In 2006 the Australian government legislated to reduce the sulphur content in petrol from 10% to 6%, this forced all the oil companies to upgrade their facilities to meet the new standards. There wasn’t any sulphur tax there was no sulphur ETS it was passed down as law and the oil companies had to abide by that law. It cost the oil companies millions if not billions yet they met the standards by the appropriate time otherwise they faced penalties. They got the job done in about 9 years if you go back to the start of the legislation in 2001. There was no need to commit all our industries / businesses and every man woman and child to financial slavery for every to the United Nations and like organisations and institutions that distribute the worlds wealth through climate policy. The same can be done for CO2 emissions. The government could legislate that the big polluters shall reduce their CO2 emissions by a certain date; it could be 10 or 15 years time so they will be able to do it without financial stress. The government could legislate that the front end of any process shall be fired by clean coal or even gas; just by switching to gas we would lower our CO2 emissions by 25%. That’s way better than being in financial slavery forever and looking at targets of 5% by 2020. At the back end where all the muck comes out the government could legislate that all big polluters SHALL install the latest technology in 1. Electrostatic precipitators 2. Fabric filter bags 3. Scrubbers 4. Carbon Sequestration All this would of course happen at grass roots level there would be no need for Australia to be handing out billions of dollars to overseas corporations and institutions and committing every aussie man woman and child to financial slavery through the carbon tax ETS. If you really want to clean up our CO2 emissions grass roots level is where its at. Not by creating a $2 trllion dollar carbon credit derivatives market.
First of all congratulations! An OP that does not go on a tear about people who believe differently to you - nice and refreshing and a good way to start debating But to address your point CO2 mitigation COSTS. It is unfortunate that it does not and will not matter whether we pay the government or pay people to plant trees or legislate to clean up coal fired power stations - it will still cost, maybe instead of a tax we pay more for electricity, maybe a lot of things But probably the BEST answer to your question is simply to get you to look at and think about Hazelwood in Victoria and the lack of success we have had there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station
Hey bowergirl Just remember one thing i'm not against cleaning up pollution, what i'm against is giving bankers/elite and the institutions they have planted around themselves the right to fleece our nation or to dictate to us how and when we should be using our natural resources and energy grid. There are ways to clean up brown coal to bring it at least up to black coal specifications i know its not cheap and i'm not saying that the consumers shouldn't help either. That ofcourse doesnt disolve any responsibility from the private distrubitors either, i mean they are here in our country running our energy supply. If they cant see past the dollar and their profit matgins then maybe the contract should be broken and our government takes over. If they want to remain in our country running our energy grid then they should also take some responsiblity for the betterment of Australia as a whole. This might mean cutting into their anual profit margins. There are approximately 11,500,000 workers in Australia if the government made the workers pitch in $100 a year for the next 15 years what does that amount to ????? one year 11,500,000 x $100 = $1,150,000,000 fifteen years 1,150,000,000 x 15 = $17,250,000,000 And if the government stated that say for example 20% of the profit margins of the local private distributors where to go towards cleaning up the power generation industry which is their own industry. For example AGL Victoria made a profit margin of $114,900,000 year ending 2012 20% of 114,900,000 = $22,980,000 There are 45 local suppliers in Australia not including WA (cant find it), lets say they all make a similar amount, just for simpicity sake, over one year $22,980,000 x 45 = $ 1,034,100,000 over 15 years $1,034,100,000 x 15 = $15,511,500,000 $15,511,500,000 + $17,250,000,000 = $32,761,500,000 Thats about 33 billion dollars over 15 years. Like i said if companies come here and make a good profit then they should also care for Australia the country and her future, if not they can fark off. Its not going to get done quickly but it can be accomplished over time with real world results. And without committing every man woman and child to financial slavery to pigs like that IPCC official Otmar Edenhofer for EVER. .
Actually in the US it isn't even that difficult. For example how many people are aware that our power generators, the things that transfer coal into electricity are from the 1950's?
things were sure built to last back then, maybe not as energy efficient, but definitely built to last .
India contributing to the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... Technology Helps Indian Factory Convert Carbon Emissions January 06, 2017 A new environmentally friendly technology being used by a factory in southern India to convert carbon dioxide into useful chemicals has won attention for contributing to the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
an example, the amazon and other huge jungles, massive natural living machines that work like the carbon cleaners on a submarine, or a space station, that is really on which we live, a gigantic space station, one with a self generating, self maintaining biosphere. The problem is that there are grubs in the system, maggots that would take anything for money, that have no real interest beyond their own lives and little protected worlds within which they live. Most of these giant carbon filters/banks lie in very poor, under developed, badly or corruptly governed countries. Wars and internal disputes, corruption and crime all play a part, it's fine to say "that's there problem" Ultimately it's all our problem. The natives are extremely poor living a hand to mouth existence, often living off the flora and fauna of the very jungles that are in question. These poor natives often give up billions of dollars of resources for a few peanuts, some forests and even species of wildlife are being destroyed just so we can have a new iphone every 12 months, only a fraction are recycled. The money goes to a lot of things, besides creating a penalty for those that use excessively. If we can support the natives, we may save the jungles, we won't cure greed or stupidity and an actual reduction in emissions is fairly unforeseeable, most would be happy to see a reduction in the increase
One nation on earth has experience COOLING in their climate since 1950. That same nation has led the world in a combination of planting trees and in large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture, reforestation projects as well as for cities and towns experiencing water shortages. As you may have guessed already that nation is ISRAEL. Their example proves that a carbon tax or cap and trade system may not be the most cost effective method of attempting to stabilize the climate. I quoted a New Mexico biologist and coach in my 2008 campaign on a theory that deserve to be seriously considered as an alternative to a carbon tax. www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/ ...... Two effective methods to combat global warming and simultaneously fight rising ocean levels have been proposed by New Mexico biologist Carl Cantrell. (China, has actually planted more trees than Israel did but when it comes to a combination of both large scale desalination of ocean water plus sheer number of trees planted by a nation with only seven million citizens at this time...... Israel leads when it comes to per capita area of deserts turned green)!
Apparently clean coal is a bit of a unicorn. Here's an article link on it. There's quite a bit on the net debunking clean coal if you google it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/clean-coal-explained/8235210
One important question that Mr. Al Gore did not ask in An Inconvient Truth.... or his recent sequel...... is how long will it take a carbon tax to cause his hockey stick shaped graph to go off at a right angle.......(stop the increase of atmospheric CO2). If..... it is going to take a century.... especially with bureaucrats and lawyers with a background in the environmental sciences turning the carbon tax legislation into a cash cow........ then we may have to think of a more direct way to combat the threat of rising ocean levels. A carbon tax will NOT work fast enough to address WAIS collapse. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...antarctic-ice-sheet-raise-sea-levels-3-meters Just a nudge could collapse West Antarctic Ice Sheet, raise sea levels 3 meters ................ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater This sounds promising...... http://www.ssb-foundation.com Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation
