a matter of fact, carbon (like other materials that build up to discrete toxic concentration levels) is easily manageable without nefarious world-wide taxes being imposed.
At this time, no government has enacted Carbon Taxes because of any urgent scientific pressure based on the toxicity of excess Carbon. And there is no suggestion that Carbon toxicity has any kind of “runaway” poisonous effect.
Using reason, then, rather than peddling fear, speculation or panic, the argument against carbon-tax remains valid and intact. As long as we are crystal clear that (a) “Carbon Toxicity of the Environment or the Organism” due to pollution is not equivalent to (b) CO2 emissions causing a Greenhouse global warming problem, then we can be secure we are not mixing our agendas. So, just to be clear; the Gillard government declared no agenda regarding any “Carbon Toxicity”, but they have expressly claimed an agenda to save us from Greenhouse Global Warming. This is an important distinction, because even Carbon Tax supporters who would jump at any weak argument to implement this new tax should be aware that it is a false dogma to tax the population for reasons outside official government policy.
So, let us freely concede that certain Carbon compounds (like CO), can be toxic for both the environment and humans. However, toxic buildup of CO2 or CO is, in truth, more like the problem of Chlorofluorocarbons, (CFC’s) or toxic overuse of pesticides and fertilizers. Solutions to these problems are relatively easy to implement with willpower and liberal use of alternative technologies.
Remember how we all jumped on the bandwagon, and were able to curb CFC’s, by using Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s) in aerosols, and thus allowing the Ozone Layer to repair itself ? This problem was stitched up in less than a decade and the ozone layer is already showing great improvement. It’s amazing what we can do if we all get on board with the program.
Similarly, I argue, that the hazards of Carbon as an environmental toxin or human poison can also, be averted. By simply using and accepting less or no fossil fuels. It’s that simple!
As a participant and student of the Real World, the reader should presume that real solutions must start with HIM or HER. Really; There’s no point wasting your effort reading this lengthy blog, then not making some hard decisions by the end.
My Dear Pupil [see the ‘Curriculum’ menu above as to why I call you that]; I don’t write this article as some objective treatise, nor disembodied dry set of facts because I wish to appeal merely to your objective intellect. If you want that, then perhaps you should go read a Text Book or a Murdoch Rag for amusement.
What I’m talking about here is grass-roots change. Attitude change. Apathy disintegration. Civil participation. Awareness, debate, action and promotion of solutions as caring individuals, and as members integrated into a world community.
When everybody ‘gets’ that concept, we wont have heap legislation upon legislation to change things, because it won’t be “somebody else’s problem“. Change for the better will happen automatigically.
And just because you might not feel like changing the world by yourself now, that’s all right. Nobody can do things properly alone. Others must take their time, concur and support.
So go forth. Look for like-minded others. Explain that you are passionate about the issue. And then agree / explain to your peers that You are doing something about it now. Whatever you actually do is up to You, of course. I’m not fussed. But anything that engages your cause is far better than nothing. Maybe write to a federal politician. Letter to the editor. Call up a Talk Radio show. Watch less garbage on TV. Ride a bike. Take a bus. Convert your car to Hydrogen Fuel. Get some solar panels. Grow a veggie patch. Whatever!
As Ferdinand Foch once said: “The most powerful weapon on Earth is the human soul on fire.”
—> Next up … The Carbon Tax law… And its diminishing returns [article cont’d]
Are more laws the answer ?
Let’s say that we had no choice but to suffer the impost of being suffocated with more legislation. What, exactly, is wrong with creating direct targeted laws and schemes that are effective for for the environment for the long-term?
Don’t, I say, try to monetize and police Carbon (a natural element) so as to create artificial incentives borne out of greed for profit, in the vain hope that this will somehow indirectly fix the environment as a by-product of that selfishness.
What kind of domestic law is the Carbon Tax Law? Surprise, surprise! Its a TAX Law! Call it a “Clean Energy Bill” all you like. But at its heart, its role is first and foremost to raise government revenue.
