• Getup is funded by shadowy US Billionaire George Soros (who will be a major benefactor, along with his pal Al Gore and other banking elites, of the Carbon trading Scheme)
• Getup is funded by 5 major Unions (otherwise known as the The Australian Labor Party) The CFMEU donated 1.1 million in 2010 alone)
So pollution emanating from Australia only stays centric to Australia? It only affects our climate? If our total annual emissions account for <1% of global pollution, what are we really fixing?
Incidentally, the tax has nothing to do with polluters... It has to do with the end consumer. Companies are greedy. They won't undercut their profits to maintain fair prices and Australian citizens will flip the bill for carbon tax regardless. This tax will make Australia less competitive.
Of course you do. Why??? Because you were lied to?? Cant afford it??? Don't want to pay for it??? Scared???
On Sunday night my 5yr old asked to use the computer when he woke in the morning. I said yes to get him to go to sleep, Monday morning came and I told him the computer was broken. Ooops I lied, BAD DAD ALERT. Funny thing the sky didn't fall in.
I hate what get up do. They're ruining the country. All they want to do is push their agenda until there are no rights left for Christians. Soon, we will be like the UK, and not be able to even SAY homosexuality is wrong. We won't be able to even express an opinion about Christianity unless we say "the bible says". How far are we going to let these horrid people ruin us, before somebody stands up and says NO get up! Climate change is absolute crap, and I wish Abbott would say it and mean it!
Lol I just don't get how Getup can compare Australia to Europe- firstly they are more populated and have more firms etc. but also, they are made up of a group of countries. You can't compare oranges with Apples. We are one country. Don't compare us to groups of countries! That's the real spin, Getup hypocrites.
You cant simply just tax carbon pollution, its like putting a tax on the air we breathe, and besides no amount of money will ever destroy the carbon that has already been polluted.
By the way you did ask where i got my information from.. you just got offended when the source (a leading international university) was not lying nor uniformed.
Please look at the BIG PICTURE of Climate change instead of nit picking your facts from secondary or tertiary sources.
And why would you just assume that I'm male or female? Am I to assume that your female or male?
@twytify The only thing I'm offended at is your lack of comprehension. You repeatedly state things that are objectively wrong, and can be disproven with minimal research.
What I have stated is facts, pure and simple. I am beginning to think you are a troll.
Honestly man, I'm not trying to be insulting, but whoever you got your facts from was lying or uninformed.
Technically, each Australian produces slightly (emphasis on slightly) more carbon emissions than each American, yes. I never tried to argue against this.
There are approximately 20 times the amount of people in America as there are in Australia.
Ergo, there is just under 20 times the carbon coming out of the US as a whole.
NEARLY TWENTY TIMES THE CARBON COMES OUT OF THE US.
@twytify For fuck's sake, stop repeating the same shit over and over again. I don't care where you got your information, because you obviously misinterpreted it. You apparently don't understand the very straightforward explanations I have REPEATEDLY told you, and instead choose to believe in a situation that is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
There is no helping you, jeez.
My FACTS (note they are facts) come from SCIENTISTS. Yes, it's on Wikipedia too, funnily enough.
@999newaccount And there is no conspiracy against you involving Wikipedia. I can't even believe this hasn't sunk into your head yet, and that I must explain for like the 7th time.
AUSTRALIANS PRODUCE MORE PER CAPITA THAN THE US, BUT-----
AUSTRALIA AS A COUNTRY PRODUCES 1% OF THE WORLDS CARBON EMISSIONS.
AMERICA HAS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE, AND PRODUCES APPROXIMATELY 17-18 TIMES AS MUCH CARBON EMISSIONS AS A WHOLE.
Facts facts facts.. They cam be interpreted wrongly particularly by those with no knowledge in science and biometry. For example when a scientist says "significant" it does not mean that it is "statistically significant". If you keep getting your information from second hand sources and authors who have no idea what a p-value means you will always get the wrong facts.
Get the real facts look at the peer- reviewed journals. Get off Wikipedia to find the real facts and truth.
@twytify My god you are dense. You pick and choose what you want to be true. Facts can definitely be misinterpreted by those with little knowledge, your posts in reply to mine are the perfect example of that.
Funnily enough, Wikipedia is backed up by you know, the actual research. Please cite your references that back up your claims and state otherwise, or I will be forced to assume that you misinterpreted your info like everything else you (and I) have said.
You have a complete misunderstanding of the interpretation of science by the media.
Science is all about disproving a null hypothesis to link causal factors to an effect.
Wikipedia posts are made by the general public not scientists. It is NOT a database of peer reviewed journals. If an individual so wanted to quote just the null hypothesis of an article and post it on Wikipedia it would be reported as facts to those with no access to the journal which requires a subscription.
For your sake learn about interpreting an evidence base. Wikipedia references are just other internet sites (not credible original research papers). At any of the leading university's in Australia you would not be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a student let alone as a researcher.
If you know how to interpret Harvard-Flinders referencing (as standard to Australian universities) this is one of the many papers I can cite:
Hertwich, EG & Peters, GP 2009, 'Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis', Environmental Science and Technology, vol 43., no. 16, pp. 6414-6420.
Thankfully for you this is a free paper open for all to view and find the truth.
The peer-review process is unforgivable to researchers.
There are only facts to be found in these papers, however it is the sad truth that you need a degree in statistics, biometry or science to be able to find it. It is much more difficult than your 'simple search' and a quote from the abstract and conclusion. Journalists that are not qualified in science communication rarely get the 'facts' right to the public particularly those from networks with their own political agenda.
@twytify So you admit America is the worst? As in 20 times worse than Australia? Great.
I will not argue that the countries you listed aren't doing it better, but Australia is to Sweden as the US is to Australia. How can you not understand this?
No if you look at the data correctly (and which I doubt you could if your stuck on Wikipedia and have very little understanding of what "significant" actually means in a scientific paper) you would find that with any nation with a high proportion of middle class citizens has an unreasonable, unsustainable and with current technological advances unjustifiably higher carbon emissions.
WHY is it Carbon credits are up for Austion by GRAYS online today. Being sold by a sydney solar company with verified credits underwritten by US & UK finance companies. As well as promoted by some dubious Inidan operators. Not forgetting the verifying company has members such as Coca Cola, Nike, JP morgan, Bank Swiss + More. yep all credible scientific authorities to ENFORCE GLOBAL SCAM TAX.
Look on the bright side- it might work the other way round...
IF the CEO of whatever power company you're with decides to pass the cost onto you and IF you are only to get $5... it should make you work harder and longer to get more money to pay off your bills.. logically.. unless your boss really doesn't like you
It might threaten your livelihood though (you know with the cleaner air and all)
I am so glad that in Australia we are taught to logically and rationally deconstruct an argument so no emotional agenda gets in the way. everyone can just look at a policy such as this with all the prior education they have in the field. Aswell as the ability to discuss the validity of each others well-informed opinions.
Yes, our current structure is not environmentally sustainable, but do you want to be impoverished?
Yes, our economic situation is a shambles that doesn't need interfering with, but do you want to be left behind and at the mercy of psychotic foreign superpowers. Course when the OCEANO is passed, we will be anyway.
These industries may be the biggest polluters, but they are also Australia's largest economic and resource providers. it is not logical to tax Australia's biggest industries for releasing carbon dioxide (the least harmful green house gas besides water vapor) and potentially damage the Australian economy when the scientific evidence suggests it will have no environmental benefits. If stopping the carbon tax benefits big industry that works for me, it benefits me and Australia if they succeed
@smithy11742 No, you're making up facts. The overwhelming amount of Australian's are not employed by these companies. These companies will still "succeed" but succeed while having a clear incentive to reduce their emissions intensity. Economists disagree with you about your predictions.
@smithy11742 are you fucking spastic cunt, there is no scientific evidence that suggests it will have no effect you numskull liberal douche. the only scientific facts that are concluded are ones discovered by aristocratic, industrial, rednecks that have no fucking idea what there talking about and care only about fat cat ceo's of mining companys. that are determined to rape and pillage the earth for nonrenewable resources that are rapidly destroying our precious earth. so suck a fat cock cunt
@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 Pissed off much!!! Its ironic that you sit on your computer browsing YouTube and wasting electricity bitching about the same company's that are supplying the coal that generates that electricity. You are dependent on those companies you stupid asshole, if the "fat cats CEOs" get rich in the process of supplying what we need then that good for them. If you can see an alternative to coal/oil then go ahead and point it out, solar energy just doesn't cut for me.
@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 lol, what are you not going to bother doing...you clearly haven't bothered to get an education or bothered to pay any attention to the current economic situation in Australia. Nor have you bothered to notice the lack of benifits this tax offers. It seems you don't bother with a lot of things. Perhaps you mean you won't bother getting out of bed anymore because you’re such an epic failure and contribute nothing good to the world anyway. If so I back that idea 100%, great idea.
@smithy11742 yer dude cus you contribute to the world by having an argument with a 16 year old on youtube. sick one fuck face. the negatives from this tax are outweighed by the positives. fucking wake up cunt we cant just keep taking from the earth and not return it. the earth is not a never ending resource. so what if you price of petrol goes up, so what if a couple of hundred people loose there jobs, the jobs that will be produced from this tax in the thousands. lol your a real sad cunt.
