JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

BREAKING Australian Carbon Tax Legislation Released

The Carbon Tax legislation has been released finally: The draft from the Climate Change Department.

It’s supposed to be a simple tax on every ton of pollution. But nothing is simple when you try to tax a basic element of life. In a true free market you only need a buyer, a seller and a product. The Australian government is running this market from beginning to end: There are 340 pages of unfree rules.

The complexity is a chance to hand out favours to “our friends our fans and our marginal seats”.

How many ways can they crony up the country?

Legal-eagles, and number crunchers, please comment here so we can highlight the points that matter.

H/t Kevin

UPDATE #1

In 340 pages there’s zero instances of the terms “global warming”, and “temperature”.
What’s this tax supposed to do??? h/t Pat

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
BREAKING Australian Carbon Tax Legislation Released, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3n2ysnl

273 comments to BREAKING Australian Carbon Tax Legislation Released

  • #
    MattB

    Mmmmm I love the smell of new Legislation in the morning!

    00

  • #
    Nick

    I’d suggest everybody download a copy, to show grandkids, as a marker in time of the decline of this country.

    So Sad.

    00

  • #
    pat

    re-posting this from the previous thread as it would seem to be more appropriate here:

    27 July: Reuters: UPDATE 2-Trading Emissions ends carbon portfolio sale talks
    Cites a steep fall in value of carbon-related securities
    * Says will look at sale of carbon assets at an appropriate time
    * Shares fall 12.5 percent to lowest levels since spring 2009 (Adds details, analyst quotes, company estimates)
    British carbon offset project developer Trading Emissions on Wednesday halted talks to sell its portfolio after steep falls in carbon prices, sending its share price to two-year lows…
    But prices for exchange-traded CERs have fallen 12 percent since January when the company announced its disposal plan, and by as much as a third since March on fears about Eurozone growth and a glut of emissions permits in the EU ETS.
    “Unless you are going to offer at a steep discount to the net asset value, which is not in your shareholders’ interest, it will be very difficult to accomplish,” said Gus Hochschild, analyst at Mirabaud Securities.
    “It is also a very diverse portfolio of interests…ranging from Brazilian biofuel to Polish wind farms. To find someone willing to take all of that on — particularly in this market — is no mean feat.”…
    CERs were trading on Wednesday on the European Climate Exchange at 9.6 euros ($13.91) per tonne, illustrating the company’s difficulty in selling its less liquid portfolio profitably…
    Peel Hunt analyst Andrew Shepherd-Barron cut his realisation expectation to 90-100 pence per share from 113-122 pence per share, and cut his target price to 85 pence from 98 pence.
    “They’ve switched strategies on a liquidation and results have been disappointing,” he told Reuters. “I think equity investors have lost confidence in the carbon market generally.”…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/tradingemissions-idUSL3E7IR1KT20110727

    now for some reading…horror…

    00

  • #
    pat

    would just point out “global warming” is nowhere in 340 pages. nice.

    00

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    “It’s supposed to be a simple tax on every ton of pollution”. Let’s not use the language of the Orwellian propagandists. They call CO2 (or is it carbon?) “pollution”. I hate to be a pedant but let’s put that word “pollution” in inverted commas or else replace it with this word: emissions.

    Orwellian language is part of the armoury of the alarmists. Calling CO2 “pollution” appeals to the emotions. Who could possibly be against cutting pollution? Only ‘deniers’ and right-wing nut-cases goes the ‘party’ line. Unsophisticated voters who do not understand the science, or politics (and perhaps don’t care to try) are swayed by emotive terminology. Let’s deprive the alarmists of oxygen as much as possible by refusing to adopt their deceptive and deceitful language.

    00

  • #

    Greg CONbet has announced a $4Million mailout to inform the public about a policy that isn’t law and hasn’t even been introduced to the parliament. I suggest all those opposed to this propagaqnda mark it Return To Sender and drop it into the nearest post box.

    00

  • #
    Barry

    CO2 emissions from agricultural activities are not excluded from the legislation. Section 30 only excludes methane and nitrous oxide. So all the large agricultural emitters will be motivated to subdivide themselves in order to fall under the 25000 tonne threshold. Economies of scale are reduced. Prices go up. Agricultural goods from larger producers get more expensive. The consumer gets screwed again.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Stephen Harper @ 5

    Only ‘deniers’ and right-wing nut-cases goes the ‘party’ line.

    Right wing nut cases? As opposed to Left Wing Nutcases who think that governments can legislate climate? What else do they think they can control – our thoughts?

    At least King Canute listened to the evidence.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh yay… you’ve all contributed (you tax payers that is) to a $4 million carbon tax letterbox drop:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greg-combet-to-send-out-carbon-tax-facts-to-households-in-4m-letter-drop/story-fn59niix-1226103473643

    Apparently it is going to be chock full of facts according to peronality bypass Combet.

    00

  • #

    Meanwhile, they try to shut down common sense, ban newspapers so only their lunatic opinions matter, wallow in theatricals that only a child could justify and then claim to possess the world’s special knowledge concerning climatic conditions..

    Give me a break, sheeech..

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Stephen Harper @ 5
    The Bill significantly doesn’t define ” carbon pollution” but creates the new categories of measurement of “carbon pollution caps” and “carbon units“. For good reason it refers to carbon dioxide emissions when refering to carbon dioxide. The legal deinition of pollution is “any direct or indirect alteration in any of the properties of any part of the environment by discharging wastes so as “to cause a condition which is hazardous or potentially hazardous to public health, safety, or welfare, or to animals, birds, wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or to plants”. (Phosphate Co-operative Company of Australia Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1977) 138 CLR 134). A physical property is commonly defined as “a quality, attribute, or distinctive feature of anything, esp a characteristic attribute such as the density or strength of a material.” Well that would open a pandoras box of evidence wouldnt it? This Bill aims to create a market to drive the next great bubble. Start the engines gentlemen there is money in them thar green hills.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Just go to page 7. And who is Goldman Sachs man in the House?

    00

  • #
    Allen Ford

    From Andrew Bolt’s interveiw with Vaclav Klaus on MTR, Melbourne this morning:

    - Czech President Vaclav Klaus on the global warming scare:

    - no, there is no dangerous man-made warming
    - no, it won’t be stopped by a tax.
    - no, he doesn’t sit in Prague Castle wondering what example Australia is setting the world, and nor are the Chinese.

    - Klaus says Kevin Rudd was embarrassing when they had an argument at the European Asian summit on global warming. He denied being snubbed by Gillard.

    - Klaus warns against multiculturalism, and the decline of the US, once so strong an advocate of freedom.

    00

  • #
    JeffT

    Without reading the whole 340 page box of tricks, the thing that does stick out is the continued use of the words ‘carbon’ and ‘carbon pollution’. (As connolly points out above)
    This may be a draft document,but if it becomes law with those definitions, the use of ‘carbon’ should become a point of contention because the definition is incorrect.

    A cursory glance through the document shows it has a lot of punitive measures.

    On Golman Sux, there is an update from Matt Taibbi -
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The legislation title is “Clean Energy Bill 2011″; this in itself proves the lie of both combet and gillard saying the coal industry’s future is “bright”; any associated taxes or imposts giving effect to this bill are to specifically extinguish coal.

    Consider this:

    “The objects of this Act are as follows:
    9 (a) to give effect to Australia’s obligations under:
    10 (i) the Climate Change Convention; and
    11 (ii) the Kyoto Protocol;”

    This is sufficient to invoke Section 51(xxix), the External affairs power, of the constitution which prima facie over-rules any state resistance, such as in the imposition of the tax on any state owned business or enterprise such as electricity.

    It also means that 10% of any revenue from the imposition of the tax will go straight to the UN; on my calculations in the first year that could be as high as $1.3 billion if only Scope 1 emissions from NGER are considered; if Scope 2 emissions are involved then double that.

    The Objects continue:

    “(i) take action directed towards meeting Australia’s
    2 long-term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse
    3 gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050;”

    That will have legislative force; consider this:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ets-to-shrink-regional-growth/story-e6frg6nf-1225691476399

    When rudd was proposing the ETS which sought a 5% reduction in emissions the modelling, commissioned by the then NSW labour government, concluded that policy would produce shrinkage of the Australian economy of $2 trillion, in today’s dollars, by 2050; multiply that 16 and you get a shrinkage of $32 trillion with an 80% target. That’s $800 billion per year; the GDP of Australia today is a bit under $1 trillion.

    00

  • #

    Pat! Great point, no mention of “global warming”, and no mention of “temperature” either?
    What’s this tax supposed to do???

    JO

    00

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    Speedy @ 7: What is that sudden hot sensation and that blood on my clothes? Why, I do believe it’s the result of that oxymoron known as ‘friendly fire’.

    My comment (@5) is about the employment of Orwellian language by the catastrophists and why climate sceptics/realists should avoid using that language. The line of mine you quote is what the catastrophists think, not what I think. The bit “…goes the party line” is the giveaway. You are shooting at the wrong guy – I’m in the bunker next to you, and am not a figure in your gun-sights in the enemy camp. Incidentally, I am a big fan of your creative talents with the whole Clarke/Dawe thingy. A career on the horizon perhaps….

    PS If you were defending Jo’s honour, I salute you. But I wasn’t having a go at Jo. I have merely made an observation which has no malice. We should be able to have a discussion about how we tackle the doomsayers on the ‘other side’ – who are the genuine article in the nut-case stakes.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    OT but since Mattyb has shot out of the blocks on this thread I’ll refer to some unfinished business in another thread where the issue of how much human CO2 has contributed to the total increase and the issue of how long human CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere. I had a rethink about this. This is the official CO2 flux or movement diagram from the IPPC:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

    The total movement of CO2 from both natural and anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere is 218.2 gigatonnes [Gt]; of that the human component is 8Gt; so humans contribute 3.67% of the annual atmospheric movement.

    Of that 218.2Gt going up to the atmosphere 98.5% is returned to the ocean and land as shown by the official US Department of Energy [DoE] figures on page 22, table 3 here:

    ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057303.pdf

    This means the atmosphere has an annual increase in accumulated CO2 of about 1.5% of the annual flux of 218.2Gt. How much of that increase is due to human CO2? Before I look at that consider this peer reviewed paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

    What the author of the paper, Dr Knorr, has found is that since 1850 the airborne fraction of human CO2 has not changed. This can be explained thus: the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say human CO2 [ACO2] is 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when all CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2.

    So, going back to our original official figures from the IPCC graph and the DoE table; if the total CO2 is increasing by about 1.5% of the annual flux of 218.2Gt then as the ACO2 proportion of that 218.2Gt is 3.67% the human contribution to the increase per year must be no more than 1.5/100 X 3.67/100 =0.000552. This proportion would maintain the constancy of the airborne fraction which Dr Knorr has found.

    Alan Jones is right:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/getup_turns_to_shutup/#commentsmore

    00

  • #
    amcoz

    Where in all this crap, which I thought had now been outlawed by our less than distinguished PM, is the definition of “Carbon Pollution”?

