CARBON is the key building block for all life on earth. We are made of it, we eat it and we breathe it. To label carbon dioxide, which is a component of the natural carbon cycle, a pollutant as the US Supreme Court did in 2007, is absurd. So, is the concept of trading carbon and taxing carbon.
Yet carbon markets have developed not because the Catholic Church requested them, but because they were justified and promoted by leading scientists in cahoots with well meaning economists.
These markets and trading schemes are part of a new vision for a different world, a world based in essence on junk science and the new religion of environmentalism.
In Australia we have a carbon tax that will become a trading scheme. At least this is the plan. Writing about government-sponsored television advertisements promoting clean energy before the carbon tax was introduced Jeremy Barlow commented:
“There are a great many criticisms that can be made about these extraordinary government advertisements. They have been justified on the basis that we need more information yet they contain little information. They have used taxpayer funds to provide free publicity for a very small group of companies, presumably to the disadvantage of their competitors – something for the government’s Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office to chew over.
“But the real sadness lies in what these advertisements tell us about the failed and excessively cosy relationship between this government and its scientific advisers. In its blind acceptance of the scientific promise, this government tragically has succumbed to the triumph of wishful thinking over common sense.”
Yesterday the European parliament voted against renewing support for its politically mandated carbon price, and so the carbon price has crashed. Headlines in today’s mainstream media include ‘Carbon trading scheme facing strife’.
The optimistic amongst us might be hoping that the end for carbon trading is nigh along with the deranged wishful thinking that Thomas Barlow alludes to.
But read the text of that same article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald by Malcolm Maiden, and it suggests there is opportunity for the carbon price to recover and that the idea of a world-trading scheme may be out of reach, not forever, but just for decades.
Who wrote: “reality is only an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”?
****
Much revealed in government’s new carbon tax TV advertisements by Thomas Barlow http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/07/much-revealed-in-governments-new-carbon-tax-tv-advertisements-thomas-barlow/
July 23, 2011
And for more ‘old’ posts on ‘carbon trading’ click here .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Another one of Juliars failed methods of taxing people, so politicians can waste more.
Strange how the Oz plan seems to mirror the british plan?
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-industry-faces-catastrophic-problem-carbon-floor-price/
http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/labor-in-a-7-billion-black-hole-as-world-carbon-price-collapses/story-fnagkbpv-1226623005919
It was not the US Supreme Court which labeled CO2 a pollutant. The court told the EPA that if they deemed CO2 to be a pollutant, then they must regulate it under the Clean Air Act. The EPA, wishing to regulate CO2, deemed it to be a pollutant.
Unfortunately the SC did rule in favour of the EPA’s self-regulatory decision to classify CO2 a dangerous gas; see Singer’s summary of the history of this case, which has been bouncing around for some years:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/climate_science_vs_politics_the_road_ahead.html
Water is essential to life. Ergo, the concept of drowning is absurd.
If you don’t think CO2 is a pollutant, I suggest you try breathing the stuff.
“If you don’t think CO2 is a pollutant, I suggest you try breathing the stuff.”
Plants do; how human-centric of you. Don’t we owe the plants to keep exhaling as much of the little CO2 heroes as possible?
Peter, How is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
Lets call a spade a spade, it is a TAX designed to extract more money from people to prop up Government spending and make a few people (Al Gore and Co) VERY rich.
1) photosynthesis is simply not understood by the majority of the populace. This will not change
2) about Jennifer’s quote on reality, I prefer:
Reality got it wrong
It must be dismissed and a new Reality appointed immediately
And ergo, Brussels is now busy strong-arming a new “vote” on back-loading carbon credits. Of itself, “back-loading” is armed confiscation of private property (ie. you not permitted to sell what you already purportedly own)
But these people nonchalantly performed armed thuggery on entire life savings (Cyprus). This carbon credit stuff is mere Play School dalliance
Perhaps my earlier post on the nature of the lust for power may be better understood now … maybe
3) “… a world based in essence on junk science and the new religion of environmentalism”
I agree
Tony Jones is still calling it ‘carbon pollution’, he is a complete dill.
Greg Hunt appears to be a small target, I expect a lot more from this new government…. like CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, so we don’t need a tax on this harmless trace gas. Cowards the lot of them.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3740397.htm
We certainly do breathe in CO2, at the minute concentration that is in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in our lungs is very much higher again.
So how is CO2 a pollutant?
Peter is using a deceptive and shallow manipulation in order to avoid the issue.
How typical of an AGW kook when confronted with questions he is too cowardly to deal with.
EG, it’s a difficult line for an opposition to walk and Tony Jones would like nothing better than for them to come out and say it is all a crock.
With the enormous cost set up to “correct” the “problem” we know that only the future climate and better understanding can dismantle it.
But as this happens and the concerned consensus gradually come to their senses [as is happening], the tightrope has to be walked.
Peter too much food can lead to premature death. So is food pollution as well? Sudmariners live in a workplace that has much higher levels of co2.
So are they at risk of premature death?
But very high levels of co2 are also used in some medical precedures and used to help premature babies to survive.
These tiny babies are probably the most delicate human beings on the planet, so now do you think co2 is pollution?
Wake up.
Let’s hope we will have a big reduction in the complete waste of taxpayer funding of renewable energy.
That’s the solar and wind idiocy, not Hydro of course.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/the-free-market-strikes-back-renewables-investment-plummets-22-in-first-quarter-of-2013/#more-28150
The Bolt Report will be discussing the co2 market collapse in Europe at 10am tomorrow on channel 10.