Surprise...Surprise... "Getup" running more left wing propaganda whilst allegedly warning people of the evils of the rights smear campaign. You are not the enlightened hope of the future you think you are. How about we practice a bit of democracy ..And acknowledge that most Australians dont want this tax! Thats a fact..since when does minority rule?? anyway it is of no consequence.. because of this and similar fuck ups, next election that faggot Brown and his deputy Gillard will be annihilated.
I have nothing against trying to do something like this for the environment, but when China, India and the US refuse to do anything of the sort it kind of nullifies anything we do manage.
Australia produces something like 1-2 % of world carbon pollution.
1. The three countries you have pointed out have a smaller carbon footprint than Australia.
2. China and India are doing their part as developing nations to reduce carbon emissions.
3. Please reference where you get your statistics from. Australia is ranked higher than China, India and the USA in our carbon emissions. (It's a shame that we don't get any olympic medals for this fact)
Respond to this video... 1. China: 23.33% 2. US: 18.11% 3. EU: 14.04% 4. India: 5.78% . . . . . 16. Australia: 1.32% ie- if we entirely get rid of all emissions in Aus, 100% (impossible), the world will have 1.32% less carbon per year theoretically, making little to no difference when other countires pour the shit out. Source: Wikipedia.
1. Still its per capita so we have a small number of people and a larger carbon footprint.
2. The stats from Wikipedia may have been added/altered by you so I may have to disregard your statistics.
3. If we don't do anything to reduce our emissions it will make the carbon tax passed by the Danes, the Swiss, the Swedes and the Norwegian in 1993 invalid. i.e. if we don't stop putting out the 'shit' it will negate the efforts of other countries (China and India as well)
@twytify Whether it's per capita or not makes zero difference, unless you want to actively tax each person in the world seperately.
I am not the sort of aspergers reject to be editing Wikipedia to win a pointless argument.
Did you ignore the facts entirely? The 'shit' we put out is 1.3% of the worlds output. If tomorrow Australia changed, and forever put out literally zero emissions, the world would be 1.3% less carbony. Regardless of what we do, it won't have an impact.
1.3 % less carbon is quite a significant impact on the scale of biological mechanisms.. think of this way if the pH of your blood was to change by 1.3% you would be dead, if the temperature of yourr body changed by 1.3% you would be severely ill or possibbly dead, if the calcium levels in your body changed that much you would also be dead... biology works on feedback on small cocentrations
If you want a gloabal example look at CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer
@twytify C'mon man that's just ridiculous. America, China, and India have no carbon tax at all, in fact America plain refuses to even try one as it might cut into their profits.
Imagine this scenario. There are 3 people, each is a litterer. The first guy drops 50 pieces of rubbish on the ground, the second guy drops 49 pieces of rubbish on the ground, the third guy drops 1. This happens every day.
Are you telling me that the third guy stopping will make a difference if the other 2 refuse to?
That means that per person an Australian emits more carbon than an average American. They work it out by taking the nation's average and DIVIDING IT by the population. NOT MULTIPLYING IT!
That means that as a nation of 22 million people we polute more 1.5 billion people.
Lets put it this way 5 divided by 2 is more than 4 divided by 5
If you want it in a picture form consult the Norwegian Uni of Science & Tech
@twytify Also you definitely misunderstand per capita. Your position is that each Australian on average produces approximately 20 times as much carbon emissions as each American? And that Australia as a whole makes more than America as a whole? Because that's what you are saying. And it's wrong.
No I am right. Each Australian does indeed produce more than an average American. So then Australia as a whole does make more than America as a whole and in fact China and India too.
By the way you are deluded by the public media- India does have a carbon tax and China has proposed one for 2012-2013 (by the way these countries have a more sustainable emissions than Australia)
On top of that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland have had one for around 15 years too.
and instead of making more rubbish starts recycling and minimizes the pieces of rubbish that he drops out because he realizes that because they are in a closed room in which eventually the room in which all 5 people live and will drown in their rubbish. This first guy has done this because two other people (India, and the here I've grouped the Swedes, Danes, Norweigens and Swiss together) and the third (China) have either started recycling or considering it in the near future...
This makes recycling a stronger market force to be dealt with and a more economically viable solution which puts pressure on the fifth guy (America) to stop putting out rubbish into the room that they share.
Yes, people toss rubbish everyday in the street but they don't immediately realize that they if they do and it all adds up they will live in their own filth.
Is this Carbon Tax going to be applied to the CSG extraction companies too? If they keep going they way they are, carbon pollution won't mean a damn anyway, 'cos our water supplies, which impacts upn the environment, including flora and fauna, will be irreversibly damaged. And I do believe the carbon tax is just another ploy from the elites to get their money-grubbing mitts onto even more of our hard earned assets before we're all dead from one pollution or another.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a "pollutant". It is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas essential for vegetation growth. In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels and vegetation and forests have flourished as a result.
1. The period of the Earth's history you are referiung to is known as the Carboniferous. Mammals did not exist then (there wasn't even an ozone layer yet).
2. Australia IS suffering the effects of climiate change (Hughes, L 2011; Whetton, PH et al. 1993)
3. There is a difference in being well-educated than brainwashed (such as being able to access original scientific articles, understand p-values and 95% CI rather than being told 2nd hand by people who only read the conclusions)
Hughes, L 2011 'Climate change and Australia: key vulnerable regions', Regional Environmental Change, vol 11, no. 1, pp 189-195.
Whetton, PH, Fowler, AM, Haylock, MR & Pittock, AB 1993 'Implications of climate change due to the enhanced greenhouse effect on floods and droughts in Australia', Climate Change, vol. 25, no. 3-4, pp 289-317.
@twytify I've actually read those. They provide NO evidence of the effects of climate change. They simply expand upon what they think will happen based on the ASSUMPTION that all of the climate alarmist claims are true. There are so many factors and such a short sample period that NO conclusion can be drawn at this point.
The discussion worldwide is not whether we need action but WHAT action to to take. [This is because most of the world knows the difference between the greenhouse effect and climate change]
When people are diagnosed with cancer they don't argue with the mechanisms behind cell mutation... yet doctors use the same scientific process as climate researchers when they diagnose and treat patients (evidence based medicine).
@twytify If the doctor claims his treatment is mandatory and he stands to gain large amounts of power/profit and goes out of his way to silence legitimate dissent, it should at least raise an eyebrow.
The CO2 Tax was concocted by Ken Lay (Enron) and Al "20 room Mansion" Gore back in the 90s. The centre of climate research (the IPCC) has been shown to exaggerate or commit outright deception in order to fit the UN's agenda. (The UN founded by Rockafellar who openly calls for global socialism.)
Point 1- and yet you have still been diagnosed with cancer - what are you going to do about it?
Point 2 - You do have a misunderstanding of the scientific process... Proper scientists DO NOT exaggerate. If they were... the results and conclusions would be rejected in the peer review process.
Point 3 - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Point 4 - I wonder if Denmark knew the UN wanted to take their power away from them in 1992?
@twytify The problem with climate science is that it is 99% "pal reviewed" not "peer reviewed". And even the "pal reviewed" science is subject to a frightening number of variables over long periods of time. This isn't like the theory of gravity where any scientist can test it in a lab with a ruler and a stop watch.
@twytify UN documents from a decade ago show that they wanted to increase their power and that they were going to use a carbon tax to do it. People scoffed at the time but now here we are.
watch?v=XX5rlhbYTXY
(And no, I'm not a Bishop fan - her party is a joke too)
And what exactly is the problem with the UN wanting to do this?
To help the 1 in 6 of the human race that go hungry?
If you want to talk conspiracy theories... 70% of the Australian media (radio, newspaper and tv) is owned by Fairfax media. Do people really think that the 'public' that they protray is truly representative of the general public?
By the way the 'assumption' of an enhanced greenhouse effect is as strongly evidenced as the 'assumption' of evolution
@twytify Because global socialism is a bad thing. National sovereignty is a firewall against tyranny..and so are states. Collectivism has always ended in mass starvation throughout history. The only thing that has ever provided prosperity is liberty.
I can't stand Rupert Murdoch but ABC News 24 mentions "carbon" and "climate change" about 5000 times per day. Even though Murdoch supports carbon taxes (what a surprise) at least parts of Fairfax and News Ltd have pointed out some absurdities.
So your point is that for people to be propseprous they should be selfish, care only for themselves and be unaware of gobal citizenship.
National sovereignty in Autsralia is not our 'firewall' against tyranny. It is the fact that our democratic government is split into three arms- executive, legislative and judicial. National sovereignity in other countries have led to tyranny (lets look at Eygpt and Libya).
Countries don't NEED to 'listen' to the advice of the UN (Iraq invasion)
I personally don't mind when people debate about the absurdities of a tax... But you may find that most of the propaganda out there is not about the tax itself but the science.
If you put the quote in its proper context it spells out a totally different message-
' What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment.... (cont)
... Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?'
- Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write
If the Australian government hadn't taxed us to shit since the begining of time and left some money in our pockets perhaps we wouldn't have such drama with this particular tax.
Remember stamp duty and how that was meant to be temporary?
The "carbon dioxide is good for plants so we should produce more" argument is such a large pile of garbage spin from the Lord Mockton right wing industrial lobby that it is just laughable. Does anyone really, really believe that tripe?
Really the debate shouldn't be on questioning the science behind global warming or whether we need to change our behaviour. It should really surround the policies that the government wishes to enforce to make change occur.
Lets put it this way so...you don't question your doctor when you are diagnosed with cancer but discuss which treatment option would be most efficient and appropriate.