    00

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    connolly @ 9: Boy, am I confused! What was it I said!? First Speedy (@5), then you. How did my gentle suggestion that we should avoid using the catastrophist’s Orwellian terminology earn me a lecture on how trading thin air will produce a huge windfall for the likes of Goldman Sachs and ultimately a GFC-like bubble?

    Is it my name? Something I am wearing? Or is there a target on my forehead? We are on the same side, my friend. Is everyone so mad and itching so badly for a fight, that they shoot indiscriminately at the first person to speak? Of course trading CO2 emissions is scam. And the Goldman Sachs ‘man in the house’ is Turnbull, of course. But he’s not my man.

    Is what I write so unclear or is the level of comprehension poor? If this keeps up I’ll be a nervous wreck afraid to speak for fear of being misunderstood and maligned from pillar to post (that’s a joke, just in case there’s any misunderstanding!).
    Let’s all pull together and fight the bad guys shall we ?

    00

  • #
  • #
    Peter Lang

    Published in the AFR 3 May 2011

    A Less-Than-Noble Consensus

    Professor Garth Paltridge

    We hear that Julia Gillard is happy to have the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science on her side while making her arguments for a carbon tax. Well of course she is. She and her predecessors bought them. And bought them good. Over the last couple of years her Department of Climate Change (the DCC) gave them 27 million dollars in the form of research grants. That pays a fair swag of the salaries of the CSIRO and Bureau climate scientists who make up the majority of all employed climate scientists in Australia.
    University climate researchers, while relatively few in number, are vocal enough to be heard in many public forums. Julia has bought them too with another 5.5 million dollars from the same source. That sort of money is handy in the university environment, since it is mostly on top of already assured salaries. Moreover, it is fairly easy to get. Certainly it is much easier than normal university research funds which come mainly from the Australian Research Council – this after a soul-destroying application and peer-review procedure that wipes out 80% of the applications and reduces the individual grant moneys to sub-optimal levels. Julia’s climate money is very different. Among other things it can be put towards such niceties as business-class travel to the many international workshops and conferences that are part of the climate-change industry.
    The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done to the structure of society in the name of mitigating climate change. And if you think that government agencies shouldn’t be in the game of social engineering, then you are way behind the times. Over the last two years more than 100 million dollars was distributed by the DCC for exactly that purpose.
    So there can be no doubt that climate-research grant recipients know perfectly well that scepticism concerning the climate-change story does very little for their careers. One therefore wonders a bit about the much-vaunted consensus of the global warming establishment regarding climatic doom.
    Surely there is no way a whole scientific discipline can be subverted, either consciously or subconsciously, by crass materialism? Well, maybe not in the long term. But if past experience is any guide, the sorting out of a problem of vested scientific interest can take many decades. At the moment, climate scientists are trapped in the coils of a disaster theory sold prematurely to the world at large. They are supporting the theory with long-term forecasts about an atmosphere-ocean system whose behaviour in many respects is inherently unpredictable. On the one hand, public discussion of the uncertainties associated with the ‘main conclusions of the science’ must be discouraged, and on the other there is a need for sufficient uncertainty to justify a continued flow of research funding. In short, they are in a right-royal mess of political correctness.
    The average climate scientist is extremely reluctant to go against the tide of official opinion set by the research activists of his field, whatever might be his private thoughts on the matter. Loyalty to colleagues gets in the way, and perhaps also the seductive attraction of a ‘noble cause’. With those sorts of justification, it is much easier for an idealistic scientist to be mindful of the fact that, when Julia buys people, they have to stay bought if they want to continue in the game.
    Surely there are independent scientific establishments whose advice can be trusted by both government and public? Well yes there are – most of the time. The Australian Academy of Science is a prime example. But one has to mumble a bit when talking about the independence of such bodies in the context of climate change. They generally don’t have much in-house expertise on the subject, and when asked for advice, are obliged to put together committees of advisors from the relevant research establishments. It is not too difficult to imagine where the advisors come from. Moreover, it costs money to service a committee. Guess where that comes from.
    Would ‘big-oil’ funded research be any less reliable than this?

    Garth Paltridge 7/4/11

    Further to the above, I heard today that Penny Wong, when Minister for Climate, gave the ANU some $10 million to set up the Climate Institute. As a result many senior academics rolled up and joined the Climate Insitute to get their snouts in the lucrative trough. Even past Reserve Bank Australia Board Member, Professor Warrick McKibbin, joined. $10 million is a lot of money for academics. Anyone can bend their approach to “research” for that sort of money.

    00

  • #
    Simon

    It is strange that a bill stated to “encourage” contains no much reference to punishment. Why don’t they give give everyone face masks with CO2 meters, and when you’ve breathed out your quota, it ‘caps’ you.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    How does the Government work out the CO2 emissions.

    An article in the SMH http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/intelligent-discussion-all-but-extinct-20110720-1hos2.html states the following:

    The burning of a tonne of coal produces 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide – easy to measure but hard to control

    TonyfromOz has numerous articles on coal CO2 emissions at 2.86 as the figure (in short tons) so did Fairfax get this from the Government – I haven’t read the full legislation as yet – but no mention of calculations?

    They stand to gain with this 3.67 tonnes CO2 per Tonne coal if utilised?

    00

  • #
    Shyguy

    Are you guys aware of any Co2 taxes in the forties or the beginning of the eighteenth century that would explain this?

    http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

    Historical records paint a slightly different picture of Co2 levels then that of the green hordes propaganda machine.

    Nothing like a government promoting fear and ignorance so that it can get more money and power.
    Here in Norway we had an Co2 tax since 91. Co2 emissions has only increased in that time.

    00

  • #
    Geoff Croker

    Page 5
    i) take action directed towards meeting Australia’s long-term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050

    In Victoria this means turning off Hazelwood, Loy Yang & Yallourn power stations. The state’s economy would cease to exist.

    I think its time to secede.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Stephen @ 19
    Mate I was only trying to add to what you were saying. In complete agreement. Sorry didnt mean to come across as a lecture but i was trying to make the point that this Bill seems to have absolutely nothing to do with lowering global temperatures but everything to do with creating the next speculative bubble. I’ll pour myself a Jamieson’s and drift off.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Dave @ 23

    The 3.67 figure is based on the assumption that coal is 100% carbon. It’s not.

    Tony’s figure of 2.86 is based on the actual percentage of carbon content in a given quantity of coal, and is the accurate figure.

    Naturally, the media, the pollies and the likes of Flim-Flammery all use the higher, incorrect figure, simply because it is higher. Just another example of the dishonesty in the debate and an offshoot example of what Dave Harper has been commenting on re the use of language, but extended into figures.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Myself @ 27

    Sorry that should have been Stephen Harper.

    PS – Stephen I think you’re reading something into Speedy and Connolly that just isn’t there. Dealing with all this abject dishonesty is enough to throw us all a little awry. Try a glass or four of Cabernet Merlot – it’s working for me.

    The tax doesn’t look half as bad (unbeatable) as it did an hour ago.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Dave,

    The government does not measure CO2 emissions. It cannot measure them. No country can measure them. Electricity would be the easiest industry for measuring CO2 emissions. USA EPA has the most demanding requirements for measuring, calibrating and reporting. But there are massive loopholes because it is impracticable. The rules change every few years. And all the bureaucracies, consultants and down stream industries have to wear the costs of the continual changes and management of the legacy systems and data. If you want to get an idea how onerous it is look at this:
    http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ecmps/docs/ECMPSEMRI2009Q2.pdf
    http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/emissions/docs/plain_english_guide_par75_final_rule.pdf

    Regarding the conversion factors from coal to CO2, the two figures you quoted are 3.67 and 2.86.

    If you burn 1 kg of pure carbon and convert it to CO2 you get 3.67 kg of CO2. But coal is not pure carbon. It contains rock and other substances that remain as ash. Every coal deposit is different. TonyfromOz would have been giving a figure of 2.86 for a typical or particular coal power station.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Geoff Crocker,

    It’s much worse than you say! Even Treasury admits it in correspondence released under FOI:
    http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1999/PDF/100910_Email_Size_of_Abatement_Challenge.pdf
    http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=087&ContentID=1999

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    The Treasury document extracted under FOI says:

    As an indication, the task of achieving Australia’s unconditional emissions-reduction target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 would be roughly equivalent to:
    · removing emissions associated with all cars on the road, and nearly half of Australia’s electricity generation, in the year 2020 (pg. 77, IGR);
    · planting new forests equivalent to four times the area of Tasmania by 2020 (pg. 77, IGR).
    · two-thirds of Australia’s total current emissions from the generation of electricity (speech by Martin Parkinson, March 2010)
    · twice our road transport emissions (speech by Martin Parkinson, March 2010)
    · the emissions displaced by 35 snowy hydro schemes (press release from Greg Combet, June 2010)

    00

  • #

    Government cronies whose carbon farming boondoggles receive public money will be allowed to trade credits immediately, not have to wait years to do so.

    CO2 is counted from agricultural activities for emissions, but the carbon farming initiative legislation excludes CO2 as an emission you can be credited for reducing in most cases. In other words there is no way to avoid the tax by directly reducing emissions.

    00

  • #

    As I sort of suspected, this proposed legislation is strikingly similar to the now patently failed proposed US Legislation, artfully called ‘The American Power Act’ in an attempt like here to draw people’s attention away from what the real intent is.
    Admitted, so far I have only had a cursory look at it, but it also includes the introduction of the ETS, and as I have said, if this original ‘price on CO2 emissions scares you, be very scared of the ETS.
    As I have also previously mentioned, the ETS will take care of everything not included in this original ‘plan’.
    To summarise, the ETS places a cap on CO2 emissions.
    Day One Year One.
    The coal fired power plant, [and I'll use that as an example because that is where the bulk (more than 40%) of those emissions will be coming from] will have to purchase credits equal to their emissions at that time, as laid down by the Govt.
    They can trade these emissions at auctions during the year, but must have that original number to hand back.
    If they exceed the Cap, they have to purchase credits to make up, at the highest auction price that there was during the year. On top of that, they pay a penalty, around 1.5 to 2 times the cost of the highest price for credits during those auctions.
    Day One Year Two.
    As per year one, only this time the cap is lowered.
    Each year the same as for that.
    If the ‘fundament’ falls out of the market, the Govt has set a base price.
    However, what is of interest here is that they have included a CO2 equivalence in reference to other GHG’s, and the same as for CO2 will apply to them as well.
    There are a number of gases and a cursory look so far has not seen me locating that, but as with the US legislation, those GHG’s have an equivalence with CO2, for example methane emissions draw a CO2 equivalence of 23 times the value of CO2. Some other gases are considerably higher, Nitrous Oxide at 298 times CO2, and one of them up around 22,800 times that of CO2. This other GHG brings into play all emitters other than coal fired plants, and Methane also brings into play farming (rice) and Grazing, (all ruminant animals), these not included in the original early proposal until the ETS takes force. Methane also brings into play Landfills, which are mentioned in the early part of this plan.
    Again, I stress, this is only from a cursory look at this.
    I’ll need more time to look at it closely, but as you can see, if you have an understanding of how a large scale coal fired power plant operates, this has nothing whatsoever to do with lowering those CO2 emissions especially.
    It’s just about getting their hands on a huge source of Govt income from a source that cannot do anything about it.
    Again, also early perceptions is that they have included what they call ‘security of supply’, meaning if the plant gets into difficulty, they cannot close down because that supply is needed.
    See how this really is just about the money.
    I’ll need more time to look more closely at the detail, but what some of you might help me with is finding something about GHG equivalence.
    This is absolutely iniquitous.
    We all need to look at this with a fine tooth comb, and ask questions here, because those of us who have some (small) insight might miss some things that others can bring to our attention.
    This just ‘sucks’.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    ? Retrospective to mid December 2008 ? Page 56