Don’t think, for a minute, that your carbon tax dollar is planned from the outset to fix the environment. That needs to come later (Yeah. ‘Real Soon Now’ Julia), after they’ve collected all the extra money. Nor is a carbon tax per se designed from the outset to fix the atmosphere, the environment, to grow more trees, to lower the water table in regional Australia fixing salinity, nor to fund universities to design the next hydrogen powered car.
To do all these good things for the environment, you need to directly legislate for people to go out and plant some darn trees first.
What will Carbon Tax revenue be used for?
- Firstly, it goes in to General Revenue to pay the $100 Billion dollar government debt caused by overspending. (Remember, four years ago, the Libs left the economy with over $100+ Billion domestic surplus after over a decade of belt tightening. So all that, and more, is gone now.)
- Secondly, it will be used to offset the raft of new tax concessions that the Labor Government is using as the distracting sweetener to mask this otherwise bitter pill of a Carbon Tax. (Incidentally, if Gillard concentrated purely on tax reform, alone, rather than introducing a carbon tax, that should have been enough to raise her popularity in the polls).
- Thirdly, the remaining 10% will go to the United Nations as the pound of flesh apparently due to that World Government institution. This will help fund the formation and consolidation of the Brave New World Order (“NWO”) clustered around the United Nations. Which institution is attempting to qualify as the de-facto head of the New World Government to which Australia must apparently now answer.
It should be clearly noted that Sovereign Australians neither voted for, nor were informed of this hidden agenda of financing the UN in any discussions about environmental damage caused by global warming. It seems this is being “snuck in” as part of some larger agenda that we barely have a say in. (Quantumsniper note: I will have much to say about this NWO in future blogs. So stand-by for that.)
So, Dear Reader. Doesn’t this smell like a new GST to you? Are you now ready to pay the UN 10% of all our Carbon Tax revenues? I wonder; didn’t democracy fight for nearly two millenia so we could have have a separation between church and state and not have to pay the tithe ?
What about international laws? Do you really think that making a law to tax carbon in the Australian Parliament will help a subsistence farmer in the Amazon forest cutting down trees to grow cash crops like tobacco? Perhaps you don’t even believe that the coal or timber industry in Australia wouldn’t simply “rationalize” and “out-source” their carbon tax losses by moving to an underdeveloped country to take advantage of the tax haven. Exploiting more poor people whilst doing so. [Gasp! Would corporations really do that?] Didn’t Qantas make a similar announcement about six weeks ago?
What about the bogus psychology behind this new law? The reasoning for introducing a carbon tax is based on flawed psychology. It suggests that using a negative financial incentive will somehow magically generate a positive indirect financial action by causing the largest corporate polluters to find carbon emission solutions. For example, isn’t that like asking a large specialist bank or insurance company to operate outside its specialty by opening a new division to design technical scientific solutions using CCS. This simply offends common sense!
What’s more, it’s completely contrary to human nature. Remember; companies are like spoilt children.
“Hey little Johnny, I will take away one lolly from you for each hour you watch TV.”
Do you now expect little Johnny to go build a movie studio?
What about the clerical administration of a Carbon Tax? If this carbon tax law is passed, some will feel smug about having “done something”, but the rest of us, particularly those running small businesses, will end up exhausted and jaded by the daily expense, obligation, accounting and administration of a useless Carbon Tax, and its farcical (temporary ?) tax rebates to ‘compensate us’ for the impost.
What kind of law is better than a carbon tax law? As mentioned above, if more legislation were the answer, then perhaps it would be more useful to make direct laws to fix problems like pollution at the source.
– For example, specific anti-pollution to target Electricity Generators. Compulsory “scrubbers” in all the chimney stacks? Including CO2 cleaners.
– What about compelling coal miners to increase the price of their cheap coal to help pay for these chimney scrubbers. By doing so, forcing funding elsewhere to cleaner alternative fuels like Natural Gas ?