We don't need CO2? Sorry, but we do. How do you think Oxygen happens to be in the atmosphere? It is produced as a by-product of the photosynthetic process of almost all plant life. Plants use CO2 and in return they give us the Oxygen we need for sustaining all other life forms. In other words, if plants don't get CO2 to enable them to photosynthesise, we don't get the Oxygen we need. Simple, really.
I tried to explain it before...you forget that plants also use oxygen. They don't make the oxygen for us to survive. In the presence of sunlight plants undergo photosynthesis- so as you said before they use CO2 and water to produce oxygen and glucose. Glucose cannot give the plant any energy unless the plant undergoes respiration. So at night, they use the oxygen that they produce to break down glucose into CO2 and water so that they can have energy to survive.
@twytify I think you're satirising the statement. We need some CO2 to survive, inasmuch as we need CO2 to sustain plants to produce our oxygen. Plants produce far more O2 than they consume. And there is the negative feedback loop of CO2 - increased CO2 leads to plant growth leads to reduced CO2... at least, that would happen normally, but human limitation of growing areas through agriculture and land reclaiming significantly reduces this effect. Anyway, you're right in principle :)
@Trasvi1 I know I've oversimplified the whole process...I just like to keep things short and simple. So here goes the slightly more extended (but more correct) statement -
After taking into account deforestation and an expanding human population...more carbon dioxide does not equate to more oxygen.
I suspect that if TheLoneStranger0 can acknowledge this he might then consider excess (key word here) CO2 as a pollutant...not something 'natural' or necessary to life.
@twytify I think you're satirising the statement. We need some CO2 to survive, inasmuch as we need CO2 to sustain plants to produce our oxygen. Plants produce far more O2 than they consume. And there is the negative feedback loop of CO2 - increased CO2 leads to plant growth leads to reduced CO2... at least, that would happen normally, but human limitation of growing areas through agriculture and land reclaiming significantly reduces this effect. Anyway, you're right in principle :)
How dumb are people to accept that government will take TAX, give it to overseas vested interests in the name of saving the world! For fuck sake global taxation = a Global economy built on the fiat money system. Debt infinitum until bankrupt
I can't list all my sources here; I'd run out of space. CO2 is N-O-T a pollutant, and never will be. It is ESSENTIAL to life on the planet. How can anything that is essential to our very survival be a pollutant? All creditable scientists agree that warming causes CO2, NOT the other way around. My sources are many, but The Galileo Movement's website certainly presents the facts and answers any questions the alarmists may care to pose. I can name 50-odd reputable scientists, but I'm out of space.
@TheLoneStranger0 Have you heard of a feedback loop? Imagine plugging the output of an amplifier into the input. Eventually the sound will increase to unbearable levels. The same happens with the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from radiating back to space. Increased heat reduces solubility of CO2 in the ocean. Increased CO2.... etc. There are also some negative feedback loops (increased CO2 leads to increased plant growth), but these are theorised less than the positive ones.
@TheLoneStranger0 The Earth has a finite capacity to give and absorb resources. Even though most CO2 is naturally occurring, Earth can only deal with a certain amount itself. If we go over that amount, eventually we get out of balance. Finally, very few *climate scientists* disagree with AGW. If you read through the numerous 'scientist petition against global warming', the majority of signatures belong to economists, computer scientists, arts majors... ie, people with no experience in the field.
@TheLoneStranger0 The Earth has a finite capacity to give and absorb resources. Even though most CO2 is naturally occurring, Earth can only deal with a certain amount itself. If we go over that amount, eventually we get out of balance. Finally, very few *climate scientists* disagree with AGW. If you read through the numerous 'scientist petition against global warming', the majority of signatures belong to economists, computer scientists, arts majors... ie, people with no experience in the field.
1) Unless you are a plant CO2 is NOT essential for your survival. We don't need CO2
2) a lot of your comment seemed to have left out the fact, yes plants need CO2, BUT only during the day...at night they respire the same way as we do (i.e. they use the oxygen that they made to make energy for themselves.. It is only a selfish human thought to believe that plants would make oxygen for us).
3) I don't think you could name 50 'credible' scientists (peer-reviewed articles please)
@TheLoneStranger0 While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment. Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant".
@TheLoneStranger0 mate you cant just use the galileo movement as your only source of information... you will fall flat on your face each time. your obviously on the net look up 10 sources for a definition on pollution, lay and scientific. lets see who has the thickest skull... also perhaps you could prove your knowledge on the subject by trying more than one line of argument... from mor ethan one source of course.
CO2 is only part of the problem. In the process of producing energy from finite resources there are alot of other 'actual' pollutants produced (if thats what you want to call it...)
The misunderstandings of the scientific research method, peer-review process, and the lack of availability of credible journals to the genral public has resulted in the misguided attack on science.
You never question your doctor when they tell you that a substance is carcinogenic.
It's important to counter their claims, but it would be better if get up revealed the sources they used to back up their arguments and discredited the mining industry's sources
why is it that we should pay a carbon tax, when all of our carbon foot print put together doesn't even account for one city in america? oh and just remember, all of the cars in America (yes that's 320,000,000 people's cars, and yes thats less too because of elderly and youth) have less a carbon footprint than one coal refinement plant in China.
Natures carbon footprint would have to be scientifically 100%... We get all our carbon from the environment (coal and oil). However the issue is what has taken nature thousands of years to store, we've released into the environment in decades.
I actually want to know what the carbon footprint of one coal refinement plant in China actually is?
And would that be 'offset' by the booming number of green cities they are building run on renewable energy sources?
@twytify thats a fair point there mate. my biggest problem is that Australia is doing this. a country with 22 (or more now, idk) million people. not that many. we shouldnt have the highest carbon tax when we have some of the lowest emissions.
@wue2117 While we are fifty-first most populated country, we are the sixteenth biggest polluter - out of two-hundred plus countries. Per ton of pollution, we'll be paying less than a lot of other countries. We're going to $23/ton, but only on the biggest polluters. Some parts of Canada are going up to $30 a ton. Some countries in Europe are planning on pushing $50 a ton. Sweden charges $150 (but they have a lot of exemptions - as will we).
@wue2117 I'm not sure exactly how they worked that out. It might be highest total rather than per ton? The countries with high carbon taxes have low CO2 emissions, the countries with high emissions (US, China) don't yet have a tax, so that would make sense. Of course, the hope is that a tax will force us to be more efficient and reduce our emissions, so that over time we will actually pay less and less. I suppose the real debate is whether this particular scheme will achieve that.
@wue2117 Its not the most scientific place to find your independent info, but according to Wikipedia- Australia is ranked no. 11 in the world for our carbon emissions per capita. We beat the USA and China :p (woot). Too bad they don't give out medals.
If you want to know how they work it out the researchers at the Norwegian Uni of Science & Tech have the scientific paper on their site. Google "carbon footprint of nations" & access their calculator. (Just remember that Australia is under Oceania)
@twytify Depending on what list you look at, Australia is still disproportionately high on that list for our population. The countries above us are very small countries (Falkland islands #10 - 3000 people) with oil or gas extraction facilities. Of developed, populated countries, we're amongst the top few ;)
@wue2117 we dont have the lowest emissions... per capita we have the highest in the world. i dont want to be condescending but before you go making decisions or forming an opinion you might want to check out all the facts.
I don't know about you... But I pay my taxes, rent, electricity, perol, food, etc...So I should then probably complain as much as the rest of them??
Unfortunately, it does take some thinking about the issue to realise that the price we pay now is far less than what we 'young people' would have to pay in the future.
Do you think the last person to club a Dodo for sport realised that there would be no more after it?
@twytify Yeah well i dont suppose that shit head uni students who havent ever paid any tax or contributed fuck all to society would have a problem. After all the priority is to appease you westerner self hate isnt it?
@twytify well... thats the thing with generalisations isnt it...? ...they are generally right!. Oh and no, not all uni students are young , but they all contribute significantly less to society than employers, blue collar types...even politicians. Be they young vain and naive, or worse , The self ordained academics who tend to be a bit long in the tooth and infect and corrupt easily led kids in our academic institutions in order to further their own perverse and moronic agendas.
They may contribute much more than you or I in the decades to come (take a look at technology)
If you ever do find yourself at internationally recognised academic institutions (usyd, unsw, uts, etc) you may find that your generalisations are incorrect. A range of perspectives are presented in lectures- professors no longer 'dictate' their views on the students but welcome questioning and promote an open-mind on world issues.
@twytify My Climate Science professors at university maintain a view: "Given the relative timespans involved and the complexity of the system, it is currently difficult to ascertain what percentage of climate change to date is anthropogenic - though it is assuredly non-zero. It is certain, however, that if we keep increasing production of greenhouse gasses at our current rate, we will have a marked and drastic effect on global climate in the future." I feel thats far from 'brainwashing'.
No honestly sarcasm isn't your forte... MY comments were sarcastic :p
Let's take this as a lesson to why the carbon tax debate is here in the first place. As scientists, if we try to convey every single intricacy of biological feedback mechanisms, statistical analysis or even the basic scientific process most people don't understand (science wasn't cool in high school).
@wyrwich Typical left winged, generalising idiot. I don't pick on minorities. I'm an active supporter of gay rights you downer. Do you by any chance have an extra chromosome? Have some maturity and grow up. Stop making such massive generalisations and learn to research the facts before you make such ridiculous accusations.