    Subdivision D—Anti-avoidance
    19 29 Anti-avoidance
    20 Scope
    21 (1) This section applies if:
    22 (a) at any time after 15 December 2008, one or more persons
    23 entered into, commenced to carry out, or carried out, a
    24 scheme; and
    25 (b) it would be concluded that the person, or any of the persons,
    26 who entered into, commenced to carry out, or carried out, the

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    ? Retrospective to mid December 2008 ? Page 56

    Subdivision D—Anti-avoidance
    19 29 Anti-avoidance
    20 Scope
    21 (1) This section applies if:
    22 (a) at any time after 15 December 2008, one or more persons
    23 entered into, commenced to carry out, or carried out, a
    24 scheme; and
    25 (b) it would be concluded that the person, or any of the persons,
    26 who entered into, commenced to carry out, or carried out, the

    00

  • #

    As to the amount of CO2 emitted per ton of coal, there’s been a lot said about this.
    I use that figure of 2.86 average, and I get that from this source, the US Govt’s own site, The Energy Information Administration.
    http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
    When you arrive at the page, scroll down to the heading ‘Coal Combustion And Carbon Dioxide Emissions’. It sounds technical, but is relatively easy to understand, and the third paragraph best explains it.
    Tony.

    00

  • #

    Don’t be confused by the ‘Short tons’ thing, because they use short tons for both measurements eg coal burned and CO2 emitted.
    That 2.86 is a multiplier, and should apply across the board, keeping in mind different coals emit differing levels of CO2, and this is just an average..
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Cohers in 17… I think you are smarter than to fall for the old “if the total CO2 is increasing by about 1.5% of the annual flux of 218.2Gt then as the ACO2 proportion of that 218.2Gt is 3.67% the human contribution to the increase per year must be no more than 1.5/100 X 3.67/100 =0.000552.”

    If every year I gave you $100 and you gave me $100…. then someone else gave you $3…. then that “someone else” is responsible for 100% of the $3 you have in your pocket… not 3/103%.

    00

  • #
    Gaz

    Not 340 pages, but, with all 13 (YES Thirteen) Bills and the explanatory notes, 4 lever arch files full, or around 1500 pages. I’ve downloaded them and printed them.

    Now to triage the information so that \i can read what is relevant to me (large industrial EITE industry) and put in meaningful comment.

    Did anyone notice that treasury modelling has the whole thing only reducing Australia’s emissions by around 10% by 2050 … NOT the claimed 80%. The other 70% is from buying credits from off-shore … i.e. sending our money off shore, probably to the mafia.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Imagine in 50 years you have $150 in your pocket… then used your logic to say that if the other person hadn’t given you $3 a year then since he is responsible for only 3/103 of your dollars then if he’d not given you any you’d have only lost 3/103 therefore still have $140ish! insanity.

    00

  • #
    Bob Koss

    I find 74 mentions of “carbon pollution” and 35 mentions of “carbon dioxide”.

    It seems their concern is CO rather than CO2. I suggest taxing charcoal briquettes and pencils.

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    1841 26Jul11 – from the Department of Climate Change (funny how we don;t need one of these for natural changes to climate), all I get is a 404 error (page not found) when attempting to download any of their docos, viz:

    Clean Energy Legislative Package – Summary of legislation (PDF 181 KB)
    Clean Energy Legislative Package – Summary of legislation (DOC 156 KB)

    Securing a clean energy future: Making it law (PDF 413 KB)
    Securing a clean energy future: Making it law (DOC 920 KB)

    Another win for the government web masters. Are these the ones doing the grocery watch and fuel watch sites?

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    No, mattyb; you are ignoring the constancy of the airborne fraction found by Knorr; the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere is not changing yet the total CO2 is increasing; so the % of ACO2 is a constant of the relationship between the total net flux.

    Don’t give me analogies matty, stick with the facts.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Has anybody thought to audit the water supply system in Canberra?

    This legislation has to be due to something in the water. It is the only rational explanation I can think of. They are not still using lead piping are they?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo @ #15

    What’s this tax supposed to do???

    Redistributing wealth is what this tax is all about.

    From us to the , so called, poor in Australia, and in the 3rd world.

    It has nothing to do with altering the earth’s climate, just our personal fiscal climate.

    Heaven’s sake – what else does one need to do to point it out?

    00

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    connoly @ 26: Thanks for the comment. Perhaps my comprehension is off base? Anyway, we’re all friends now. Misunderstanding over. If only we could sort out our differences with the hankerers-after-catastrophe on the other side we’d all be into the Jameisons by now.

    memoryvault @ 28: Thanks for advice re the cab merlot – I actually have a little drop of pinot in mind. It seems we are all getting a little excited. Time to re-focus on the real enemy.

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    Just started trawling through but these items caught my eye:

    3 Objects
    The objects of this Act are as follows:
    (a) to give effect to Australia’s obligations under:
    (i) the Climate Change Convention; and
    (ii) the Kyoto Protocol;
    (b) to support the development of an effective global response to
    climate change;
    (c) to:
    (i) take action directed towards meeting Australia’s
    long-term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse
    gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050; and
    (ii) take that action in a flexible and cost-effective way.

    I haven’t found how ‘effective’ will be determined but this may be hidden in the other 12 acts and ‘cost-effective way’ is another measure the economists will have fun with.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Stephen Harper @ 9

    I agree with you! Absolutely! The green-coloured totalitarians need to be in a loony bin – yet anyone who disagrees with them is a labeled a “denier” or a “right wing crackpot”.

    Perhaps, if they used logic and physical evidence to substantiate their arguments, we’d be a little less critical of them…

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Of course in NZ the ETS is based around trees (cause they suposedly soak up the ‘you know what’). If you grow trees your the NZ govt’s MATE so you get all the credits you want (I dont have actual numbers but you get the drift). So here in Aus um um..um..theres alot of desert could grow a few trees I guess. Stop the koalas eating the gum leaves.

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Bulldust @ ( and everybody else, A good tactic with these unsolicited letters, including the ones from the climate propagandaista, is to return them to sender. If millions of people do this it will clog up the bureaucrats no end.

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Sorry, should have been Bulldust @ 9

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    I heard Julia on the radio today stating that the release of the full draft legislation was to allow all Australians to understand what is being proposed.

    I doubt that 1 in 100 Aussies will a) have the patience to trawl through it and b) understand much of it.

    Another failed concept of our illustrious ‘leaders’.

    00

  • #
    Jonas Rugthers

    VIP Trenberth has turned read last paragraph and send to Giltard
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N30/EDIT.php

    00

  • #

    Nice to see such faith in computers, from those who have such faith in computer-modelling:

    296 Computerised decision-making
    (1) The Regulator may, by instrument in writing, arrange for the use, under the Regulator’s control, of computer programs for any purposes for which the Regulator may, or must, under this Act or the regulations:
    (a) make a decision; or (b) exercise any power or comply with any obligation; or (c) do anything else related to making a decision or exercising a
    power or complying with an obligation.

    and then

    304 Liability for damages
    None of the following:
    (a) the Minister;
    (b) a delegate of the Minister;
    (c) the Regulator;
    (d) an official of the Regulator;
    (e) a delegate of the Regulator;
    is liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for, or in relation to, an act or matter in good faith done or omitted to be done:
    (f) in the performance or purported performance of any function; or
    (g) in the exercise or purported exercise of any power; conferred by this Act or the associated provisions.

    The regulator may safely leave decisions to a program which is not answerable for errors. Great.

    00

  • #
    Breathing Tax Protest

    I have always detested litter but if anything turns up in my letterbox from Jooliar about this Breathing Tax… it’s going to be opened and dumped in the middle of the road. I suggest this as a civil form of protest.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Thats crap Cohers and you know it. Ok I put 100 dollar coins in a bowl, someone else puts in 3. every day we do this, then every day I take 100 random coins out. The extra 3 you get every day are because of the other guy’s 3! I’m nature, he’s civilisation.

    00

  • #
    Snotrocket

    The following is always worth an outing, especially as MattB has no grasp of taxes and benefits:


    “Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

    The fifth would pay $1.

    The sixth would pay $3.

    The seventh would pay $7..

    The eighth would pay $12.

    The ninth would pay $18.

    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that’s what they decided to do..

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

    “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    note if I took random coins… then only 3 of every 103 coins you end up with would be coins the other guy put in there, but he is responsible for EVERY COIN YOU HAVE!!! because if he’d put none in there you’d have NO COINS.

    00

  • #

    Just quickly skimming through the document, it looks more like the government is setting up a bank or trust fund than a trading scheme. There is also a remarkable lack of property rights attached to the OTNs(or international substitues). For example, if you die no-one can inherit your emission allowances. Meaning, they are not financial assets. Perhaps the most disturbing section I have found is as follows(page 146):

    126 Interim emissions number

    Direct emitter

    (2) For the purposes of this Act, if the person has a provisional emissions number for the previous eligible financial year under a particular provision of Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that provision applies to a particular facility, the number worked out using the following formula is an interim emissions number of the person for the relevant eligible financial year: 0.75 × Provisional emissions number

    So, in any financial year you can potentially loose the right to 25% of emissions. How’s that for business certainty?

    Another bizarre aspect of this legislation is the ability of companies to export their tax! I can see grounds for large companies to help third world dictatorships set up carbon trading schemes to buy credits from in exchange for business favours.

    Just from a brief overview I can safely so, the amount of corruption and market fixing that this scheme will create is many magnitudes more damage to our economy than the effect of a flat tax alone. This is the worst possible outcome for us. All the bad effects of both a tax and a trading system all rolled into one. And not a benefit in sight.

    00

  • #

    I Think I’ve worked you out MattB
    when the plebs are discussing something important, change the subject.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    cohenite:

    Alan Jones is right:

    Don’t go for understatement cohenite, Alan Jones is so far right that Doppler shift makes him almost invisible….

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    The Brits have been there

    http://tinyurl.com/3r6mm8d

    and now we are dumb enought to follow?

    Professionals learn from the mistakes of others (as well as their own). Gillard learns nothing!

