Dealing with the costs of Global Warming (1 Viewer)

[Planck]

Thread readers: for this thread we start from the point that Global Warming/Climate Change is an observed and real phenomenon.

I would ask the moderators to delete any posts that start a bitchfight about the science and reality of the situation as they do not help this discussion.

This discussion is primarily about the response to the costs of global warming.

What form of response do you think should be taken by individuals/corporations or government in order to deal with the negative consequences of global warming/climate change?

The Howard government proposed an ETS half a decade ago and put together an expensive whitepaper. The Rudd government is attempting to do the same but the current ETS proposal has many flaws.

Particularly given how the current one is structured, those who are not big polluters are effectively subsidising big polluters to make sure that the mining and power industries still remain viable within the country.

Both Industry bodies and Unions for these industries have lobbied and donated to mean that the ETS has no real impact on the total carbon output of those big polluters.

The ETS exists to effectively create a 'fiat market solution' to the problem of carbon production. However it creates underneath it a massive regulatory body in order to track the creation of carbon credits and the exchange of these credits between companies, as well as making sure companies have enough credits to make up for the carbon they are emitting.

It seems like a highly inefficient and ineffective way of levelling a tax on emitting carbon.

Which do you prefer, a straight out ETS with no favouritism, an ETS that is skewed in order to maintain a degree of economic prosperity within the country or a flat out Carbon tax?

Keep in mind all of these different solutions will impact the poor the most.

 

[yuri_gagarin]

Carbon tax.

Flat rate.

This was higher polluters with high turnover like mining etc pay the higher overall tax and the average moron who contributes also is hit with a flat rate tax.

There can be attractive tax offsets and grants for things that help reduce emissions such as green cars, appliances and shit like that

I should be in government hey

Also green industries will be given incentives like above and shit

Edit: anyone who comes in here and denies climate change should probably be deported to north korea

 

[Kwayera]

*sigh*

I am actually currently putting together summaries of various white papers, reports and reviews (namely the Stern and Garnaut Reviews, Howard's ETS, Rudd's CPRS, Turnbull's ETS and a paper by the Menzies Research Institute) on this very subject.

The problem is that the Australian economy is so heavily focussed on mineral (namely coal in a context relevant to this discussion) export, and our energy generation so heavily focussed on fossil fuels, that any attempt to tax them may incite their collapse. They may not. An ETS that doesn't encourage them to reduce emissions by punishing them, as is not the case in Rudd's ETS, is pointless however.

I lean towards a carbon tax, with huge reservations.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

OP: Just because climate change is real does not mean that the government is the solution.

We are better off allowing climate change to happen, and if people are concerned about it they should save their own money and take precautions to deal with it. Climate change is going to happen regardless of what we do in this tiny country. A richer society will be able to deal with climate change much more effectively than a society which has been made poorer by taxes and regulations.

Edit: edit also allowing nuclear power in Australia would be a huge step forward. Better than any carbon tax and grants for clean coal.

Check out this article: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

 

[Kwayera]

How are we better off letting climate change happen?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

How are we better off letting climate change happen?

Its going to happen anyway regardless of what the Australian government does.

Without extra taxes and regulations we will have more wealth which we can use to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Edit: edit also allowing nuclear power in Australia would be a huge step forward. Better than any carbon tax and grants for clean coal.

Nuclear is the future.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Its going to happen anyway regardless of what the Australian government does.

Without extra taxes and regulations we will have more wealth which we can use to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change.

We can protect ourselves against the effects?

 

[Amogh]

Nuclear is the future.

well hopefully it won't be
yet another issue of nuclear waste management.
Something sustainable and environmentally friendly is the way to go.

 

[Kwayera]

Its going to happen anyway regardless of what the Australian government does.

True, but what we do can influence other countries (even if only via "me-too-ism"), which WILL have an impact. If we don't do something, somewhere like India can point to us and go "they're the highest per-capita polluters worldwide," (a meaningless statistic, but whatevs) "why do we have to mitigate ACC if they don't?"

Without extra taxes and regulations we will have more wealth which we can use to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change.

So we'll built boats out of money to escape the flooding?

 

[Kwayera]

well hopefully it won't be
yet another issue of nuclear waste management.
Something sustainable and environmentally friendly is the way to go.

Not really an issue anymore with Synroc. Nuclear power is a necessary "evil".

 

[ComingUpForAir]

To what extent will reducing greenhouses gases reduce temperature increases ?
There's no point in debating optimal policy without the solution

 

[loquasagacious]

I tend to think that at this point climate change is inevitable and we should shift our focus from trying to prevent it to managing it's effects.

However in the context of having to chose between ETS, fake-ETS and a flat Carbon Tax I support the carbon tax. When we start talking about giving industries exemptions, bonuses, etc we fundamentally undermine any solution because it removes the incentive for polluting industries to change and it leaves only a(nother) burdensome bureaucracy.

 

[yuri_gagarin]

Comingupforair et al. this thread is working on the assumption that climate change is happening and a reduction in greenhouse gases will have a significant effect in slowing or reversing the effects of climate change

OKAY?

 

[zstar]

Need more sunscreen lotion.

 

[Lukybear]

More efficent development of renewable technologies?

Per say the goverment was to invest a substantial amount in terms of billion(s) dollars into our science industry, and per say a extremely effective solar energy capture method was developed, allowing complete sustainment of cities. The result of such would be the exportation of such technology, and subsequently profit. All of which are the effects of reducing carbon emissions.

But also take another perspective, theoriotically speaking. Derivation of economy from mainly argriculture? The production of massive amounts of plants would theorietically reduce carbon emissions as the result of photosynthesis. Profit can be made from the sales of these green products, and carbon emissions reduced.

 

[yuri_gagarin]

More efficent development of renewable technologies?

Per say the goverment was to invest a substantial amount in terms of billion(s) dollars into our science industry, and per say a extremely effective solar energy capture method was developed, allowing complete sustainment of cities. The result of such would be the exportation of such technology, and subsequently profit. All of which are the effects of reducing carbon emissions.

But also take another perspective, theoriotically speaking. Derivation of economy from mainly argriculture? The production of massive amounts of plants would theorietically reduce carbon emissions as the result of photosynthesis. Profit can be made from the sales of these green products, and carbon emissions reduced.

You're an idiot.

 

[Darnie]

- Development of nuclear power
- further development of solar power
- public transport
- scrapping of carbon tax with an alternative that would impact on the business, not on the consumer
- incentives on hybrid cars
- incentives on solar power/hot water
- carbon trapping?

 

[yuri_gagarin]

you cant scrap a tax that doesnt exist

seriously what is wrong with you people, compiling a vague list of 'things' does not address the issue at all for fuck sake

 

[Darnie]

you cant scrap a tax that doesnt exist

seriously what is wrong with you people, compiling a vague list of 'things' does not address the issue at all for fuck sake

I meant the idea of the carbon tax. It is baseless, it will have no incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions - the tax will just be passed onto the consumers.