Trasvi1, take a look at the papers, essays, treatises, reports, etc, written by accredited scientists. There are over 50,000 scientists, world-wide, who have put their names to submissions/petitions to various governments. If Dullard is stupid enough to believe a political minority instead of a scientific majority, that's her problem, but I do NOT want her to make it MY problem by introducing a completely un-warranted, un-necessary carbon dioxide tax.
I think even the basic premise of comparing the EU Emission Trading Scheme to Australia's Carbon Tax is fallacious. The first phase of the EUETS gave out carbon permits for free (which was generally seen as a mistake due to over allocation). Permits were then traded between companies/countries; the scheme was never designed to raise money at all. India has a carbon tax. China will have one soon, as well as producing huge amounts of green power. Australia are the ones falling behind...
Fuck off Julia Gillard with your filthy taxes and your filthy red hair. This ad promoting your disgusting carbon tax cost THE AUSTRALIAN TAX PAYERS MONEY. FUCK YOU. WE DON'T WANT IT. Fuck, if I saw you on the street I'd spit on you.
@Blaxland02 You remind me of the rednecks on South Park screaming "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS... DERR TOOK ERR JERBSS, DURKA DERRRR". You keep screaming that same pathetic lines, only sounding less coherent the more you scream. Pretty sure conservative media doesn't represent all Australians and as for the spitting - you should be lucky we live in a progressive nation where spitting isn't a crime like in Kuala Lumpur. I commend Get Up! for their wonderful campaign, good luck with the anger issues.
@wyrwich Yeah, righto mate. I was just thinking that you reminded me of a giant shit that I did in the toilet the other day. It didn't repetitively scream anything, but it did sit there and fester and stink. Pretty sure you're just a biased lefty with no economical foresight into the future whatsoever. I bet you actually haven't bothered to look into both sides of the story at all. Instead you just sit there comparing decent conservatives to south park red necks. Go back to school you idiot.
@Blaxland02 Blaxland, as said before the Ad is from Getup, not Australian Tax Payers money. Even if either side of the argument is right, you are just one sad little fuck. The way you refer to 'lefties' who are actually people is the same way the Nazi's thought of Jews. I am ashamed to be Australian you are any way a representation of Australian.
@mychmcalrmce You're a moron. You can't possibly be ashamed of being an Australian because you're not an Australian. Don't start comparing me to Adolf Hitler you ridiculous fuck. There are some pretty stark differences between my views and the views Hitler. One being the fact that I believe in democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. The other being that I am vehemently against genocide and murder. But you wouldn't have realised that because again you're a stupid generalising left winged idiot.
@mychmcalrmce You're a moron. You can't possibly be ashamed of being an Australian because you're not an Australian. Don't start comparing me to Adolf Hitler you ridiculous fuck. There are some pretty stark differences between my views and the views Hitler. One being the fact that I believe in democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. The other being that I am vehemently against genocide and murder. But you wouldn't have realised that because again you're a stupid generalising left winged idiot.
Where do you people get your "facts" from? What do you hope to achieve by pulling numbers out of your arses? Climate Change, as caused by excess Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere is scientifically validated. Whether or not said gases are natural or not is irrelevant, Radium is "natural" but you might not want to go rubbing it all over your skin. So before you come posting here with your bull, please go read a peer-reviewed scientific journal on the matter, and realise that there's a problem.
@Blaxland02 Wow, clearly the peer review process of your sixteen functional brain cells is serving you admirably, my apologies for attempting to post a well reasoned comment when you clearly have it under control. It's good to see the sensationalist media like Fox news is here to spread the facts to the world. Not to mention that I doubt whether or not I am sinister is relevant to this discussion.
@thatswhatshesaiddude do you totally miss the point? the tax is on the 500 biggest CO2 emmitters in the country. if they wish to improve their bottom line and avoid paying greater tax they reduce their emissions. simple. the government is encouraging them to evade the tax!! thats the point!! change your practices and you wont have to pay, older practices that arent acceptable given our modern knowledge are being weeded out. use your knoggin ;)
@honeybadgertrix No, you have missed my point. There is still MASSIVE contention on this idea of 'global warming'. It is possible that by becoming 'greener' it will really not make much of a difference at all for the environment. Therefore, the tax is arguably irrelevant - especially when put in context of what the rest of the world is doing (i.e. NOTHING.)
This has been flagged as spam show
We are being conned people....
• Getup is funded by shadowy US Billionaire George Soros (who will be a major benefactor, along with his pal Al Gore and other banking elites, of the Carbon trading Scheme)
• Getup is funded by 5 major Unions (otherwise known as the The Australian Labor Party) The CFMEU donated 1.1 million in 2010 alone)
damogosh 3 weeks ago
So pollution emanating from Australia only stays centric to Australia? It only affects our climate? If our total annual emissions account for <1% of global pollution, what are we really fixing?
Incidentally, the tax has nothing to do with polluters... It has to do with the end consumer. Companies are greedy. They won't undercut their profits to maintain fair prices and Australian citizens will flip the bill for carbon tax regardless. This tax will make Australia less competitive.
scrfce123 2 months ago
Of course you do. Why??? Because you were lied to?? Cant afford it??? Don't want to pay for it??? Scared???
On Sunday night my 5yr old asked to use the computer when he woke in the morning. I said yes to get him to go to sleep, Monday morning came and I told him the computer was broken. Ooops I lied, BAD DAD ALERT. Funny thing the sky didn't fall in.
3133123 3 months ago
I hate what get up do. They're ruining the country. All they want to do is push their agenda until there are no rights left for Christians. Soon, we will be like the UK, and not be able to even SAY homosexuality is wrong. We won't be able to even express an opinion about Christianity unless we say "the bible says". How far are we going to let these horrid people ruin us, before somebody stands up and says NO get up! Climate change is absolute crap, and I wish Abbott would say it and mean it!
jimmys47 3 months ago
Get up the wankers choice since 1979!
syborfical 3 months ago
Lol I just don't get how Getup can compare Australia to Europe- firstly they are more populated and have more firms etc. but also, they are made up of a group of countries. You can't compare oranges with Apples. We are one country. Don't compare us to groups of countries! That's the real spin, Getup hypocrites.
warlo1995 3 months ago
You cant simply just tax carbon pollution, its like putting a tax on the air we breathe, and besides no amount of money will ever destroy the carbon that has already been polluted.
JoshRileyPhotography 3 months ago
@twytify i totally agree. Australia produces 1% of all carbon emissions in the world, and it's a whole continent....
popomama2 3 months ago
@popomama2 You are agreeing with the guy arguing against this. He thinks Aus produces more than China.
999newaccount 3 months ago
@999newaccount
By the way you did ask where i got my information from.. you just got offended when the source (a leading international university) was not lying nor uniformed.
Please look at the BIG PICTURE of Climate change instead of nit picking your facts from secondary or tertiary sources.
And why would you just assume that I'm male or female? Am I to assume that your female or male?
twytify 3 months ago
@twytify The only thing I'm offended at is your lack of comprehension. You repeatedly state things that are objectively wrong, and can be disproven with minimal research.
What I have stated is facts, pure and simple. I am beginning to think you are a troll.
999newaccount 2 months ago
Well if you want the truth don't expect it here.
Fattboy26 3 months ago
@Fattboy26 Tell me are you on Abbotts pay roll if not you sould be your on everything I watch
3133123 3 months ago
@3133123
No I just oppose this tax.
Fattboy26 3 months ago
Honestly man, I'm not trying to be insulting, but whoever you got your facts from was lying or uninformed.
Technically, each Australian produces slightly (emphasis on slightly) more carbon emissions than each American, yes. I never tried to argue against this.
There are approximately 20 times the amount of people in America as there are in Australia.
Ergo, there is just under 20 times the carbon coming out of the US as a whole.
NEARLY TWENTY TIMES THE CARBON COMES OUT OF THE US.
999newaccount 3 months ago
@999newaccount (out of room) Same goes for India and China. Same or very similar ratios.
I am honestly out of options for explaining this to you, it is as clear as day.
Australia accounts for only 1% of the worlds carbon output.
ONE PERCENT.
IT IS NOT THE BIGGEST POLLUTER.
Google 'List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions', and compare to per capita.
I am still for the tax, I have just been trying to say that it literally won't make a difference until the rest of the world joins in.
999newaccount 3 months ago
@999newaccount
... the rest of the world HAS joined in
Even if you believe it or not the truth is that the ave. Australian does indeed produce more carbon emissions than any other citizen in this world...
Picture form is available at the Norwegian Uni of Science and Technology Calculator of Carbon Footprint for nations
I got my facts from a top ranking university in sustainablity in engineering education... where did you get your 1% from Alan Jones or Wikipedia?
twytify 3 months ago
@999newaccount
By the way I hope the picture will help clear up the information for you
You should check it out before posting....
The ratio of middle class people in Australia is far higher than any other nation and that is why we have an unsustainable carbon emission...
A person that has no car, no electricity and little material possessions has a very low carbon emission
Carbon is about sustainable emissions not nil emissions
I hope pictures make it clearer for you :)
twytify 3 months ago
@twytify For fuck's sake, stop repeating the same shit over and over again. I don't care where you got your information, because you obviously misinterpreted it. You apparently don't understand the very straightforward explanations I have REPEATEDLY told you, and instead choose to believe in a situation that is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
There is no helping you, jeez.
My FACTS (note they are facts) come from SCIENTISTS. Yes, it's on Wikipedia too, funnily enough.
999newaccount 3 months ago
@999newaccount And there is no conspiracy against you involving Wikipedia. I can't even believe this hasn't sunk into your head yet, and that I must explain for like the 7th time.