    00

  • #
    WB

    Jo, this is OT but given the GetUP complaint re Alan Jones can you supply an answer:
    what is the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions contributed by man. Jones says 0.001% GetUP says 28%. is there any definitive “science” on this to support one claim or the other?

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Hardy har ha matty; 3 coins in the bloody fountain; the total doesn’t stay the same just the human %; go away and think about it.

    00

  • #

    Tony Windsor sat on a committee working all this stuff out and reckoned that they had come up with a great result. Surely he would be the man to grab and get up in the town hall to explain the legalese of this scheme.

    Questions I would ask of him are; if the carbon units are created out of nothing then who is the owner/issuer – how do they put a value on them? How can they profit from something which in its beginning had no value. Will carbon units gain in value as a result of the regulator arbitrarily deciding a business should have a lower carbon cap thus lowering the number of carbon units in circulation? In what circumstance would a business be forced to buy at auction? A holding of carbon units above 5% of ones allowed trading cap is deemed to be “significant” and the “regulator” can compel a person to reduce their holding under threat of penalty without providing a reason – why? The regulator it seems can regulate a business out of business.

    If this scheme is to cost billions of dollars it means that billions of dollars will be taken out of general circulation. The way to create a depression is to withdraw money from circulation.

    00

  • #

    The US got stuck with Obamacare – which has nothing to do with Health care (It is all about health insurance), and will increase medical care costs (since it does nothing about perscription prices or any prices). I guess Gillard wanted her own version. You just got scrod.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Cohers I must admit you normally come across as pretty smart, smarter than me for sure, but you’ve exposed yourself here for sure.

    also – I thought my post in #1 would have gone down better with this crowd.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    The government says we’ll be better off with a carbon tax.

    So, perhaps we should ask them to double it so we’ll be twice as better off :)

    00

  • #
    Snotrocket

    MattB @55:

    So, if I understand you correctly, tax should not be based on the Marxist tradition of ‘those who have should provide for those who have not’, but on a “random” ethic whereby even the poor can be made to pay.

    Good thinking Matt. B-

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Mattyb; It’s an over-rated movie and colonel Kilgore is an idiot; anyway you only half-quoted; what victory are you thinking of; the victory of those promoting the rotten tax?

    Now back to the puzzle; you agree that the airborne fraction of ACO2 is constant as found by Knorr?

    That means the natural imput must be increasing, must it not, if the total of all CO2 is increasing?

    Then the % of ACO2 contributing to the increase must also be constant % of the combined natural and ACO2 flux total. How could it not be?

    00

  • #

    MattB @ 64:

    Cohers I must admit you normally come across as pretty smart, smarter than me for sure, but you’ve exposed yourself here for sure.

    I had to read that twice. Matt you tend to ignore the sceptic position that the ocean is not at a staturation point with C02. The ocean is not even slowing it’s uptake of C02, it’s increasing as we burn more resources. So, it’s not like a bank account earning compound interest. It’s more like the government taking an increasing amount away from you the harder you work.

    also – I thought my post in #1 would have gone down better with this crowd.

    What do you mean? It did. I can see a rare thumbs-ups. That’s more unexpected than humility in a climate science convention.

    I must admit, I gave you a thumbs down. Mostly, for failing to move the debate along by ignoring the arguments put to you.

    00

  • #
    pat

    Louis Hissink -

    nothing is going to the poor here or in the so-called third world.

    compensation for the poor here will in no way cover the rise in the cost of living as a result of this legislation. and this ultimate money grab is certainly not for the people in the third world, who will suffer most from a carbon dioxide financial bubble.

    the winners are the banks, the financial houses, and the pollies, scientists and media who are on the now all but forgotten CAGW gravy train. it is our job to stop this legislation in its tracks and i still highly recommend everyone advise friends and family to temporarily, at least, transfer all Super Funds to a Cash Option, so there’s nothing for the Institutional Investors to blow on this criminal enterprise. nothing speaks like money to the carbon vultures circling in the wings.

    00

  • #
    Edward.

    It really goes without saying, but, this [act] is not good for Australia.

    This legislation ‘hamstrings’ Australia and is a boon for, China and those industrial competitors of Australia.
    Australia, a country so blessed with enormous natural resources should be one of the richest nations on earth, why shoot yourself in the foot?

    What is it, three greenies and Joolya, are gonna do for yer, don’t let it happen – you’ll end up as broke – as us Poms [surely your politicians are not as stupid as the eejits, in the House of Commons?].

    00

  • #

    What is it, three greenies and Joolya, are gonna do for yer, don’t let it happen – you’ll end up as broke – as us Poms [surely your politicians are not as stupid as the eejits, in the House of Commons?].

    To quote a rather uncouth Mechanisation & Physics lecturer I still have contact with:-

    If intelligence is compared to the size and heat of a candle flame and you totaled the intelligence of the cacaus of the current government and the independent and greens members of both houses of our parliament. You wouldn’t have a flame capable of lighting a fart.

    00

  • #
    klem

    Th real reason you are getting this tax rammed down your throats is because Australia has a low unemployment rate right now. If unemployment were higher, this tax would be dead in the water. So you Ozzies can afford this tax, and as long as the population says nothing to oppose it, you’re going to get htis new burden. Remember, its the cities which are the primary promoters of carbon controls, not the rural areas.

    At the next election, vote the weak minded Gillard out.

    00

  • #
  • #

    This legislation looks to have confirmed another of my suspicions.
    I was always puzzled about the Solar Dawn Plant at Chinchilla.
    You see, there is a similar plant in the U.S. and while the process for that plant uses a compound that was heated to a molten state by the reflected heat, that compound boiling water to steam, the Solar Dawn Plant runs water through the pipes at the focal point of the mirror, directly boiling it for the process.
    However, just like that U.S. plant, Abengoa’s Solana Plant at Gila Bend, near Phoenix in Arizona, Solar Dawn also has on site Natural Gas fired backup.
    At the Solana Plant, they will be running that NG backup for all the time the Solar process is not supplying power, in their case around 16 hours a day on average.
    So here we have a plant that in fact may, well just may, supply 24/7/365 Power with part Solar process, but it still could theoretically supply.
    The same applies for Solar Dawn, also having NG backup on site.
    However, an email from the proponents say that the Solar process will be supplying power for on average 6 hours a day. That same email said that they were restricted in the operation of the NG backup to around 45 minutes a day.
    This was really puzzling.
    Hold on I thought, surely here is a chance to actually ‘spruik’ that a renewable can actually supply 24/7/365 albeit with NG for 16 to 18 hours a day, and then everyone can cash in on the greenness of this.
    Now it seems that from a little closer perusal of the legislation, it becomes obvious why they are in fact limited to less than one hour a day.
    You see, anything more than that, and this wonderful new renewable power plant falls into the category of having to pay for their emissions, and well now, we couldn’t have the plebs using that as ammunition against us now could we. (Sarc off now Tony)
    Also, Solar Dawn was announced more than a Month back now, and that restriction was in place at that time.
    Makes you wonder why it wasn’t mentioned at that time eh!
    Naah! Why tell ‘em. No one will find out anyway.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    NW Dave

    New research by Dr. Roy Spencer and others reported on by Forbes at http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html I think that this would pretty much shut down CO2 as the basis for an energy tax.

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Your government is insane; it is going to tax an element of the periodic table!

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    The 2.86 ratio for CO2 from coal may be an average for some coal.

    Lignite (brown coal) however can score as low as 0.93; because so much of it is water.

    But the proposed billdoesn’t limit itself to CO2 emissions. It’s CO2-equivalent. What are the CO2-equivalent emission ratios for e.g. dihydrogen-monoxide? They ought to be much higher; DHMO being a very significant greenhouse gas.

    The CO2-equivalence is determined by throwing a dart arbitary (fudge) factors in a computer model, which the proposed bill also magics into existence, at the same time deeming their output to be gospel.

    A quick browse of the proposed legislation shows a preponderance of CYA clauses.The government, its agencies and contracted mercenaries cannot be held responsible for their actions or inactions.

    00

  • #

    The real reason you are getting this tax rammed down your throats is because Australia has a low unemployment rate right now.

    Australia has a low unemployment rate because of changes to the way the figures are calculated, eg someone in part time employment who only works 1-6 hours a week is no longer counted as unemployed. These people are now counted as underemployed where it used to be 6-10hrs/week was classed as underemployed and less than 6hrs/week was classed as unemployed. A couple of things you need to be aware of Part time employment of less than 10 hours/week is now 30% of the workforce. Lastly you need to add the unemployment rate and underemployment rate to get the real picture ie, as of March 2010 unemployment rate was 5.2% and underemployment rate was 7.2%, so the number of people working 0 – 10hrs/week was in fact 12.4% and is a much more realistic picture of the real economy.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Re Kyoto Protocol which is referenced by the proposed bill as being a guide for decision making by the Minister (along with other external agreements – which is super-tanker of worms in itself).

    The emission reduction commitments expire at the end of 2012. Before any “reduction” due to any legislation from such a bill could come into force.

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!

    00

  • #
    3x2

    What is it with you deniers? Taxing the very base of the planetary food chain is the best idea since sliced bread or refrigerated lager.

    See… energy from the sun, some water and some Carbon pollution makes Oxygen and food.

    EM from the Sun, Water and oxygen are all difficult to tax (for the moment) so that just leaves … Carbon Pollution.

    Hands up if you don’t need carbon pollution. See… fair tax.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Snotrocket: @57

    Excellent outline n how beer drinkers think.

    The first problem is the people who need to understand this wouldn’t have the incentive or patience to read it.

    The second problem is that our “leaders” are certainly not going to help them understand this because they might, in a moment of altruism, put personal interest aside and vote for better leaders who will do the right thing by the whole community.

    As an extension of your idea you could work up a scenario where the rich bloke leaves and the rest decide to borrow money from the bank to establish a “drinking Kitty”. How long could they go before being declared bankrupt?

    00

  • #
    scooter

    I was hoping the legislation would define ‘carbon’ just to clear things up. No such luck.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    According to the $26m propoganda blast funded by us, this pollution tax will discourage polluton.

    So where in this legislation is there anything covering soil and water pollution? It seems to be targeting an element in natures periodic table in order to try and meddle with the climate to prevent it from doing what has always done -changing.

    On a sidenote, roy is getting some exposure on yahoo regarding his excellent work showing how the whole ‘Co2 causes clouds to trap heat more’ has been way overplayed by team catastrafaria. well done roy!

    http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

    00

  • #

    A must read is The Australian article that Wendy provided a link for @ 76

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    The Carbon Tax is supposed to promote Australia’s transition to a low carbon economy for IF AND WHEN the major global emitters (China, USA eta al) they themselves make binding commitments that actually will make any difference to the global climate (taking the GCMs at face value). The problem for this approach is there no reasonable prospect of global agreements on the horizon. The current global economic uncertaintly only makes global agreemeents on emissions even less likely than ever. This week we have had the reserve bank governer Stevens reminding that Australias productivity is on the decline. The Carbon tax will only exacerbate Australias declining productivity through addding ever more layers of suffocating bureaucracy and red tape and reducing Australias international competitiveness. We need an election now!