– What about ensuring that ALL effluent released from every industry into the environment is properly disposed of and rendered completely non-toxic ? Or else the industry should be shut down. Find an alternative or Do Without !
– What about prohibiting car manufacturers from selling cars without zero exhaust emissions ?
– What about funding better more “blue sky” research in public university education to ensure that universities aren’t compelled to kowtow to corporate financiers who have their own limited agendas?
– What about prohibiting building designs that are wasteful of energy or resources. Or are otherwise unsustainable?
– What about anti-competition laws to expressly prohibit oil companies or car manufacturers from “black-shelving” inventions and patents that might might create alternative clean fuels not beholden to the oil industry.
– What about a law against oil companies pumping the black stuff out of the ground in the first place? Oops! Did I go too far? Or would that solution tread on the toes of too many “pragmatists”, like businessmen, merchant bankers, oil companies, and warring vested interests in the middle east?
What about ethics in corporate practice? Here is a revolutionary thought: Why not enact new sections in the Corporations Law to promote ethics in corporate governance. (that is, the ways that companies operate and organise themselves). For example, the Australian Corporations Act of 2001 requires, in Section 180, that
“a company director or other officer exercise their powers and discharge their duties with care and diligence”
(see here for fuller explanation of s.180. Or click the book at right to examine evolving corporate responsibilities over the last 3 decades )
Do you really want to set the cat amongst the pigeons? Ok. Then why don’t you add one little word “ethics,” just before the word “care” in the above excerpt from the Corporations Law. Then stand back and watch the courts start spewing out decisions on what that word ‘ethics’ means since it will then be mandatory to comply.
—> Next up … Making all “people” responsible for their actions [article cont’d] –>
Carbon Tax: Show me the hidden agenda
Note: If you cannot accept the premises in the next few paragraphs, Dear reader, then you need to pull yourself out of your suburban stupor and take a reality check.
This Carbon Tax – for the Gillard Government – is only about The Money. Big surprise, yeah?
Don’t be fooled. The carbon tax isn’t about fixing the planet, and it’s not about reducing global warming, either. The plan for a Carbon Tax is just a masquerade for trying to monetize people’s guilt over their very existence. And once it’s in place world-wide, very little short of revolution will break people free of the constraints on lifestyle and civil liberties it will create. It will only be able to be modified by governments, string pullers, and powerful international cartels to serve their own interests.
And whilst they call it a “tax” because the Australian Government is administering it, it’s really just an “Payment for Energy Usage” like any other charge or levy. More pointedly, it might be more meaningful for the reader if they think of it as a new separate “Tax and/or Charge on all your behaviour, and on everything you do/use”.
Why is the Carbon Tax a “Tax On Everything”? Because we all expend fossil fuel energy at every stage of delivering goods and services. Everything you eat. Wherever you travel. Whatever you buy. Whatever you do with your leisure time. The clothes you wear. The plastic you consume. All of it! Inextricably bound to the fossil fuel industry. Yes, I mean the “Carbon” industry.
Question: Who owns and controls the Coal, Oil and Gas in the world? Answer: the Big Energy Cartels and conglomerates. Forget that have different names Caltex, Shell-Oil, BP, PetroBras. They are a monopoly by any other name run by the same elites. They control and distribute the fundamental essential service, that nobody can do without. Their prime tradeable commodity: Carbon compounds as fuel for energy.
Question: Is there any real large-scale viable alternative to fossil fuels on the planet? (And this is crucially important). Answer: Yes there is! But NO, they’re not being exploited, or prioritized into the public consciousness! Did you know that the U.S. Patents Office has actively suppressed over 5000 inventions for new energy technologies under the U.S. Invention Secrecy Act 1951, which gives the right to restrict publication and dissemination of information of new inventions if their disclosure could be “detrimental to the national security? A hidden purpose of this committee is to also find and remove from public access energy-related patents which could threaten the fossil fuel and power monopolies. Click here and ready Page 133 of this Article for a real eye-opener.