AUSTRALIANS PRODUCE MORE PER CAPITA THAN THE US, BUT-----
AUSTRALIA AS A COUNTRY PRODUCES 1% OF THE WORLDS CARBON EMISSIONS.
AMERICA HAS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE, AND PRODUCES APPROXIMATELY 17-18 TIMES AS MUCH CARBON EMISSIONS AS A WHOLE.
FACTS FACTS FACTS. UNDISPUTABLE FACTS. SHIT.
This is fucking frustrating.
999newaccount 3 months ago
@999newaccount
Facts facts facts.. They cam be interpreted wrongly particularly by those with no knowledge in science and biometry. For example when a scientist says "significant" it does not mean that it is "statistically significant". If you keep getting your information from second hand sources and authors who have no idea what a p-value means you will always get the wrong facts.
Get the real facts look at the peer- reviewed journals. Get off Wikipedia to find the real facts and truth.
twytify 3 months ago
@twytify My god you are dense. You pick and choose what you want to be true. Facts can definitely be misinterpreted by those with little knowledge, your posts in reply to mine are the perfect example of that.
Funnily enough, Wikipedia is backed up by you know, the actual research. Please cite your references that back up your claims and state otherwise, or I will be forced to assume that you misinterpreted your info like everything else you (and I) have said.
999newaccount 2 months ago
@999newaccount
You have a complete misunderstanding of the interpretation of science by the media.
Science is all about disproving a null hypothesis to link causal factors to an effect.
Wikipedia posts are made by the general public not scientists. It is NOT a database of peer reviewed journals. If an individual so wanted to quote just the null hypothesis of an article and post it on Wikipedia it would be reported as facts to those with no access to the journal which requires a subscription.
twytify 2 months ago
@999newaccount
For your sake learn about interpreting an evidence base. Wikipedia references are just other internet sites (not credible original research papers). At any of the leading university's in Australia you would not be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a student let alone as a researcher.
twytify 2 months ago
@999newaccount
If you know how to interpret Harvard-Flinders referencing (as standard to Australian universities) this is one of the many papers I can cite:
Hertwich, EG & Peters, GP 2009, 'Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis', Environmental Science and Technology, vol 43., no. 16, pp. 6414-6420.
Thankfully for you this is a free paper open for all to view and find the truth.
twytify 2 months ago
@999newaccount
By the way this is how you interpret a journal article:
Make sure the article is an original research paper (not a review).
Verify if the paper has been peer reviewed (not still in the press or still in edit).
Make sure it is a recent paper (<5 years is not acceptable to most university standards)
Look at the reputation of the journal and the authors of the article (journals receive a score for their impact factor).
Look at the number of citations the article has received.
twytify 2 months ago
@999newaccount
The peer-review process is unforgivable to researchers.
There are only facts to be found in these papers, however it is the sad truth that you need a degree in statistics, biometry or science to be able to find it. It is much more difficult than your 'simple search' and a quote from the abstract and conclusion. Journalists that are not qualified in science communication rarely get the 'facts' right to the public particularly those from networks with their own political agenda.
twytify 2 months ago
@999newaccount
Also you must stop comparing Australia to the USA.
Its like trying to compare one poison to another.
When you want to improve you have to learn from the best (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland) not the worst (USA).
twytify 3 months ago
@twytify So you admit America is the worst? As in 20 times worse than Australia? Great.
I will not argue that the countries you listed aren't doing it better, but Australia is to Sweden as the US is to Australia. How can you not understand this?
999newaccount 2 months ago
@999newaccount
No if you look at the data correctly (and which I doubt you could if your stuck on Wikipedia and have very little understanding of what "significant" actually means in a scientific paper) you would find that with any nation with a high proportion of middle class citizens has an unreasonable, unsustainable and with current technological advances unjustifiably higher carbon emissions.
twytify 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHY is it Carbon credits are up for Austion by GRAYS online today. Being sold by a sydney solar company with verified credits underwritten by US & UK finance companies. As well as promoted by some dubious Inidan operators. Not forgetting the verifying company has members such as Coca Cola, Nike, JP morgan, Bank Swiss + More. yep all credible scientific authorities to ENFORCE GLOBAL SCAM TAX.
unreal22000 3 months ago
Carbon tax = nuclear power subsidy.
Unavoidable nuclear waste byproducts have a life of up to 50,000 years.
Nuclear waste = the most poisonous waste on the earth.
Under Marius Kloppers new carbon tax, we are to pretend this hideous outcome is somehow 'clean'.
goggycozzle 4 months ago
Also, under the proposed system I will be approximately $5 better off per month in regards to bills. OH NO WHY ARE YOU THREATENING OUR JOBS
999newaccount 4 months ago
@999newaccount
Look on the bright side- it might work the other way round...
IF the CEO of whatever power company you're with decides to pass the cost onto you and IF you are only to get $5... it should make you work harder and longer to get more money to pay off your bills.. logically.. unless your boss really doesn't like you
It might threaten your livelihood though (you know with the cleaner air and all)
twytify 4 months ago
Comment removed
bongodrum59 4 months ago
I am so glad that in Australia we are taught to logically and rationally deconstruct an argument so no emotional agenda gets in the way. everyone can just look at a policy such as this with all the prior education they have in the field. Aswell as the ability to discuss the validity of each others well-informed opinions.
lonk42 4 months ago
"I'm right!"
"No I'm right!"
"No, I'm fucking right!"
"Get fucked, I'm right!"
"Fuck off, I'm right!"
"Get fucked cunt, I'm right!"
Ahh, the soothing mantra of western democracy.
Yes, our current structure is not environmentally sustainable, but do you want to be impoverished?
Yes, our economic situation is a shambles that doesn't need interfering with, but do you want to be left behind and at the mercy of psychotic foreign superpowers. Course when the OCEANO is passed, we will be anyway.
Cylixx3 4 months ago
These industries may be the biggest polluters, but they are also Australia's largest economic and resource providers. it is not logical to tax Australia's biggest industries for releasing carbon dioxide (the least harmful green house gas besides water vapor) and potentially damage the Australian economy when the scientific evidence suggests it will have no environmental benefits. If stopping the carbon tax benefits big industry that works for me, it benefits me and Australia if they succeed
smithy11742 4 months ago
@smithy11742 No, you're making up facts. The overwhelming amount of Australian's are not employed by these companies. These companies will still "succeed" but succeed while having a clear incentive to reduce their emissions intensity. Economists disagree with you about your predictions.
beamla 4 months ago 7
@smithy11742 are you fucking spastic cunt, there is no scientific evidence that suggests it will have no effect you numskull liberal douche. the only scientific facts that are concluded are ones discovered by aristocratic, industrial, rednecks that have no fucking idea what there talking about and care only about fat cat ceo's of mining companys. that are determined to rape and pillage the earth for nonrenewable resources that are rapidly destroying our precious earth. so suck a fat cock cunt
LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 4 months ago
@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 Firstly, umadbro? Secondly, your argument is invalid.
tr0llerguy 4 months ago
@tr0llerguy are you fucked cunt? how is it invalid at all?
LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 4 months ago
@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 I wouldn't expect you to understand kid. This is adult stuff.
tr0llerguy 4 months ago
@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 Pissed off much!!! Its ironic that you sit on your computer browsing YouTube and wasting electricity bitching about the same company's that are supplying the coal that generates that electricity. You are dependent on those companies you stupid asshole, if the "fat cats CEOs" get rich in the process of supplying what we need then that good for them. If you can see an alternative to coal/oil then go ahead and point it out, solar energy just doesn't cut for me.
smithy11742 4 months ago
@smithy11742 Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
ilikeradiohead 4 months ago
@smithy11742 yer nice one cock head. im not even going to bother you arrogant redneck wanker.
LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 4 months ago
@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 lol, what are you not going to bother doing...you clearly haven't bothered to get an education or bothered to pay any attention to the current economic situation in Australia. Nor have you bothered to notice the lack of benifits this tax offers. It seems you don't bother with a lot of things. Perhaps you mean you won't bother getting out of bed anymore because you’re such an epic failure and contribute nothing good to the world anyway. If so I back that idea 100%, great idea.
smithy11742 4 months ago
@smithy11742 yer dude cus you contribute to the world by having an argument with a 16 year old on youtube. sick one fuck face. the negatives from this tax are outweighed by the positives. fucking wake up cunt we cant just keep taking from the earth and not return it. the earth is not a never ending resource. so what if you price of petrol goes up, so what if a couple of hundred people loose there jobs, the jobs that will be produced from this tax in the thousands. lol your a real sad cunt.
LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 4 months ago
Comment removed
smithy11742 4 months ago
Surprise...Surprise... "Getup" running more left wing propaganda whilst allegedly warning people of the evils of the rights smear campaign. You are not the enlightened hope of the future you think you are. How about we practice a bit of democracy ..And acknowledge that most Australians dont want this tax! Thats a fact..since when does minority rule?? anyway it is of no consequence.. because of this and similar fuck ups, next election that faggot Brown and his deputy Gillard will be annihilated.
0ptimus01 4 months ago
I have nothing against trying to do something like this for the environment, but when China, India and the US refuse to do anything of the sort it kind of nullifies anything we do manage.
Australia produces something like 1-2 % of world carbon pollution.