    00

  • #
    Robber

    There seems to be a major component missing – a cost/benefit analysis. I wonder why? (sarc).

    00

  • #
    Gaz

    We are told, in all the publicity, that the Government is imposing A PRICE ON CARBON.
    NO … It is not taxing carbon, it is in fact imposing A PRICE ON CARBON DIOXIDE.
    If it is correct to call this a price on carbon, then, since CARBON DIOXIDE IS 73% OXYGEN, it must be even more correct to describe it as A PRICE ON OXYGEN…. that is… A PRICE ON THE AIR WE BREATH!
    I was wondering when they would get around to charging us for the air we breath! Now we know.

    00

  • #
    Gaz

    Kevin Moore 10:18pm

    Treasury modelling has the whole thing only reducing Australia’s emissions by around 10% by 2050 … NOT the claimed 80%. The other 70% is from buying credits from off-shore … i.e. sending our money off shore, probably to the Russian mafia – that’s where the money goes.

    00

  • #

    Further to the puzzling Solar Dawn Plant operation I mentioned at comment 77.
    The proposed legislation lists a minimum amount of CO2 emissions, eg, under that amount and they will not be levying this Tax.
    In the hours following Posting the analysis I carried out for the Solar Dawn project at this link:
    Solar Power Australia
    I received a comment from a fellow Australian, informing me of an email from the Solar Dawn proponents.
    The text of that comment is as follows:

    In an e-mail to me from Solar Dawn:

    “We expect to incorporate 5 x 50MW gas boilers for supplementary generation. We are constrained to using them for a maximum of 15% of annual generation, in accordance with Solar Flagships guidelines.

    “We are currently updating our solar resource assessment and yield calculations, but we expect to generate between 500 GWh and 600 GWh per year from our solar steam generators, then further generation from the supplementary gas boiler system, staying under the 15% cap.”

    Now the plant will be supplying it’s power for around 5.5 to 6.5 hours a day, and that 15% Cap on generation comes in at around 50 to 55 minutes a day for all 5 X 50 MW Natural Gas fired auxilliary generation capacity.
    So, while half the up front construction cost of $1.2 Billion is coming in the form of Government subsidies, (bothe Federal and Qld State Governments) and most probably the government will also be subsidising half the production cost of the power generated so the Plant can actually sell its power wholesale to the grid at a price slightly cheaper than providers can sell it to consumers retail, it seems the plant’s proposers already had an idea in advance of the legislation with its minimum emissions level that would not be taxed.
    That’s why perfectly functional NG generators will only be supplying power for that added 50 minutes or so each day.
    Not a good look to have a supposedly renewable power plant paying a tax on its emissions now is it.
    Sort of puts it up there in the realm of those ‘derdy polluders’
    See now how many deals have to be done to get these white elephants up and running.
    You, as power consumers will be paying for all this in the form of increased electricity charges, and as more of them come on line, you can guess the end result.
    Tony.

    00

  • #

    God [John 20:28] did not put a monetary burden on man to have tenure on this planet, nor did he put a monetary penalty on the breaking of the Ten Commandments. He said that the love of money was a root of all evil.

    So what gives the right honorable PM Julia Gillard the right to give an element in the periodic table – an element essential to life, a monetary value with monetary penalties for the breaking of her decrees?

    If Julia thinks that Gods creation is broke and that she can fix it by putting a price on an essential element for life,then either God is out of control or she is out of control.

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Wenyd @ 76

    This is the thing I was dreading.

    We now have Australians prosecuting Australians over an imaginery problem which has an imaginary cure with no physical results.

    How does the Productivity Commission work out this is good for the Country, how does anyone?

    The governments job is to take care of its citizens but from the look of this legislation it seeks to look after the rest of the world at the expense of its citizens. Surely a treasonous act !!

    We are doomed if we don’t end this and get rid of this Traitorous government.

    Say YES to an election now!!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As Australia faces unprecedented trouble, guess who mocks his own countrymen?

    Mmmmm I love the smell of new Legislation in the morning!

    And also two threads ago.

    Ah, breaker one-nine, this here’s the Rubber Duck. You gotta copy on me, Big Ben?

    Usually MattB is just pathetic. But if I was an Aussie this would hurt.

    Maybe I’ve no right to even comment, I don’t know. I do know this — Jo has carried on a long hard, sometimes lonely fight, complete with long nights, little sleep and sometimes even threats as pay for her trouble. She’s ridiculed from one side of Australia to the other by people who should be thanking her. And she deserves better than this lowlife gutter treatment from someone she has befriended and defended when others were — and I’m putting it politely — hoping he would get the idea and go permanently away.

    Well Matt, it’s time. If you have any sense of shame left either disappear permanently or apologize to Jo and the rest of your fellow citizens for the mockery.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Methinks not many have read about how Stalin actually came to power.
    Law, red tape and a little skullduggery. Bit by bit… Once you are there, you then exercise all things at your disposal to entrench your position.

    00

  • #

    Hmm!
    I’m trawling through this legislation, and the more I look, the more horrified I am becoming.
    I’m almost up to page 100.
    For all you electricity consumers, it’s a given that you’ll be paying extra for the electricity you consume.
    However, here’s one for all you people who consume less electricity, because you’re connected to Town Gas, or have bottled gas, say for heating and cooking.
    Well, you see, this legislation imposes a cost on the emissions of burning that gas, be it on a large scale, like provision for gas fired power plants, etc.
    However, from what I can see here, this must also apply to provision of that Gas to residential consumers.
    The legislation imposes a cost on the SUPPLIER of gas for the CO2 emissions given off from the burning of that gas.
    They’re not taxing you directly as a residential consumer, but all residences added up, and then tracked back to the supplier of the gas.
    So, now, as that supplier is forced to pay this tax, you can see that the gas supplier, (in a similar manner as the coal fired power operation) will be passing his tax burden down to you as gas consumers.
    So, residential electricity, and residential gas consumption.
    Clever people these legislators.
    Very neat indeed.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Roy Hogue:@96

    What’s the definition of insanity. Arguing with an idiot.

    There’s no point. Ignore it.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    How can we persuade Gen X and Gen Y (who seem largely oblivious)of the disaster that is about to disproportionately affect them? THEY will be the ones who bare the brunt of this ever escalating tax on C02 and “it’s equivalents”(and subsequently its mutant off spring- the ETS) moreso than Baby Boomers, many of whom are currently or will be scaling down their lives, have paid off their mortgages and have their families out in the world, no longer draining their household power consumption, let alone food,clothing, etc, etc. This to me seems the key to halting this at the next election, by convincing them that they are the ones who are going to be paying the lion’s share of this, because of the escalating nature of the tax, while the older Australians manage to sidestep most of it’s onerous toll. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion and seeing the smiling passengers in the rear of the train not yet aware that the train they are on has derailed and will plummet over a ravine. How sad, and how ironic that they are more likely to advocate in favour of their own demise.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tony, if you are taxing emissions it would be pretty stupid to not tax emissions from domestic gas use don’t you think? Of course this is why there is compensation….

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Roy in #95… when Jo puts in the ‘rules of commenting’ that one can’t have a bit of light-hearted banter then I’ll stop. I used to love that convoy song as a kid.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    What’s the definition of insanity. Arguing with an idiot.

    There’s no point. Ignore it.

    00

  • #
    Grumpy old fart

    2 things:

    1: Is there any clause in this legislation that says when it will stop? If this is being brought in to avert a man-made crisis, surely it must specify when the crisis is considered averted and we can all stop paying to breathe?

    2: MattB: to use your analogy: Nature puts $97 in your bowl, Man puts $3 in your bowl. Man has contributed 3% of your bowl. Nature takes its $97 back, leaving $3 in your bowl. Next cycle: Nature puts $97 in your bowl, Man puts $3 in your bowl. You now have $103 in your bowl, which is ~6% Man-made. This is *not* the situation that is being reported by the literature, because the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is anthropogenic is constant, not rising.

    00

  • #
  • #

    MattB at Comment 100.
    MattB, you’re the precise reason why I just love having guys like you frequent blogs like this one.
    The more you comment, the more it shows us how those who think like you really DO have no thought whatsoever for the rest of humanity.
    I love your compensation comment.
    What a gem!
    So, let me see if I have this right.
    They said that giving people compensation was no incentive to cut back on what causes those emissions in an indirect way (you know, no pain no gain).
    Your side then says that the compensation itself is an incentive. Because you are being paid compensation then the incentive is to make some of that money as a gift by reducing your consumption, and then less of that compensation goes on paying this tax indirectly, and more of it into your own pockets.
    So MattB, if I’ve got this right, then you’re advocating people eat less cooked food, (electricity and Gas) freeze in Winter, (no heating gas, aircon, and heaters), and then boil in the Summer, (no aircon). All to save a measly few bucks.
    MattB, Residential electricity consumption is 38%.
    Here’s a diagram of the avergae household power consumption.
    http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/home-use-pie-chart.jpg?w=311&h=166
    Now MattB, tell me mate, where do you suggest we make those cutbacks.
    Keep in mind cutting back a small percentage of those areas from a small percentage of households that will do that, from 38% will not even cause those large scale coal fired power plants to even blink, even if every household in the Country had the ‘carbon police’ visit to enforce those cutbacks.
    Incidentally, if you think changing replacing existing household incandescent lighting for those CFL’s will result in a large saving, then you need to read this:
    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/light-bulb-regulation-president-fails-elementary-math/
    So MattB, keep doing what it is you are doing.
    You’re a precious resource, because you spur us to find new ways to shoot you down and expose you for your thinking.
    Just my three bucks worth.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tony you’re given compensation and it is up to you to do what you want with it. Some may just do the same, others may try and save a few bucks by turning the lights off just like mum used to say.

    As you say, posts like yours in 106 remind me why I come to blogs like this… to wonder at the amazing abaility to see doom gloom and conspiracy in simple policy steps.

    That link to the CFL article is off the planet. What is that guy smoking? Then of course I realised YOU WROTE IT!!!! lol.

    Mate change one lightbulb and there is a demonstrable payback within the lifetime of the bulb. What more do you want.

    p.s. I can’t honestly remember the last time I went in to an Aussie kitchen that was lit with old-school flourescent tubes.

    00

  • #

    Part 4 Division 4 Section lll (a) (iii) on Page 126.
    When the ETS comes in, the Govt has set the minimum price of a Carbon Credit at $15.00.
    Each new year, the emitting body has to purchase new Credits for the upcoming year, and then consider them as surrendered, eg, they can keep them for a year and trade them at auctions but, must have the equal number to surrender.
    Reading the text there, the Government will also issue some new credits at each auction.
    Traded Credits will be at whatever you bid for them.
    If you bid a price for the Government’s new Credits, and also at the start of the new emitting year, then, if the bottom has fallen out of the market, you are still bound to buy those new Credits from the Government at the base price of that $15, no matter if the price has fallen to the current price.
    Cool, eh!
    Tony.

    00

  • #

    Oh MattB at comment 107
    Old school fluorescents.
    As I mentioned in that Post:

    This (kitchen) light is already a high intensity fluorescent light as housing construction convention mandates that this is a work area and requires bright lighting, and the brightest are those fluorescent lights.

    24 Watt Tri Phosphor lights, those circular ones, are what is now all but mandatory to fit in kitchens of new homes, and has been for quite a while now, and that lighting is the equivalent of almost 200Watts of old style incandescent, incidentally much brighter than equivalent 24 Watt CFL’s, and, er, longer lasting also, as that furphy of CFL’s having an extended life when compared to incandescents is just that, a furphy, and don’t even think of breaking one.
    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/how-many-hazmat-suits-does-it-take-to-change-a-light-bulb/
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Henry Ergas has another go at the shonky economic modelling assumptions used as the basis for the CO2 tax legislation:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/swan-hides-his-dodgy-carbon-model/story-e6frgd0x-1226103759625

    Probably a tad difficult for non-economists to follow, but most should be able to get the gist of it.

    I note a minor error: “…causing, among other things, changes in demand.” should read changes in “quantity demanded.” Only a pedantic economist would pick this up ;) It does not detract from the thrust of the arguments.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    TonyfromOz,

    It is not difficult to imagine the fraud this is going to generate. And the government will be up to their ears in it too.

    As we approach 2020 it will become increasingly apparant that the 2020 targets cannot be achieved. The government will be desperate to find a solution so they can be re-elected. Here are some options it may consider:

    1. walk away from the 5% unconditional 2020 target
    2. Alter the way CO2 emissions are calculated (DCCEE is doing that already)
    3. allow companies to buy more permits from overseas
    4. allow relaxation of the constraints on what are acceptable permits from overseas …

    Readers here will be able to see where this will lead …

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Tony;

    Thanks for all the in depth material and comment.

    As for the lurkers the only benefit in playing with the likes of MattB is to tease out what they know, usually not much. If they take too much time replying then you know they have had to look up one of their “primer” sites for support. After a while his only use is to help sharpen debating skills to use on more prepared opponents. I don’t read his posts now.

    What’s the definition of insanity. Arguing with an idiot. There’s no point. Ignore it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mary, sorry I’m not taking your advice, on this occasion. I will just point out that I rarely engage with you.

    00

  • #

    Peter Lang at Comment 111,
    Your Point 1.
    5% unconditional 2020 target.
    In the Legislation they rabbit on about the Kyoto Protocol from 1997. Kyoto which lapses in 2012 with no replacement in place, thanks to the such comprehensively failed Copenhagen Round, called for a reduction in emissions of 6 to 7% on ….. wait for this ….. 1990 levels of emissions.
    Now they’re calling for a 5% reduction on existing levels now.
    Man, do these people think we can’t read.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    MattB @ 107

    I’m glad you pointed out the compensation issue mate…I was a little scared this dishonest government acting on the detrayal of every voting person in Australia is going to provide us with compensation.

    I feel sooooo much better knowing they are going to pay 100% of the Carbon Tax back in compensation package to us, less the costs of course.

    Truly why is it you believe them. Why drastically change the way we live our lives on a whim.

    Surely even you can see the insanity in this.

    Say YES to an election now !!

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Kyoto ceasing in 2012 is neither here nor there. When the US Senate voted against in 90-0, Clinton’s people change tack and went down another route, this time uder the UN umbrella of local district policies etc. This is probably what this legislation is about, with a reference to Kyoto as it is now, but capable of being changed to suit new circumstances when, and if they arise.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Tony and rjm385:

    The compensation thing is raised again.

    I know I’m about to be compensated. I also know that when I’m compensated that everyone else will also be compensated.

    On top of that I have a strong premonition that when I finally have been compensated it wont feel like the real thing. It will be like a Claytons compensation; the compensation you have when you are not being compensated.

    I am aware that many large companies want the carbon tax and can only guess that they know they will make money out of it.

    I’m puzzled. Who is actually NOT going to be compensated so that someone actually pays the tax on CO2?

    Does Goldman Sachs get compensation or do they just make money on the Carbon Exchange? Perhaps they get both.

    Whata wonderful world.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    For several years I’ve had the terrible feeling that I’m living a botched remake of a wonderful old movie called, “Being There”. It was Peter Sellers’ finest roll as Chance the mentally retarded gardener wandering the streets aimlessly after his employer’s death and ends up as Chauncey Gardner, advisor the rich and powerful. It’s not that the situation is the same but that the level of absurdity and the belief that a complete fool is so wise that makes the parallel so vivid.

    All that’s missing is the final scene in which Chance, with his usual witless grin on his face as only Sellers can do it, walks right on out across the lake on his late benefactor’s estate.

    Who will be the one to take those fateful steps without sinking? Will it be Gillard? Perhaps Obama? Or will MattB try it?

    So many seem to think they can do it.

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    MattB @#56…. Carbon dioxide isn’t metal coins you put in a bowl and take out….. Stop using analogies. Then you won’t get confused by them.

    … But I tell you what, this madcap Government will certainly be pulling coins from thin air. Greatest scam ever.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    To those who are thinking of doing something with Gillards carbon Tax mailout:

    You need to remember that politicians, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, are shortsighted, reactionary and gutless to the point of being cowards.
    Therefore the only things that matter to a politician when the public speaks are THE NUMBERS and THE TONE. (That’s how Goldman Sachs Turnbull got ousted)

    I have decided what I will do with this mailout, and unfortunately for the politicians, I’ve been in an exceptionally angry mood lately.

    I will put the mailout UNOPENED into another envelope and send it to my nearest Labor member Wayne Swan with the following note attached:

    SHOVE THIS TAX UP YOUR ARSE, COZ I CERTAINLY WILL AT THE NEXT ELECTION AND THE ONE AFTER AND THE ONE AFTER THAT.

    Uncooth? Rude? Uncivil? Yes but I don’t give a $hit because these morons have stolen my democracy, are about to trample my freedoms and have ruined my nations economy with their incompetence and lies. A rude little note is the least I can do.

    Whaddayou gunna do, just sit there and take it?

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Louis a@116

    The sooner we divorce the United Nations Tumor the better.

    It does no good in the World and sucks cash out of us to be used looking after diplomats in New York hotels at $2,000 per night.

    If the UN was real, it would take over Somalia and instal a UN administrator and save the 400,000 Somali people presently starving under their watch in refugee camps.

    Like many charities in the Compassion Industry it follows the 80 20 rule; 80% of funding goes to admin costs (hotels, flights, secretaries etc) and 20% goes to the actual deserving target.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Baa Humbug

    I love it. Theoretically they should pay – but they might be able to bypass this.

    Still a must try.

    00

  • #

    Coming from 25 years in the Air Force, I got to play an awful lot of cards when I was younger, er, and single, and occasionally, there were the odd times when someone not playing would wander round the table looking at what each player was holding, and sometimes ‘kibbitzing’ over our shoulders.
    I’m reminded of an old joke.

    Three card players were heartily sick of one guy who used to look over their shoulders, butting in.
    One day while he was not present, they made up a card game to see what he would do.
    When he turned up and started his usual, the dealer dealt each player a different number of cards.
    The three players randomly ejected some, and got cards to replace them, each player having virtually nothing.
    The first guy says, ‘Well, I have a Farfle. I’ll bet one dollar.’
    The second guy says, ‘I have a Mingle. I’ll raise you a buck.’
    The third guy says, ‘I have a Snazzle. I’ll see your two and raise you two.’
    The original guy with the Farfle says, ‘I’m in. I’ll raise you another buck.’
    The guy looking over their shoulders just scoffs and says, ‘you idiot,. You’ll never beat a Mingle and a Snazzle with that lousy Farfle.’

    Matt, you’re that guy wandering round at the edges of the game.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    MattB
    Have you ever seen large sums of money go into a government scheme and then emerge intact, unexpurgated and pristine. This government seriously underestimates how much it will cost to check, oversee, police and administer this tax, which will erode substantially any compensation IMO. Even if that compensation occurs for a short period, it will subsequently be unsustainable and vanish into thin air- “poof”! Gone, finito, caput for all but the very lowest income earners, a population which will be becoming far more heavily populated with every passing year, no doubt. You must have more faith in the government than even they have, because I doubt any sitting Labor politician seriously believes this can possibly be workable in the medium to long term. They’re only hoping that borrowed time will carry them beyond the next election by compensating at higher than the initial revenue from the scheme. Myopia in the extreme.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Don’t you all just love MattBs little boy naivety? I could just cuddle the little innocent cutiepie.

    “Families will be compensated” says this lying incompetent government and little boy MattB gets sucked in hook line and sinker.

    Here is a reminder why you’re a gullible little lemming Matt. The most recent power price hikes in Queensland were more than expected. The reason given was that because Queensland had a cooler than normal summer, CONSUMERS USED LESS ELECTRICITY. Meaning the power companies volumes had dropped so the price had to go up.

    Therefore, even if this Carbon Tax scam was more succesfull than your wildest dreams and every single Australian dilligently reduced their power use, their savings will be gobbled up by the inevitable price hikes INDEPENDENT OF THE CARBON TAX THE POWER COMPANIES WILL PAY.

    So then there will be the inevitable long dragged out blame game about how much of the price hike was due to the tax and how much was gouging by the power companies. That’s how politics works Matt. You should know, you are one.

    00

  • #
    pat

    as more developing countries – which went along with the scam because they BELIEVED they’d be receiving money, not paying it – discover the facts of the matter, CAGW will die a natural death…

    28 July: Hindustan Times: India threatens to move WTO against EU’s carbon tax
    India has threatened to move World Trade Organisation (WTO) against the European Union if it fails to withdraw carbon tax to be imposed on flights landing or taking off from European airports from January 2012. Even though the additional per passenger cost would be around six US dollars, Indians would be paying approximately about one billion US dollars a year to Europe. Similar cost for China would be about four billion US dollars…
    But, the concern is that the tax will give kick-start similar unfair trade practices in the name of fighting climate change. Europe is already talking about imposing a similar carbon tax on imported high carbon emitting fuels from 2013-14…
    It would mean that a Boeing 747 flying from Delhi to London will exhaust this quota within a month and thereafter, will have to pay the environmental degradation tax for landing on European airports…
    India has not bought the European claim and Indian environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan lodged a formal protest with the European Union this week terming the decision as “unfair” trade practice. Natarajan in a letter urged Europe to withdraw the unilateral tax till a consensus is built on the issue at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    “We believe European carbon tax is just a start of a new global tax regime to adversely hit business of emerging economies such as India and China…We will have no option other than to approach WTO if it is not withdrawn,” a senior government functionary said…
    The issue of carbon tax came up at a recent UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, Germany, where India along with the biggest group G-77 plus China opposed it. They termed it as an unfair practice against the developing world as under UN protocol to flight change the historical polluters — rich countries — have obligation to reduce carbon emissions and pay to the developing world to adapt to adverse implications of climate change. “By levying carbon tax, developing countries would be paying to rich nations,” a government official said.
    Environment ministry officials said India will also raise the issue at the next meeting of Basic countries — a group of India, China, Brazil and South Africa – in August to garner more support against the decision.
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-threatens-to-move-WTO-against-EU-s-carbon-tax/Article1-726730.aspx

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Robert of Ottawa:
    July 29th, 2011 at 1:27 am
    Your government is insane; it is going to tax an element of the periodic table!