Question: Who uses all the fossil fuel Energy? Answer: Well, that would be worldwide Manufacturing Industry, the Freight Transport Industry, the Electricity Generation Industries and finally You and Me.
Question: So who pays for using all this energy? Answer: (Now this is a bit trickier. So listen carefully). The manufacturing industry (even medium to big companies) generally don’t go out of business. They’ll adapt, they merge, they get bought out. So they (the Top 500) might pay Carbon Tax initially, but in due course these big companies simply increase their prices, and then make You, the consumer, pay. Have you looked at the 25% increase in your Electricity & Gas bill in the last couple of quarters? A litre of petrol? Your Natural Gas Bill? Even without the Carbon tax being passed yet, you are already paying the increased prices in anticipation.
Nevertheless, whilst these guys are a form of monopoly. We haven’t met the real bad guys yet.
Question: Who stands to benefit from all your behaviour being taxed in the long term? Answer: Well, the energy industry, of course! In the long run, it doesn’t matter to them whether the price of this essential service (energy) fluctuates or not. Ultimately, there is no escape. You will buy from them whether you want to or not. i.e. From Big Oil, from Big Gas. from Big Mining. It’s a monopoly, even if they operate numerous companies with different names. At the heart of it, the energy industry is the controlling owner of your every move. And also the brick wall against our energy future.
So; You pay. I pay. The manufacturers pay. The transporters pay. The electricity generators pay. Can you see what’s wrong with this picture? The only ones who don’t pay are the Cartels who pull the stuff out of the ground in the first place. Is anybody even considering a tax against these faceless benefactors? Nope. They’re too big. They’re international. And even small nations are afraid to piss them off.
Question: Is the Emissions Trading Scheme (E.T.S) a bad thing? Answer: Yes. Because it won’t do a thing to stop Carbon pollution. Why?: Carbon Tax will create a price on Carbon. Right? And by various estimates, it will start at between $23 and $35 per tonne. Under current plans, an ETS will begin operation on 1-Jul-2015. Carbon Credits will then be bought and sold as a tradeable commodity on the open market just like a barrel of oil or a tonne of iron ore. Like the price of oil, it will become a de-facto currency. Big polluters paying for their carbon emissions, and trading them against other companies who have accumulated Carbon Savings. So when the issue becomes monetized, do you think the big polluters will really find ways to change their operations? Or will they just factor their expenses into the price of their goods and services, pass the expense on to the consumer, and then go on polluting?
Question: When Carbon Credits will become a world currency, who stands to lose? Answer: The poor. If everybody pays the same price to eat, consume, move things, the poor will always pay a larger proportion of their total income than the rich person. In a world where all the other currencies are unreliable, (US Dollars, Euro, Swiss Francs, Japanese Yen), the only money that will talk, will be the Barrel of Oil, or the Carbon Credit. The rich will become richer. The poor will die with no ability to improve their lot, no leverage, no power and no hope.
—> Next up … Policing and Enforcing a Carbon Tax [article cont’d] –>
Buried deep within the dry procedural content of the 18 new parliamentary bills and amendments of the “Clean Energy Act” and its supporting 1,000 pages of documents is the creation of a new form of government agents called “Inspectors”.
These inspectors or Carbon Cops have unprecedented new powers to insist on access, without warrant, and effect a search and seizure of any type of photographs, data or documents etc., anywhere in a business. They can put electronic equipment on premises to ‘extract copies’ of data. They can deputize anyone they want to examine materials on their behalf. Penalties for subverting the Carbon Tax may include on-the-spot fines, up to 10 year gaol terms, and $1.1 M in penalties for corporations.