999newaccount 5 months ago
@999newaccount
1. The three countries you have pointed out have a smaller carbon footprint than Australia.
2. China and India are doing their part as developing nations to reduce carbon emissions.
3. Please reference where you get your statistics from. Australia is ranked higher than China, India and the USA in our carbon emissions. (It's a shame that we don't get any olympic medals for this fact)
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify Australia's so called bigger footprint is per capita. Funnily enough though, China, India, and the US have a few more people than us.
To clarify, I would rather this x 1000 than any attempt at an Abbott Government, I'm just saying it won't do much either way.
999newaccount 4 months ago
999newaccount 4 months ago
bah why the hell did respond to this video stay there heh
999newaccount 4 months ago
@999newaccount
1. Still its per capita so we have a small number of people and a larger carbon footprint.
2. The stats from Wikipedia may have been added/altered by you so I may have to disregard your statistics.
3. If we don't do anything to reduce our emissions it will make the carbon tax passed by the Danes, the Swiss, the Swedes and the Norwegian in 1993 invalid. i.e. if we don't stop putting out the 'shit' it will negate the efforts of other countries (China and India as well)
twytify 4 months ago
@twytify Whether it's per capita or not makes zero difference, unless you want to actively tax each person in the world seperately.
I am not the sort of aspergers reject to be editing Wikipedia to win a pointless argument.
Did you ignore the facts entirely? The 'shit' we put out is 1.3% of the worlds output. If tomorrow Australia changed, and forever put out literally zero emissions, the world would be 1.3% less carbony. Regardless of what we do, it won't have an impact.
999newaccount 4 months ago
@999newaccount
1.3 % less carbon is quite a significant impact on the scale of biological mechanisms.. think of this way if the pH of your blood was to change by 1.3% you would be dead, if the temperature of yourr body changed by 1.3% you would be severely ill or possibbly dead, if the calcium levels in your body changed that much you would also be dead... biology works on feedback on small cocentrations
If you want a gloabal example look at CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer
twytify 4 months ago
@twytify C'mon man that's just ridiculous. America, China, and India have no carbon tax at all, in fact America plain refuses to even try one as it might cut into their profits.
Imagine this scenario. There are 3 people, each is a litterer. The first guy drops 50 pieces of rubbish on the ground, the second guy drops 49 pieces of rubbish on the ground, the third guy drops 1. This happens every day.
Are you telling me that the third guy stopping will make a difference if the other 2 refuse to?
999newaccount 3 months ago
@twytify Actually it has occured to me you might not know what per capita means.
In 2008:
Australians made 18.9 metric tonnes of C02 each,
Americans made 17.5 each.
Consider now that America has 20 times the amount of people.
999newaccount 4 months ago
@999newaccount
No you don't know what per capita means...
It is the average per person
That means that per person an Australian emits more carbon than an average American. They work it out by taking the nation's average and DIVIDING IT by the population. NOT MULTIPLYING IT!
That means that as a nation of 22 million people we polute more 1.5 billion people.
Lets put it this way 5 divided by 2 is more than 4 divided by 5
If you want it in a picture form consult the Norwegian Uni of Science & Tech
twytify 4 months ago
@twytify Also you definitely misunderstand per capita. Your position is that each Australian on average produces approximately 20 times as much carbon emissions as each American? And that Australia as a whole makes more than America as a whole? Because that's what you are saying. And it's wrong.
999newaccount 3 months ago
@999newaccount
No I am right. Each Australian does indeed produce more than an average American. So then Australia as a whole does make more than America as a whole and in fact China and India too.
By the way you are deluded by the public media- India does have a carbon tax and China has proposed one for 2012-2013 (by the way these countries have a more sustainable emissions than Australia)
On top of that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland have had one for around 15 years too.
twytify 3 months ago
@twytify You better be trolling.
hofhorrors 3 months ago
@hofhorrors
The troll king started it....
twytify 3 months ago
Comment removed
twytify 3 months ago
@999newaccount
and instead of making more rubbish starts recycling and minimizes the pieces of rubbish that he drops out because he realizes that because they are in a closed room in which eventually the room in which all 5 people live and will drown in their rubbish. This first guy has done this because two other people (India, and the here I've grouped the Swedes, Danes, Norweigens and Swiss together) and the third (China) have either started recycling or considering it in the near future...
twytify 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@999newaccount
This makes recycling a stronger market force to be dealt with and a more economically viable solution which puts pressure on the fifth guy (America) to stop putting out rubbish into the room that they share.
Yes, people toss rubbish everyday in the street but they don't immediately realize that they if they do and it all adds up they will live in their own filth.
twytify 3 months ago
@999newaccount
Your scenario is also an inaccurate representation of the carbon problem
First we need more stake holders say 5.. that can't leave a closed room (planet Earth)
As Australia does indeed produce more carbon emissions than any other nation in the world It is like your first guy stopping...
twytify 3 months ago
Comment removed
twytify 3 months ago
Is this Carbon Tax going to be applied to the CSG extraction companies too? If they keep going they way they are, carbon pollution won't mean a damn anyway, 'cos our water supplies, which impacts upn the environment, including flora and fauna, will be irreversibly damaged. And I do believe the carbon tax is just another ploy from the elites to get their money-grubbing mitts onto even more of our hard earned assets before we're all dead from one pollution or another.
Addaz669 5 months ago
they definitely toook errr jerrrrbbssssssss. white trash.
tonyisme123 5 months ago
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a "pollutant". It is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas essential for vegetation growth. In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been much higher than current levels and vegetation and forests have flourished as a result.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
1. The period of the Earth's history you are referiung to is known as the Carboniferous. Mammals did not exist then (there wasn't even an ozone layer yet).
2. Australia IS suffering the effects of climiate change (Hughes, L 2011; Whetton, PH et al. 1993)
3. There is a difference in being well-educated than brainwashed (such as being able to access original scientific articles, understand p-values and 95% CI rather than being told 2nd hand by people who only read the conclusions)
twytify 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
References:
Hughes, L 2011 'Climate change and Australia: key vulnerable regions', Regional Environmental Change, vol 11, no. 1, pp 189-195.
Whetton, PH, Fowler, AM, Haylock, MR & Pittock, AB 1993 'Implications of climate change due to the enhanced greenhouse effect on floods and droughts in Australia', Climate Change, vol. 25, no. 3-4, pp 289-317.
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify I've actually read those. They provide NO evidence of the effects of climate change. They simply expand upon what they think will happen based on the ASSUMPTION that all of the climate alarmist claims are true. There are so many factors and such a short sample period that NO conclusion can be drawn at this point.
That is junk science.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
Again I shall reinforce my point...
The discussion worldwide is not whether we need action but WHAT action to to take. [This is because most of the world knows the difference between the greenhouse effect and climate change]
When people are diagnosed with cancer they don't argue with the mechanisms behind cell mutation... yet doctors use the same scientific process as climate researchers when they diagnose and treat patients (evidence based medicine).
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify If the doctor claims his treatment is mandatory and he stands to gain large amounts of power/profit and goes out of his way to silence legitimate dissent, it should at least raise an eyebrow.
The CO2 Tax was concocted by Ken Lay (Enron) and Al "20 room Mansion" Gore back in the 90s. The centre of climate research (the IPCC) has been shown to exaggerate or commit outright deception in order to fit the UN's agenda. (The UN founded by Rockafellar who openly calls for global socialism.)
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
Point 1- and yet you have still been diagnosed with cancer - what are you going to do about it?
Point 2 - You do have a misunderstanding of the scientific process... Proper scientists DO NOT exaggerate. If they were... the results and conclusions would be rejected in the peer review process.
Point 3 - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Point 4 - I wonder if Denmark knew the UN wanted to take their power away from them in 1992?
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify The problem with climate science is that it is 99% "pal reviewed" not "peer reviewed". And even the "pal reviewed" science is subject to a frightening number of variables over long periods of time. This isn't like the theory of gravity where any scientist can test it in a lab with a ruler and a stop watch.
Absence of evidence = faith-based religion.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@twytify UN documents from a decade ago show that they wanted to increase their power and that they were going to use a carbon tax to do it. People scoffed at the time but now here we are.
watch?v=XX5rlhbYTXY
(And no, I'm not a Bishop fan - her party is a joke too)
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
May i have the reference to those UN documents.. not just the second hand information provided in the video
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify OK, here's one document that is on the UN web site which deals with how to redistribute wealth from "rich" countries to "poor" countries.
Just type "Can the financing gap be closed UN 2001" into a search engine and there will be a link to the UN web site.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
And what exactly is the problem with the UN wanting to do this?
To help the 1 in 6 of the human race that go hungry?
If you want to talk conspiracy theories... 70% of the Australian media (radio, newspaper and tv) is owned by Fairfax media. Do people really think that the 'public' that they protray is truly representative of the general public?
By the way the 'assumption' of an enhanced greenhouse effect is as strongly evidenced as the 'assumption' of evolution
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify Because global socialism is a bad thing. National sovereignty is a firewall against tyranny..and so are states. Collectivism has always ended in mass starvation throughout history. The only thing that has ever provided prosperity is liberty.
I can't stand Rupert Murdoch but ABC News 24 mentions "carbon" and "climate change" about 5000 times per day. Even though Murdoch supports carbon taxes (what a surprise) at least parts of Fairfax and News Ltd have pointed out some absurdities.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
So your point is that for people to be propseprous they should be selfish, care only for themselves and be unaware of gobal citizenship.
National sovereignty in Autsralia is not our 'firewall' against tyranny. It is the fact that our democratic government is split into three arms- executive, legislative and judicial. National sovereignity in other countries have led to tyranny (lets look at Eygpt and Libya).