    Actually it’s worse than that…. They say they are going to tax the sixth most abundant element in the universe, but in reality are going to instead, try and tax an entirely different Compound which is absolutely essential to life…. They are Unfrickenbelievable!

    00

  • #
    pat

    for some reason this was only published in today’s free paper.

    19 July: Albert & Logan News: Council fears carbon tax rate rise
    LOGAN City councillors have voiced concerns that the carbon tax will lead to a rate rise for residents.
    Mayor Pam Parker has called for a full report into the effects on the carbon tax on the council.
    Cr Phil Pidgeon (Div. 9) said there had been no detail provided to council on how the proposed tax would effect it and if council would be compensated.
    “There is a hidden cost in this, that’s the one for local government,” he said.
    “I don’t know the facts yet but there will be a cost. I am absolutely horrified of what this would mean.”
    Cr Pidgeon said the tax would mean increased costs in products like bitumen, diesel and electricity, that council uses regularly to provide services to residents.
    “This council will be hit with massive on costs. I think these (the ratepayers) are the poor people that are going to pay,” he said.
    A Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency spokesman said the carbon tax plan included funds to assist councils…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/logan/council-fears-carbon-tax-rate-rise/story-fn8m0u8i-1226097048067

    00

  • #
    pat

    29 July: Gold Coast Bulletin: AAP: Carbon cops ‘wasteful bureaucracy’
    “This is a government that is addicted to bureaucracy, more carbon cops, more carbon regulation, more carbon laws, more red tape for everyday Australians,” Mr Hockey said in Sydney today.
    “(Prime Minister) Julia Gillard was asked five times how many public servants will be employed to deliver her carbon tax. She could not answer.
    “Well, what we know is $384 million, six new bureaucracies, 22 new program and now, in addition, we’ve got the carbon cops on the beat.
    “This is not the way to run Australia.”…
    http://tools.goldcoast.com.au/stories/47706641.php

    00

  • #
    pat

    that a State problem says Combet:

    27 July: Canberra Times: ROSSLYN BEEBY: Solar industry set for ‘pink batts fiasco’
    Australia’s rapidly growing rooftop solar panel industry lacks adequate regulations to enforce electrical safety standards and guarantee installation by qualified workers, the Electrical Trades Union says.
    Union secretary Dean Mighell said many consumers were not aware Australian electrical wiring standards did not apply to the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panels.
    ”That alone is a huge safety issue. As a consumer, you have no way of knowing what you are getting,” he said.
    Mr Mighell accused the Gillard Government of ”lacking political will” to address urgent training, safety and work inspection issues within the solar industry, and has warned solar panels could be ”the next pink batts fiasco” if regulations were not tightened.
    But a spokesman for Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said state and territory governments were responsible for regulating electrical safety including solar photovoltaic installations…
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/solar-industry-set-for-pink-batts-fiasco/2240664.aspx?src=rss

    00

  • #
    GBees

    346 mentions of the word “charge” and 24 for “tax” – 0 mentions of the word “science” – says it all really ….

    00

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    COMBET’S “INTEGRITY”

    So monetizing Carbon (dioxide)” – “creating” an alternative “carbon currency” ex nihilo – will bring into being another vast bureaucracy, regulatory agencies, green carbon cops, etc; all of whom will “miss” the scammers, the biggest of which being, of course, the government itself.

    Who will head the new Climate Change Authority, Carbon Bank, etc? Should Ross Garnaut miss out, I will eat my compensation cheque and/or carbon credit issued by Equatorial Guinea, etc.

    Orwell (and Swift) would have had fun with this monumental folly, its “carbon-speak”, etc.

    Combet today: “The government has to ensure the INTEGRITY of the system is paramount.”

    Could anything be more ironic than this deceitful bunch talking about “integrity”?

    Alice (in Warmerland)

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Robert of Ottawa:
    July 29th, 2011 at 1:27 am
    Your government is insane; it is going to tax an element of the periodic table!

    Insane is not the word. The correct terms are: corrupt and fraudulent. Basing a tax on a fashionable, unproven scientific hypothesis advanced in Australia by an unprincipled cabal of group-thinkers who are feathering their own nests with hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants being stolen from us by green zealots who control the Gillard administration. And simpletons like MattB cheer excitedly from his government sinecure which givesn him the time to spend all day every day taunting those who object to the theft, believing the trashing of Australia’s economy is a noble cause. Enjoy it while it lasts, you zombie. You do not have enough intelligence or compassion to understand or care about how hated you will eventually be by ordinary people with real jobs.

    00

  • #

    We are the generation that saw our government tax the air we breathe. Just take a moment and reflect on this historic event. I know it’s been said before and will be said many times again but, this is something that will be taught in history class hundreds of years from now.

    We all know it’s a scam. If anybody truelly believed the world was about to end on account of us fertilising the atmosphere, then they would take the personal responsibility of using public transport and buying less stuff. That is not evident with the insane inflation and debt bubble we have experienced over the last decade.

    It is the sceptics responsibility to take maximum social advantage from this new legislation. Learn it. Exploit it. Our government is the enemy. Those who claim to believe in AGW are only really looking for the government to take care of them. They will not seek to take advantage of this new legislation. It is our duty to obtain a better outcome then those who blindly submit to our nanny state’s unquenchable thirst for power and domination.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    MattB,

    Tom implies you are a public servant. Is that true? If so it explains why virtually all you write is unquestioning support for Labor-Green policies.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Guilty your honour. But not permanently. Short term contract.

    00

  • #

    Peter,
    I sort of thought along the same lines that he actually might in fact be a public servant.
    After all, he has all that time to spend here at this blog.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    MattyB

    Please read you workings in comment 13

    ….not 3/103%

    Not Good MattyB

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Peter Lang:

    Pffft … I am a public servant (State and permanent).I am not sure I buy your hypothesis regarding public servants and support for Labor-Greens. In my department you will find the vast majority reject the CAGW hypothesis for example (a lot of geologists where I work). My former department was similar.

    I would go further… you find most public servants, at least those that are exposed to the policy areas, are exceptionally cynical about politiicans. Yes Minister is seen as a training video, not a comedy.

    BTW a dead giveaway for public servants blogging is that they tend to capitalise Government and State. Force of habit from preparing ministerials.

    I am quite happy to blog about anything unrelated to my work, but when it comes to work-related material I only speak to those facts that are in the public domain. Code of conduct and all that. Opinions I state clearly are my own and not necessarily those of the Government. I feel like this should have a /disclaimer :p

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Oh dear Dave in 138…

    1) 1 it wasnt post 13… not even close.
    2) wow line me up against a wall for writing 3/103 expressed as a percentage, rather than calculating what would be about 2.8%. I think it was pretty clear.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    2.8?!?!?!

    It’s 2.9126… It’s worse than we thought!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust go home, you know there is nothing you will do between 4:50pm and 5:00pm on a Friday arvo…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I am home … I start early :p

    00

  • #
    Dave

    I am a public servant (State and permanent)

    There is a very big difference between this species and a politican!

    MattyB is a very common species of CO2 inhaling mammal in Australia – called the elected – hence the comment

    But not permanently. Short term contract.

    The elected are the voice of the public? Not a stepping stone to further their own beliefs!

    Julia, Bob and Wayne are the worse examples of this species.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bulldust,

    Have you seen the London GSA “Statement” about climate change etc? I just got it today from AIG WA Committee, but I am off to the NT next week, and have not much time this weekend to do much with it. I can email it to you if you want. Apparently a MEGWA event with Oz GSA next week? at Irish Club.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Bulldust,

    Apologies to you and all public servants. I sent that comment and immediately regretted having done so.

    I agree, most geoscientists (grin!) are too wise to fall for the CAGW alarmists scare campaign. They have sufficent background, knowledge and experience to be able to put time in perspective. :)

    Having already stuck my foot in it with my generalisation (sorry again), I should point out that there are many public servants who do spend much of their working hours blogging. And most of these ones simply reitterate Labor-Green policy. It seems they just follow and reitterate Labor-Green ideology. Mostly they are seem incapable of thinking for themselves (I am referring only to those public servants that can spend much of their day blogging support for Labor Green policies while being paid to do so on the public purse. Few in the private sector could do so.)

    Bulldust, I hope I’ve cleared this up and not made it worse.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bulldust,

    I assume being in mineral economics you are part of DF’s section? Just realised it. :-)

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter Lang,

    Spoken too soon – pommy geos are pro AGW

    The London based Geological Society has thrown down the gauntlett – I can email you the PDF if you wish.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Jonas Rugthers @ 53

    Is this back-peddling from the original alarmists? A sudden crisis of conscience perhaps?

    We can only hope more alarmist scientists will realise the unholy political/ideological monster they have ‘unwittingly’ unleashed and given cover to, and the devastating economic consequences they will be held responsible for at some point in the future. Their modelling assumptions and scientific exaggerations for Govt research funds and academic celebrity, is about to create economic distortions costing lives and reducing the standards of living for millions more.

    It’s not a game anymore, this has real consequences. Businesses will be closed, jobs lost, homes lost…..These scientists will have to live with the full knowledge of the deceptive role they played.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    MattB @ 136

    But not permanently. Short term contract.

    Perhaps we can all hazard a guess at your temporary position within the public service. How about mid level functionary squirrelled away somewhere within the Department of Climate Catastrophisation, or the Department of Disinformation and Propaganda, or perhaps within the Department of Population Reduction, Famine Facilitation and Economic Ruination. Am I getting warm(ist)?

    00

  • #

    How’s your understanding of Common Law going folks? This “tax” doesn’t and cannot apply to a man or woman – Lookup the legal definition of a “person”. It’s a legal fiction, a corporation, a legal entity, a title. Are you any of these? If you think you are then you should pay the tax. If you think you are a man or woman – where is the law that says you must pay. It doesn’t exist, nor can it.

    The word “person” is represented 931 times. The word man or woman – zero.

    I am a man, hence this legislation does not apply to me. I just need to lawfully let them know :-)

    Study up people, the internet is here for a reason.

    00

  • #
    Gordon Cheyne

    <90
    Robber:
    July 29th, 2011 at 7:54 am

    There seems to be a major component missing – a cost/benefit analysis. I wonder why? (sarc).>

    Nor any mention on how they will determine the efficacy of a “Carbon” tax.

    IPCC has never determined what proportion of climate change is natural: they simply assume all undesirable effects are due to mankind’s contribution.

    Cost-benefit analysis? In your dreams!