I note that State Police Officers in Australia don’t even have half the inherent powers (that Carbon Cops will have) even to protect against crime. The Australian Federal government has, however, given quite intrusive powers to its Federal Agents of the Australia’s Secret Security Intelligence Organisation (A.SIO) to conduct counter-terrorist activities. These powers are vested to protect the “National Security” and to save us all from terrorist attacks.
The Carbon Cops’ enforcement provisions are, without doubt, very draconian and powerful measures available against the citizenry for breaches of the law that never even existed before. Presumably the powers will only be used in worst case scenarios of offending. As citizens, I guess, we are bound by blind faith to hope that Gillard’s “science” is not flawed.
Irritatingly, I have seen allegedly intelligent people argue vehemently that since A.S.I.C. (Australian Securities Exchange Commission), the A.T.O (Australian Taxation Office), the A.C.C.C (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), the A.P.R.A. (Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority), and the A.B.I.C (Australian Building and Construction Commission) all have similar intrusive investigative powers, then “Why Not” just give Carbon Inspectors the same powers? Some of these same argumentative dupes proudly proclaim “If you’ve got nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of ?”
My response to such short-sighted arguments is that history has shown repeatedly that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’, and that ‘whilst thecreation of the state was originally for the protection of individuals, the growth of the state tends to extinguish the will and the freedoms of the individual.’ Furthermore, not every individual should be presumed bad or in need of protection. However, when the state treats individuals badly under such “one-size-fits-all” presumptions, it can bring out the bad in both individuals and the state.
Historical evidence shows that government organisations given absolute executive powers to investigate, seize, monitor, enforce regulations, and even to raise revenues have sown the seeds of unaccountability, abuse, and lack of oversight within their very fabric. Ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, or the CIA, the NSA, MI6, A.SIO or K.G.B?
There are also countless examples of entire regimes going off the rails and oppressing their citizens, such as Stalin (Communist Russia), Hitler (Germany), Pol Pot (in Cambodia), Kim Il Sung (North Korea), Saddam Hussein (extermination of the Kurds in Iraq), Apartheid in South Africa, Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia, Black Slavery in the U.S before 1960, and Communist suppression in the U.S. during the McCarthy era. The list goes on.
Frighteningly, even anecdotal evidence from fictional sources such as George Orwell’s novel – “1984” shows that powerful organisations vested with their own self-referential agenda can transmute into future all-powerful “Ministries of Truth” as described in that novel.
In peacetime, citizens who call for conservatism, and who oppose laws like the Carbon Tax and the Carbon Cops are often seen as paranoid, or radical by the mainstream.
But if you look closely you can see these imposition of such new laws as being the thin end of an ever-widening wedge.
The population is – by degrees – forced to become accustomed and de-sensitized to supposed ‘ever-present threats’ like “Global Terrorism”, or “Global Warming” or “Global Unrest by anti-democratic Protesters” or “Global Population Explosions” or “Global Financial Crises”. Very soon it becomes an acceptable part of the population’s tolerance levels to capitulate to increasingly draconian government agendas.
Governments then mobilize with the presumed tacit approval of the population on alarmist reforms and policies that – to an objective observer – are more accurately characterized as hysterical over-reactions.
In this way, over recent decades, we have see governments and populations jointly conspire to change the default moderate defensive stance of western countries, and turning them instead into positive offensive imperialist regimes. The language is changed subtlely to make it more palatable, but it doesn’t matter whether you call it a “Police Incursions” into Vietnam in the 1960’s, or “Peace-Keeping” forces deployed by the UN to the Middle East, or even “counter-terrorist” activities against the Taliban. These all later became known as the Wars in Vietnam, Iraq (x 2), and Afghanistan. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!
Western countries are becoming more totalitarian by degrees. Just as the (now failed) communist countries became more and more oppressive of their citizenry, and the citizens themselves become less and less able to voice their dissent, so it has now become in so-called western democracies.