Countries don't NEED to 'listen' to the advice of the UN (Iraq invasion)
twytify 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
I personally don't mind when people debate about the absurdities of a tax... But you may find that most of the propaganda out there is not about the tax itself but the science.
twytify 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twytify I couldn't agree more!
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Opening Speech, Rio Earth Summit, 1992
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@ComicPenius
If you put the quote in its proper context it spells out a totally different message-
' What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment.... (cont)
twytify 4 months ago
Comment removed
twytify 4 months ago
Comment removed
twytify 4 months ago
Comment removed
twytify 4 months ago
@ComicPenius
... Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?'
- Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write
THE PLOT OF A BOOK not Rio Earth Summit
twytify 4 months ago
"Australia is already suffering from the effects of climate change"
Bullshit.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
If the Australian government hadn't taxed us to shit since the begining of time and left some money in our pockets perhaps we wouldn't have such drama with this particular tax.
Remember stamp duty and how that was meant to be temporary?
strakallah 5 months ago
The "carbon dioxide is good for plants so we should produce more" argument is such a large pile of garbage spin from the Lord Mockton right wing industrial lobby that it is just laughable. Does anyone really, really believe that tripe?
sefindeblow 5 months ago 5
@sefindeblow unfortunately they do...
honeybadgertrix 5 months ago
I'm middle age and I support the carbon tax.
sefindeblow 5 months ago
@sefindeblow Thank you, you have given me hope : )
twytify 5 months ago
Really the debate shouldn't be on questioning the science behind global warming or whether we need to change our behaviour. It should really surround the policies that the government wishes to enforce to make change occur.
Lets put it this way so...you don't question your doctor when you are diagnosed with cancer but discuss which treatment option would be most efficient and appropriate.
twytify 5 months ago
We don't need CO2? Sorry, but we do. How do you think Oxygen happens to be in the atmosphere? It is produced as a by-product of the photosynthetic process of almost all plant life. Plants use CO2 and in return they give us the Oxygen we need for sustaining all other life forms. In other words, if plants don't get CO2 to enable them to photosynthesise, we don't get the Oxygen we need. Simple, really.
TheLoneStranger0 5 months ago
Comment removed
twytify 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger
I tried to explain it before...you forget that plants also use oxygen. They don't make the oxygen for us to survive. In the presence of sunlight plants undergo photosynthesis- so as you said before they use CO2 and water to produce oxygen and glucose. Glucose cannot give the plant any energy unless the plant undergoes respiration. So at night, they use the oxygen that they produce to break down glucose into CO2 and water so that they can have energy to survive.
twytify 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0
So to clarify...the more CO2 with have in the atmosphere DOES NOT equate to more oxygen in the atmosphere. "Simple, really."
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify I think you're satirising the statement. We need some CO2 to survive, inasmuch as we need CO2 to sustain plants to produce our oxygen. Plants produce far more O2 than they consume. And there is the negative feedback loop of CO2 - increased CO2 leads to plant growth leads to reduced CO2... at least, that would happen normally, but human limitation of growing areas through agriculture and land reclaiming significantly reduces this effect. Anyway, you're right in principle :)
Trasvi1 5 months ago
@Trasvi1 I know I've oversimplified the whole process...I just like to keep things short and simple. So here goes the slightly more extended (but more correct) statement -
After taking into account deforestation and an expanding human population...more carbon dioxide does not equate to more oxygen.
I suspect that if TheLoneStranger0 can acknowledge this he might then consider excess (key word here) CO2 as a pollutant...not something 'natural' or necessary to life.
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify I think you're satirising the statement. We need some CO2 to survive, inasmuch as we need CO2 to sustain plants to produce our oxygen. Plants produce far more O2 than they consume. And there is the negative feedback loop of CO2 - increased CO2 leads to plant growth leads to reduced CO2... at least, that would happen normally, but human limitation of growing areas through agriculture and land reclaiming significantly reduces this effect. Anyway, you're right in principle :)
Trasvi1 5 months ago
How dumb are people to accept that government will take TAX, give it to overseas vested interests in the name of saving the world! For fuck sake global taxation = a Global economy built on the fiat money system. Debt infinitum until bankrupt
unreal22000 5 months ago
I can't list all my sources here; I'd run out of space. CO2 is N-O-T a pollutant, and never will be. It is ESSENTIAL to life on the planet. How can anything that is essential to our very survival be a pollutant? All creditable scientists agree that warming causes CO2, NOT the other way around. My sources are many, but The Galileo Movement's website certainly presents the facts and answers any questions the alarmists may care to pose. I can name 50-odd reputable scientists, but I'm out of space.
TheLoneStranger0 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0 Have you heard of a feedback loop? Imagine plugging the output of an amplifier into the input. Eventually the sound will increase to unbearable levels. The same happens with the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from radiating back to space. Increased heat reduces solubility of CO2 in the ocean. Increased CO2.... etc. There are also some negative feedback loops (increased CO2 leads to increased plant growth), but these are theorised less than the positive ones.
Trasvi1 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0 The Earth has a finite capacity to give and absorb resources. Even though most CO2 is naturally occurring, Earth can only deal with a certain amount itself. If we go over that amount, eventually we get out of balance. Finally, very few *climate scientists* disagree with AGW. If you read through the numerous 'scientist petition against global warming', the majority of signatures belong to economists, computer scientists, arts majors... ie, people with no experience in the field.
Trasvi1 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0 The Earth has a finite capacity to give and absorb resources. Even though most CO2 is naturally occurring, Earth can only deal with a certain amount itself. If we go over that amount, eventually we get out of balance. Finally, very few *climate scientists* disagree with AGW. If you read through the numerous 'scientist petition against global warming', the majority of signatures belong to economists, computer scientists, arts majors... ie, people with no experience in the field.
Trasvi1 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0
1) Unless you are a plant CO2 is NOT essential for your survival. We don't need CO2
2) a lot of your comment seemed to have left out the fact, yes plants need CO2, BUT only during the day...at night they respire the same way as we do (i.e. they use the oxygen that they made to make energy for themselves.. It is only a selfish human thought to believe that plants would make oxygen for us).
3) I don't think you could name 50 'credible' scientists (peer-reviewed articles please)
twytify 5 months ago
I repeat, carbon dioxide is not, has never been, and will never be a pollutant. Please,
get it through your thick skulls!!!!
TheLoneStranger0 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0 While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment. Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant".
honeybadgertrix 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0 mate you cant just use the galileo movement as your only source of information... you will fall flat on your face each time. your obviously on the net look up 10 sources for a definition on pollution, lay and scientific. lets see who has the thickest skull... also perhaps you could prove your knowledge on the subject by trying more than one line of argument... from mor ethan one source of course.
honeybadgertrix 5 months ago
@TheLoneStranger0
CO2 is only part of the problem. In the process of producing energy from finite resources there are alot of other 'actual' pollutants produced (if thats what you want to call it...)
The misunderstandings of the scientific research method, peer-review process, and the lack of availability of credible journals to the genral public has resulted in the misguided attack on science.
You never question your doctor when they tell you that a substance is carcinogenic.
twytify 5 months ago
It's important to counter their claims, but it would be better if get up revealed the sources they used to back up their arguments and discredited the mining industry's sources
jeremyampt 5 months ago
Ditch the Witch.
AussieTheOztralian 5 months ago
natures carbon foot print = 97%
man's = 2.4%
australia's? roughly 0.04%
why is it that we should pay a carbon tax, when all of our carbon foot print put together doesn't even account for one city in america? oh and just remember, all of the cars in America (yes that's 320,000,000 people's cars, and yes thats less too because of elderly and youth) have less a carbon footprint than one coal refinement plant in China.
wue2117 5 months ago
@wue2117
Natures carbon footprint would have to be scientifically 100%... We get all our carbon from the environment (coal and oil). However the issue is what has taken nature thousands of years to store, we've released into the environment in decades.
I actually want to know what the carbon footprint of one coal refinement plant in China actually is?
And would that be 'offset' by the booming number of green cities they are building run on renewable energy sources?
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify thats a fair point there mate. my biggest problem is that Australia is doing this. a country with 22 (or more now, idk) million people. not that many. we shouldnt have the highest carbon tax when we have some of the lowest emissions.
wue2117 5 months ago
@wue2117 While we are fifty-first most populated country, we are the sixteenth biggest polluter - out of two-hundred plus countries. Per ton of pollution, we'll be paying less than a lot of other countries. We're going to $23/ton, but only on the biggest polluters. Some parts of Canada are going up to $30 a ton. Some countries in Europe are planning on pushing $50 a ton. Sweden charges $150 (but they have a lot of exemptions - as will we).
doctorapocalypse 5 months ago
@doctorapocalypse are we really the sixteenth biggest polluter? hm guess you learn something new every day!
i thought we were going to be paying the highest tax?
wue2117 5 months ago
@wue2117 I'm not sure exactly how they worked that out. It might be highest total rather than per ton? The countries with high carbon taxes have low CO2 emissions, the countries with high emissions (US, China) don't yet have a tax, so that would make sense. Of course, the hope is that a tax will force us to be more efficient and reduce our emissions, so that over time we will actually pay less and less. I suppose the real debate is whether this particular scheme will achieve that.
doctorapocalypse 5 months ago
@wue2117 Its not the most scientific place to find your independent info, but according to Wikipedia- Australia is ranked no. 11 in the world for our carbon emissions per capita. We beat the USA and China :p (woot). Too bad they don't give out medals.