Hopefully Greg Hunt will also make mention of the cost to the OZ budget.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bolt_report_tomorrow12/
Yes this looks good and hopefully, at last, the Bolter will ask the sticky questions. ‘Global warming stopped 17 years ago, while CO2 rose 8%, doesn’t this show the electorate your direct action plan is crap?’
Let the ‘deprogramming’ begin.
If Peter’s definition of a pollutant is that if the concentration of that elemental gas is too high it will kill you then any gas except oxygen is a pollutant. Obviously Nitrogen is a pollutant be cause if you breath it at 100% concentration it will kill you. I say ban Nitrogen. It makes up 79% of our atmosphere. OMG if it just increases a bit more we are all dead.
Try breathing water!
Anyway, its academic, a new NASA study suggests CO2 cools the atmosphere. This is in direct violation of the klimatariat’s position on global warming.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook
EG, I’ve always thought that was a possibility with the tiny amount of warming actually occurring and the huge earth population that should be warming it much more than it has.
With the cool change in the eastern states the earth’s adaptive iris is visible this morning. I can see Mt Mowbullan in the Bunya Mts, 200 klms away for the first time in months as the aerosols lift with the cooling. Frost on the downs this morning.
Of course CO2 is a pollutant – anything can be a pollutant in excessive quantities or the wrong place. Salt? Methane? Pure oxygen? Water (logging) and it doesn’t take too much CO2 to start headaches – building ventilation – and hypercapnea?
and there’s plenty of methane in sceptic butts. Avoid open flames at all costs.
If CO2 causes cooling like NASA says, does that now make it an anti-pollutant?
And we all know that Lukie thinks his methane doesn’t stink.
Aside from the merits of a carbon tax or otherwise…
I was watching Penny Wong being innterviewed by Chris Kenny on Sky the other day, and she was trying to justify her $23 per tonne tax with Europe’s floating $4 by claiming that Europe’s system does not compensate business and therefore it’s not a valid comparison.
But I was left wondering what logic is there in creating a system where some companies can be compensated based on paying $23 per tonne, but after 2015 when we go to a floating price, they will only spend a few dollars buying European credits ?
Watching policy deveolopment unravel from this ALP government is akin to an enless sequal to the movie Dumb and Dumber !
Debbie,
“Try breathing water!” LOL
Did you catch the story on rice growing in the MIA on Landline today?
How they have to reduce their production in spite of good seasons?
Spangled you ain’t a drongo for nothing – even Wattsy said the interpretation on CO2 cooling was crap – don’t term me you are uncritical parrot. You’ll be taking over from Neville soon.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
And yes I have an emissions scheme running my butt. It’s regulated – no taxes – but cap and trade with the members of the coven. I have internalised the externalities of my emissions. You get used to the stomach cramps after a while.
Luke – you cant internalise your externalities forever. The dam will burst.
But you basically have admitted your full of it.
Nice to see you reading Watts, comrade.
Had a busy weekend… just now scanning comments… Debbie cracked me up… Try breathing water. Snorting it by accident results in bad headache. 😉
“You get used to the stomach cramps after a while.”
I think it’s more like what Kath said to Kim, “I’ve always wanted to be effluent”.
Little Lukey,
glad to see you have joined the Lukewarmers. It is a move in the right direction.
Unfortunately Anhony Twats, like Moshpup, Lucille and a number of other otherwise quite intelligent people have tied their wagon to the idea that CO2 warms at least a little while ignoring that CO2 simply absorbs, radiates, and conducts within the limits of its physical configuration. (whether it is to maintain credibility in a dumbed down propagandized world I don’t know) IR radiates omnidirectionally from its sources and its interaction with the surrounds and what those surrounds are doing determine whether there is any temporary warming or cooling.
Some actually recognize that there appears to be a net warming by CO2 close to the surface and a net cooling by CO2 at altitude. The idea goes like this. Without GHG’s the atmosphere has no way of cooling until the molecules get VERY hot and start their own exponential IR radiation curve. With no GHG’s the atmosphere would warm by contact with the earth and more mechanical disturbances like disturbance by the solar wind. (won’t confuse you with electromagnetic considerations)
As we see with the moon, without GHG’s to attenuate the visible radiation the surface would get MUCH hotter which would heat the atmosphere in contact with the surface. This would result in convection and a mixing that would ultimately heat the whole atmosphere. As the only cooling would ALSO be contact with the surface at night we see that the temps would be much higher than with GHG’s as the hotter atmosphere would NEVER be in contact with the earth due to its low density.
So, what do GHG’s really do?? They are a MODERATING force apparently as without them we would be much hotter. Still waiting to see the arguments as to what an all GHG atmosphere would be like. I THINK it would be COLDER as all the atmosphere would be absorbing and radiating, instead of a small portion of it, meaning that less energy would reach the surface and what is there would be radiatied away much faster. Again, waiting to hear the arguments as to what it would be like.
Venus is not an appropriate example due to the enormous difference in mass and pressure for the atmosphere, or is it?? It is radiationg away MORE ENERGY than it absorbs. In other words it is COOLING DOWN!!! Even with that cloud layer that reflects over 60% of the IR!!!!
Remember, you need a conductor to cool or heat and an insulator to prevent cooling or heating. The twisted logic that made CO2, an excellent “conductor”, into a heater only shows how off track modern science has become.
SD,
No I missed it. We’re actually out putting in huge hours harvesting the stuff.
We have about a week to go.
I should send Jen a pic from one of our swanky new smart phones. 🙂
I’m glad you and Jen got the joke.