Whether the flashpoint for the imposition of martial law upon western societies is something as subtle as “student protests over education fees”, or whether it will be citizens exercising the right to civil disobedience in the ‘Occupy Wall-Street’ protests, or whether it is the objection of the ordinary citizen who breaches these new Carbon Laws . Ultimately, the pretext for state control is unimportant. What’s important is the trend. And this trend shows the imposition of these new laws over the population based on – let’s face it – supremely dubious policies in both scope and effect. And the trend also shows the granting of unnecessarily broad enforcement powers to yet another new government instrumentality heretofore making illegal what we yesterday took for granted as an inalienable right.
In the U.S. and in Australia, inherent democratic principles laid out by common law courts have taken decades if not centuries to evolve the fine balance between the rights of citizens and the rights of the state. And now, using this popularist hyped-up pretext of “Carbon Pollution”, (re-labelled the “Clean Energy Bill”) we have the makings of a “1984” in our own backyard.
Please click to read the article of Chris Berg (click the hyperlink!) showing the gradual erosion of civil liberties with the creation of numerous ‘mega-regulators’ in our Society. Also, just for your amusement, take a read a little further down past the article itself into the Ccomments Section below, and see how people rationalize themselves – lemming like – into accepting unquestioningly the bubble of “State Authority” based really on NO visible logical foundation at all. Just blind trust and faith in Julia Gillard who – as it currently looks – likely won’t even be here after the next election.
—> Next up … Final Summary and Big Picture [article cont’d] –>
Epilogue – What Actually Makes a Carbon Tax ‘bad’
- Inflation. It will cause it here in Australia. No if’s and’s or but’s.
- Creates an extra-judicial enforcement agency (Carbon Cops) to enforce it. No warrants. Open to abuse. Too much unnecessary power.
- Convoluted legislation that doesn’t directly address polluters. Just monetizes the process.
- Gillard government is desperate to pay for its overspending. Treasury has no money left. Pins all their hope on it as a revenue raiser like GST to pay for their overspending.
- 10% of the Carbon Taxes will go, unaccountably to the U.N. This erodes Australia’s sovereignty and paves way for NWO.
- The psychology behind the legislation is fatally flawed. The thinking is to use the Carbon Tax to thereby create a negative incentive in the corporate mindset in the scant hope that it will create some kind of positive incentive to adopt alternative technologies. Company’s centre around their core profitable business specialties. They don’t horizontally integrate into “high technology CCS” etc. just because their tax expenditure increases.
- Corporations won’t change their profit making ways. Relying on the good graces / ingenuity of polluters to cease polluting at their leisure is too “long term” and gives no guarantee of compliance with reductions in Greenhouse Emissions.
- The scheme will have no immediate impact (except revenue raising) on global warming. At best it is medium to long term. (Which begs the question “Why is Gillard in such a rush to pass the bill?”)
- Australia only produces 1.5% of world’s total carbon emissions. Our Carbon “reductions” will affect global air temperatures by less than 1 degree celsius in 1,000 years.
- Major polluters like China and India will continue using carbon with no such restrictions. They’ve rejected ETS Schemes outright. They will never adopt such strictures. No way. Not ever. Most other independent countries like Canada and Japan have outright rejected Carbon Taxes and Emission Trading Schemes.
- The carbon tax law will have no international influence benefit on foreign corporations or governments
- Clerical administration of the Carbon Tax will overburden small business.
- Big business is international now. Owes no allegiance to Australia. Will move industry out of Australia, and base themselves in non-carbon-compliance nations and exploit their poor peoples.
- A Carbon Tax mis-directedly targets Carbon. Then completely sidesteps the alleged original problem of global warming.
- Carbon Emissions, rather than being treated as a form of toxin or pollution to be prohibited, are being monetized. Their existence therefore becomes officially endorsed and sanctioned by government as a tradeable Emissions Trading Commodity. This will NEVER get rid of excess carbon in the environment. It will just turn Carbon into a new currency where speculators can have a field day.