If you want to know how they work it out the researchers at the Norwegian Uni of Science & Tech have the scientific paper on their site. Google "carbon footprint of nations" & access their calculator. (Just remember that Australia is under Oceania)
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify Depending on what list you look at, Australia is still disproportionately high on that list for our population. The countries above us are very small countries (Falkland islands #10 - 3000 people) with oil or gas extraction facilities. Of developed, populated countries, we're amongst the top few ;)
Trasvi1 5 months ago
@wue2117 we dont have the lowest emissions... per capita we have the highest in the world. i dont want to be condescending but before you go making decisions or forming an opinion you might want to check out all the facts.
honeybadgertrix 5 months ago
Has anyone else noticed that the majority of the people complaining are middle age?
twytify 5 months ago 14
Comment removed
honeybadgertrix 5 months ago
@twytify Us young people have never had to pay for much. I think they are allowed to complain if they want.
Klukie1994 5 months ago
@Klukie1994
I don't know about you... But I pay my taxes, rent, electricity, perol, food, etc...So I should then probably complain as much as the rest of them??
Unfortunately, it does take some thinking about the issue to realise that the price we pay now is far less than what we 'young people' would have to pay in the future.
Do you think the last person to club a Dodo for sport realised that there would be no more after it?
twytify 5 months ago
@twytify Yeah, because they haven't been brainwashed by the green cult in schools.
ComicPenius 5 months ago
@twytify Yeah well i dont suppose that shit head uni students who havent ever paid any tax or contributed fuck all to society would have a problem. After all the priority is to appease you westerner self hate isnt it?
0ptimus01 4 months ago
@0ptimus01
...at the moment your comment about contribution to society sounds rather ironic : )
Or are you generalising that all university students are 'young'?
twytify 4 months ago
@twytify well... thats the thing with generalisations isnt it...? ...they are generally right!. Oh and no, not all uni students are young , but they all contribute significantly less to society than employers, blue collar types...even politicians. Be they young vain and naive, or worse , The self ordained academics who tend to be a bit long in the tooth and infect and corrupt easily led kids in our academic institutions in order to further their own perverse and moronic agendas.
0ptimus01 4 months ago
@0ptimus01
Well be wary they are our future =D
They may contribute much more than you or I in the decades to come (take a look at technology)
If you ever do find yourself at internationally recognised academic institutions (usyd, unsw, uts, etc) you may find that your generalisations are incorrect. A range of perspectives are presented in lectures- professors no longer 'dictate' their views on the students but welcome questioning and promote an open-mind on world issues.
twytify 4 months ago
@twytify My Climate Science professors at university maintain a view: "Given the relative timespans involved and the complexity of the system, it is currently difficult to ascertain what percentage of climate change to date is anthropogenic - though it is assuredly non-zero. It is certain, however, that if we keep increasing production of greenhouse gasses at our current rate, we will have a marked and drastic effect on global climate in the future." I feel thats far from 'brainwashing'.
Trasvi1 4 months ago
@Trasvi1
Sarcasm is honestly not your forte...
twytify 4 months ago
@twytify It wasn't sarcasm.... Thats honestly what we get taught
Trasvi1 4 months ago
@Trasvi1
No honestly sarcasm isn't your forte... MY comments were sarcastic :p
Let's take this as a lesson to why the carbon tax debate is here in the first place. As scientists, if we try to convey every single intricacy of biological feedback mechanisms, statistical analysis or even the basic scientific process most people don't understand (science wasn't cool in high school).
Simplify and use analogies.
twytify 4 months ago
Anti-Carbon Tax Ads = DERR TOOK ERR JERRBS
wyrwich 5 months ago
@wyrwich That's the second time you've made reference to south park. Fuck off you left winged moron.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
@Blaxland02 Don't you have some Asian or Muslim minorities you should be picking on?
wyrwich 5 months ago
@wyrwich Typical left winged, generalising idiot. I don't pick on minorities. I'm an active supporter of gay rights you downer. Do you by any chance have an extra chromosome? Have some maturity and grow up. Stop making such massive generalisations and learn to research the facts before you make such ridiculous accusations.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
Trasvi1, take a look at the papers, essays, treatises, reports, etc, written by accredited scientists. There are over 50,000 scientists, world-wide, who have put their names to submissions/petitions to various governments. If Dullard is stupid enough to believe a political minority instead of a scientific majority, that's her problem, but I do NOT want her to make it MY problem by introducing a completely un-warranted, un-necessary carbon dioxide tax.
TheLoneStranger0 5 months ago
I think even the basic premise of comparing the EU Emission Trading Scheme to Australia's Carbon Tax is fallacious. The first phase of the EUETS gave out carbon permits for free (which was generally seen as a mistake due to over allocation). Permits were then traded between companies/countries; the scheme was never designed to raise money at all. India has a carbon tax. China will have one soon, as well as producing huge amounts of green power. Australia are the ones falling behind...
Trasvi1 5 months ago
This ad needs to be on television, not youtube. Maybe during the cheap ad slots of the Bolt Report.
anaemia 5 months ago
Fuck off Julia Gillard with your filthy taxes and your filthy red hair. This ad promoting your disgusting carbon tax cost THE AUSTRALIAN TAX PAYERS MONEY. FUCK YOU. WE DON'T WANT IT. Fuck, if I saw you on the street I'd spit on you.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
@Blaxland02 You're a twat. The ad was made by GetUp, not the government. No taxpayers paid for anything. Read before you post!
Huzz 5 months ago
@Blaxland02 You remind me of the rednecks on South Park screaming "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS... DERR TOOK ERR JERBSS, DURKA DERRRR". You keep screaming that same pathetic lines, only sounding less coherent the more you scream. Pretty sure conservative media doesn't represent all Australians and as for the spitting - you should be lucky we live in a progressive nation where spitting isn't a crime like in Kuala Lumpur. I commend Get Up! for their wonderful campaign, good luck with the anger issues.
wyrwich 5 months ago
@wyrwich Yeah, righto mate. I was just thinking that you reminded me of a giant shit that I did in the toilet the other day. It didn't repetitively scream anything, but it did sit there and fester and stink. Pretty sure you're just a biased lefty with no economical foresight into the future whatsoever. I bet you actually haven't bothered to look into both sides of the story at all. Instead you just sit there comparing decent conservatives to south park red necks. Go back to school you idiot.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
@Blaxland02 Blaxland, as said before the Ad is from Getup, not Australian Tax Payers money. Even if either side of the argument is right, you are just one sad little fuck. The way you refer to 'lefties' who are actually people is the same way the Nazi's thought of Jews. I am ashamed to be Australian you are any way a representation of Australian.
mychmcalrmce 5 months ago
@mychmcalrmce You're a moron. You can't possibly be ashamed of being an Australian because you're not an Australian. Don't start comparing me to Adolf Hitler you ridiculous fuck. There are some pretty stark differences between my views and the views Hitler. One being the fact that I believe in democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. The other being that I am vehemently against genocide and murder. But you wouldn't have realised that because again you're a stupid generalising left winged idiot.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
@mychmcalrmce You're a moron. You can't possibly be ashamed of being an Australian because you're not an Australian. Don't start comparing me to Adolf Hitler you ridiculous fuck. There are some pretty stark differences between my views and the views Hitler. One being the fact that I believe in democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. The other being that I am vehemently against genocide and murder. But you wouldn't have realised that because again you're a stupid generalising left winged idiot.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
Where do you people get your "facts" from? What do you hope to achieve by pulling numbers out of your arses? Climate Change, as caused by excess Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere is scientifically validated. Whether or not said gases are natural or not is irrelevant, Radium is "natural" but you might not want to go rubbing it all over your skin. So before you come posting here with your bull, please go read a peer-reviewed scientific journal on the matter, and realise that there's a problem.
blaghman 5 months ago
@blaghman Actually, man made global warming is bullshit you filthy lefty.
Blaxland02 5 months ago
@Blaxland02 Wow, clearly the peer review process of your sixteen functional brain cells is serving you admirably, my apologies for attempting to post a well reasoned comment when you clearly have it under control. It's good to see the sensationalist media like Fox news is here to spread the facts to the world. Not to mention that I doubt whether or not I am sinister is relevant to this discussion.
blaghman 5 months ago
we dont know AT ALL if climate change is hurting us anyway.
And why dont we just tax Australia when Europe taxes Europe? Then it avoids all this nonsense in the first place.
"Polluting for free". So is the rest of the world. Australia taxing this will make ZERO difference for the environment.
Nothing will happen until the elite of this world agree that "climate change" is a real problem
thatswhatshesaiddude 5 months ago
@thatswhatshesaiddude do you totally miss the point? the tax is on the 500 biggest CO2 emmitters in the country. if they wish to improve their bottom line and avoid paying greater tax they reduce their emissions. simple. the government is encouraging them to evade the tax!! thats the point!! change your practices and you wont have to pay, older practices that arent acceptable given our modern knowledge are being weeded out. use your knoggin ;)
honeybadgertrix 5 months ago
@honeybadgertrix No, you have missed my point. There is still MASSIVE contention on this idea of 'global warming'. It is possible that by becoming 'greener' it will really not make much of a difference at all for the environment. Therefore, the tax is arguably irrelevant - especially when put in context of what the rest of the world is doing (i.e. NOTHING.)
thatswhatshesaiddude 5 months ago