- Focus on Fossil Fuels and Carbon Currency, and Carbon Taxes and environmental pre-occupation with Carbon, tends to steep the people’s consciousness into an aberrated mentality of “Carbon Dependency”. Insufficient productive thinking is allocated to fossil fuel alternatives.
- Also, this pre-occupation seems to pander to corporate (hidden?) agendas of maximizing the profits of Big Oil, Energy Cartels, U.S. Military-Industrial Corporations and others who influence U.S. government policy to the point where they can suppress the over 5,000 new energy patents and inventions.
- Funds from Carbon Tax primarily go into general government revenue, no crucial priority being given at all to viable (non-carbon based) energy technology, research, education or industry to break Australia’s or the worlds’ fossil fuel dependencies.
- Carbon Taxpayer buys fossil fuel energy, ultimately, from cartels and monopolies. Whilst the Oil & Gas companies remain unhindered, and pay no tax in getting it out of the ground, the ultimate consumers will effectively have all price increases and the ultimate costs – in every respect – passed on to those end users.
- Any Carbon Tax revenues used to “cure” global warming through Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is a mockery, because you use more fossil fuels to sequester the stuff back into the ground. Also, expenditure on CCS technology could be better spent researching Carbon alternatives such as Hydrogen, Fusion, Zero Point, and Tesla-invented energy solutions (which may already be in use by certain clandestine military organisation).
- Carbon Tax proponents should be focussing on concepts of “pollution” rather than Carbon emissions to cure the world’s ills.
- The so-called “science” used by government and other proponents to justify the introduction of Carbon Tax is still very badly misunderstood, and this leads the average punter to capitulate and rely on the Fallacy of Argument from Authority. For instance —
- they say it’s “settled science” when they mean it is “old science” from over 170 years ago.
- the old science based its study on theoretical principles of blackbody radiation, and “ethereal heat transfer”. The former is only theoretical, the latter is pure Fiction! They are “settled science” only because they were a dead end.
- The old science of heat transfer had no conception of electro-magnetic radiation, intra-molecular friction, and other modern principles of heat transmission.
- Modern theories of Greenhouse rely primarily on infra-red photon (heat) radiation
- Photonic energy absorption and emission from Carbon Compounds in the atmosphere are free to travel back into space, there is no hard “cap” in any atmospheric boundary layer. Global warming advocates forget that.
- The “science” propounded by Dr. Barry Jones (who was former Labor Science Minister), is tinged with socio-political commentary and obeys a pro-Labor agenda. It hardly qualifies as an objective expression of the Scientific Method. Gillard relies on him.
- Carbon Tax proponents falsely attribute the entire 33 degree Celsius heat differential in the atmosphere to CO2.
- There are at least 18 or more different causes (up or down) for global temperature variances in the atmosphere.
- Water vapour alone (which is a gas), in the atmosphere. But in its different forms, actually explains 35% and 95% of all heat differentials.
- There are no studies showing that increased atmospheric heat, with increased CO2, are actually correlated as CO2 being the CAUSE. Historical warming research show CO2 increases after the temperature has risen!
23. The rhetoric and terminology used by Carbon Tax proponents leads to horrendous confusion, and bastardisation of terminology where (for example) “Carbon” is demonized and generalized, and identified as the primary culprit for alleged global warming. Worse still, all “Greenhouse Gases” become lumped-in with the idea they are all anthropogenic “Greenhouse Emissions”.
24. Without outright denying CO2 as a cause of global warming, we can unequivocally state that Australia’s contribution to CO2 levels over the next few decades will have negligible impact upon global Carbon Emission levels, and ergo to global warming. Our carbon tax decisions have minimal influence on larger nations governments. Australians will take all the risk, cost, hassle, economic and civil rights hamstringing, whilst other countries like China with gigantic carbon footprints give no guarantee of adopting any type of scheme whatsoever.
Benefits vs Detriments
I have spent all of this article telling you of the disadvantages of the Carbon Tax, and none of the advantages or benefits. I hereby declare outright my conservatism and my bias. This new “Clean Energy Bill” imposing a Carbon Tax is tainted from its very conception. I have not encountered any any argument where any purported benefit has not already been outweighed by the preponderance of its disadvantages.
– The science doesn’t add up. The science claimed to be applicable is misquoted, mis-understood, loaded with mis-information to further the rhetorical.
– The flop-sweat desperation of the Gillard Labor government in trying to find a way to bankroll for their spending excesses risks everything that’s strong about this country, from our Wealth, our Economic Surplus, our Economic Stability, our credibility as a developed nation, our independent sovereignty as a nation, and even compromises the civil rights of the people. For heavens sake, where did they THINK they were going to get the money when they first embarked on this spending spree?
– The integration of this Carbon Tax with its complex intermingling of Tax Sweeteners (raising the Income Tax threshold, Lowering Company Tax and all the other sugary lollies that make hungry taxpayers salivate, will create a dog’s breakfast of the current taxation system. My mixing up the benefits with the new Carbon Tax, Gillard gives Australians NO WAY to back out of this scheme if it turns out that Australians decide to democratically wind-back the carbon tax by an electoral mandate at the next election. Gillard embarks us upon this path with no trial period. No brakes. No precautions against failure. No Plan “B”.
– The commendable popular global pressure to now “save the planet / environment” have now been warped by this Carbon Tax plan into commercialist abomination that is virtually indistinguishable from the vested interests of multi-National-corporations who control Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Industrial, Big Military, and Big Media.
At this time, I would recommend the adoption of the Liberals/Abbott. Whilst they are apparently policy-less with their “No to everything” approach, that is still preferable to watching the Australian economy and its tax system turn into a menagerie. If You, as a citizen, think that tax breaks being offered are enough to offset the disadvantages of the Carbon Tax being paid, then just remember, (you Nincompoop), any such tax rebates will only be coming out of Your own taxes to begin with!
Be mindful of everyone’s agenda
Regrettably, despite the force of common sense pragmatism, there will still be dreamers out there who wish to support a Carbon Tax as a solution to global warming.
(Sorry, Cate Blanchett, but you need to properly identify your enemies before stepping into this battleground !)
This delusion will usually be perpetuated because Carbon Tax supporters will mistake “doing something” for “doing the right thing”.
In an idealistic stupor, or in an attempt to seem “relevant” they will jump fearfully at bogey man’s shadow. They will falsely crucify Carbon rather than support plans to reduce global fossil fuel dependency. They will pledge allegiance to ignorant leaders. They will unwittingly support an inequitable tax that disproportionately penalizes the poor (not the rich). They will live the illusive hope that “big corporations” will pay, when these self-same corporations will simply pass on all added expenses to consumers. They will foolishly trust corporations to “do the right thing” and “invent solutions” in blind faith even though corporate motivation is “profit” not “benelvolence”. Such dreamers will also remain completely oblivious to the long-term effect on civil liberties and personal freedoms imposed by this “tax on everything”.
If you still disagree with my views, you are welcome to raise counter-arguments in the Comments Section below. As a pupil to this WebLecture, the best common sense counsel I can offer you is that IF you are still a believer in Global Warming you should still err in the conservative in relation to this Carbon Tax. It is conceived in questionable science, its urgency is a mirage, it reeks of corporate manipulation, and its original purpose of repairing global warming has already been hijacked by the Gillard’s need to pay for Labor overspending.
Do not be deluded by the hype. If the earth is honestly going to go through a global warming, it’s going to happen all the while you continue to pay this Carbon Tax. Better you do nothing (i.e. Vote NO to Carbon Tax) at this juncture, and allow better solutions to manifest of their own accord. Otherwise, let the future dominoes fall where they may for your Country, Yourself, and for your children’s children.
These are the facts as I see them.
- Tony Abbott demands..and demands..and demands (cafewhispers.wordpress.com)