    00

  • #

    cohenite:
    July 28th, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    No, mattyb; you are ignoring the constancy of the airborne fraction found by Knorr; the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere is not changing yet the total CO2 is increasing; so the % of ACO2 is a constant of the relationship between the total net flux.

    I have had this discussion with Cohenite (and many others) over the years: in this case Cohenite is wrong and MattB is right. Knorr’s investigation is not about the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere (which is btw only slowly increasing), but about how much of the emissions in mass remains as increase in the atmosphere. That is about halve the year by year emissions.
    It is completely unimportant how much CO2 is emitted and absorbed by nature over the seasons, only the difference at the end of the seasonal cycle counts and that is a net loss of about halve the human emissions. Thus nature’s contribution to the increase was zero, nada, nothing. See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg

    There is little doubt that humans are responsible for the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. See a comprehensive overview:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance

    That doesn’t imply that the increase has a huge effect on temperature, that is a complete separate question. In my opinion, the effect of 30% more CO2 is near negligible, compared to other influences (cloud cover, ocean and air streams). Thus I support the Australians who rally against the carbon tax, which is a disaster for their economy and has (near) zero effect.

    00

  • #
    pat

    28 July: Climate Realists: John O’Sullivan: Evidence from Top Climatologist Backs Greenhouse Effect Critics
    New science papers discrediting greenhouse gas effect fit with findings of top climatologist. Emerging group of skeptics re-ignite debate.
    The fledgling new organization, Principia Scientific International (PSI) this week publishes the second of what may be a devastating series of new papers dissecting the traditional greenhouse gas effect and exposing the misuse of equations by climatologists. The new findings fit neatly with those of leading skeptic climatologist, Richard Lindzen, of MIT.
    Canadian physicist, Joe Postma presents compelling evidence that equations used by government climate researchers are not valid because they incorrectly treat Earth as is if were a star constantly emitting and receiving its own energy…
    The study comes fast on the heels of another recent epic paper from Professor Nasif Nahle working at the Mexican laboratory, the Biology Cabinet. Postma, Nahle and other greenhouse effect (GHE) critics say cognitive inertia has set in among many of their fellow skeptics who refuse to even countenance addressing any such anomalies in the models…
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8138

    00

  • #
  • #
    Gary

    A lot of work and downloadable spreadsheet on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting(NGER)”big polluters”.

    http://barnabyisright.com/2011/07/25/the-500-biggest-polluters-exposed-everything-the-government-is-not-telling-you/

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Herald Sun – Czech President equates environmentalism with Communism. The goal he says is control over society.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/green-agenda-has-parallels-with-excesses-of-communism/story-e6frfhqf-1226103023674

    00

  • #

    Titas Aduxas @ 154

    The Koozzoo video you gave the link to is very well done and very informative. It emphasises the point that we really have got a battle on our hands.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    OT sorry but big event possible.

    United States District Court. Plaintif Taitz….
    Subpeona to Produce Documents..
    to directer of public health state of hawaii…..you are commanded to produce at date….documents set forth below
    original typeset birth cert….isued 8 8 61 ….Obama…date Aug 8 2011 (10 days time)

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327373
    Cant refuse ..produce document..game over..refuse ..game over! Produce fake document..game over..
    Watch this space.

    00

  • #
  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Comment on the link by pat @ 153 A while ago I realised that the rotation of the planet and the obvious day night radiation flux variation proportional to the position of each point on the earths surface as a function of time had been ignored by many. Now Postama has actually mentioned that very thing. Also I note that again astrophysicists have told climate so called scientists where they are wrong. Astronomy and astrophysics papers are written quite differently from the likes of climate science. The equations and models are compared more rigorously and fitted to observation where applicable. Also these physicists do have the knowledge of the fundamental basis of the physical world at a better level the those with a dusting of the subject. I have just seen a comment by one of the worlds great astrophysicists commenting that one paper they have criticized has a confidence fit of 99% AGAINST the model being correct..I can imagine how that would apply to a few climate papers around.

    00

  • #

    Australia is well and truly Finally Undertaking Communal Kare for the Environment and Disadvantaged.

    Ain’t enlightenment grand?

    00

  • #
    Scott @ Somersby

    I dont see how they expect the tax or the ETS to work. Nearly al the big emitters are owned by the states and all teh coal is actually owbned by the states and thus the CO2 is also the property of the states. The constituiton section 114 expressly forbids the federal government from “impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

    I donet see where the Constitution gives the government to make laws relating to the environment either?

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    OzWaveGuy

    Good to see you back.

    A few posts back I asked about Oaths of Office &you remarked that:-

    “in Australia over the last few years is the Oath of Allegiance has been removed by stealth from the legal system via State ACTs (eg “Acts Amendment and Repeal Courts and Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA)”).

    &

    “You’re question re: “The question is:- to whom or what are we responsible? What entity is the figurehead for national sovereignty?”
    The answer is simple: You, me, we are the authority and nobody else”

    Now for the question as a non-legal layman :-

    If the citizens are now the ultimate authority and an elected government is pushing an agenda driven by an undeclared political philosophy (e.g. Fabianism?) which has as an end a new world order single global government (by default via an enforced global currency in carbon credits) , how would this sit with the current definition of Treason under the Crimes Act?

    00

  • #

    Pattoh, the system won’t enforce such nonsense like treason. There are already outstanding allegations of treason against gillard but the system won’t enforce it. The new world order (or whatever it’s called) is already here and has been for some time (eg at least 80yrs)

    You need to remember a very simple rule: There is no such thing as Government, they are all corporations (they even admit it), hence they will make the corporate rules to suit themselves.

    The real people need to engage with a understanding of how contracts are made and enforced, then simply do not consent to outrageous “rules”.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Winston in 150…. nope my position is completely unrelated to climate change politics/science. Dave in 144… nope my employment has nothing to do with an elected position.

    00

  • #

    “……One day we wake up and realize we are living in a nightmare and we have been for a long time…

    It’ll never happen here” and “We’ve taken every precaution” becomes “When did it happen” and “How did it happen” and “How did we get to this point….?”

    http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2010/01/pathocracy-brave-new-world-or-1984.html

    00

  • #
    Winston

    MattB @ 166
    I knew it couldn’t be a truly science oriented position. As I have suspected all along from the tone of your responses, you’re either in the Behavioural science field or a psychologist, come on admit it- doing your PhD in the psychology and behaviour of skeptics/ right wing mentality vs left wing mentality (How does ‘Rednecks: A Case Study” sound for a working title- nothing like coloring the interpretation of the work with a subtle title to predetermine opinion), or some other such nonsense. Of course, all your “data” will be totally pigeonholed by your own predominantly left wing biases, so that the outcome is sure to fit with your preconceived notions. I’m pretty close I think, your approach sort of gives you away, I notice you always respond to those posters you feel you can bait successfully to get them aggrieved and provide angry responses, while tending to run off when the tech heads let loose.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Winston @ 168

    Good initial guess on Mattb except at best it would be a Minor in Behavioral Science (with very low grades I might add, especially in English). For sure you are on to something but I doubt Matt will admit and come clean. Your last sentence is spot on.

    Oh he’ll probably call me an idiot for this…..

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    With regard to the Clean Energy Act
    I haven’t had much time this week amd haven’t read the other comments on this thread

    BUT what interests me is the alternative constituional basis
    307 Alternative constitutional basis
    2 (1) Without limiting its effect apart from this section, this Act and the
    3 associated provisions also have effect as provided by this section.
    4 External affairs
    5 (2) This Act and the associated provisions also have the effect they
    6 would have if:
    7 (a) subsections (3) to (9) had not been enacted; and
    8 (b) this Act and the associated provisions did not apply except to
    9 the extent to which they relate to:
    10 (i) matters of international concern; or
    11 (ii) matters external to Australia.
    12 Taxation
    13 (3) This Act and the associated provisions also have the effect they
    14 would have if:
    15 (a) subsections (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) had not been
    16 enacted; and
    17 (b) this Act and the associated provisions did not apply except to
    18 the extent to which they relate to taxation.
    19 Limited types of liable entities
    20 (4) This Act and the associated provisions also have the effect they
    21 would have if:
    22 (a) subsections (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) had not been enacted;
    23 and
    24 (b) each reference in this Act and the associated provisions to a
    25 liable entity were, by express provision, confined to a liable
    26 entity who is:
    27 (i) a constitutional corporation; or
    28 (ii) the Commonwealth; or
    29 (iii) an authority of the Commonwealth.

    SO with regard to the all entities including State Government Owned Entities the objects are:

    3 Objects
    8 The objects of this Act are as follows:
    9 (a) to give effect to Australia’s obligations under:
    10 (i) the Climate Change Convention; and
    11 (ii) the Kyoto Protocol;
    12 (b) to support the development of an effective global response to
    13 climate change;
    14 (c) to:
    EXPOSURE DRAFT
    Preliminary Part 1
    Section 4
    Clean Energy Bill 2011 No. , 2011 5
    1 (i) take action directed towards meeting Australia’s
    2 long-term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse
    3 gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050; and
    4 (ii) take that action in a flexible and cost-effective way.

    the definitions say:

    6 Climate Change Convention means the United Nations
    7 Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on
    8 9 May 1992, as amended and in force for Australia from time to
    9 time.
    10 Note: The text of the Convention is set out in Australian Treaty Series 1994
    11 No. 2 ([1994] ATS 2). In 2011, the text of a Convention in the
    12 Australian Treaty Series was accessible through the Australian
    13 Treaties Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).

    so my comments are:

    1)I haven’t had time to see what Aust obligations are under the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on
    8 9 May 1992 (maybe someone could assist us with a direct link)
    2) there is a clause on avoidance (and I don’t know how the Cth proposes to get past the non taxation on State property) but there is a difference between avoidance and evasion – I’m assuming the way past is compensation agreed to by the various states but not sure
    3) there’s a section (s 3) which obligates Aust to reduce its emissions by 80 percent by 2050 (the objects)
    3 Objects
    8 The objects of this Act are as follows:
    9 (a) to give effect to Australia’s obligations under:
    10 (i) the Climate Change Convention; and
    11 (ii) the Kyoto Protocol;
    12 (b) to support the development of an effective global response to
    13 climate change;
    14 (c) to:
    EXPOSURE DRAFT
    Preliminary Part 1
    Section 4
    Clean Energy Bill 2011 No. , 2011 5
    1 (i) take action directed towards meeting Australia’s
    2 long-term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse
    3 gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050; and
    4 (ii) take that action in a flexible and cost-effective way.

    and then there’s an anti avoidance provision (and don’t know how this applies to Solar Dawn) at Section 29

    AND I have read I think at Catallaxy Files but it oculd have been elsewhere that the price per tonne can be raised with legislative approval

    BUT what does everyone else think?

    00

  • #

    Winston @ 168

    I am not very interested if somwone has done the right studies, or what his political view is. It may matter to know where his/hers biases may be, but far more important is if his/hers reasoning is right or wrong.

    In this case, MattB is right: humans emit 8 GtC (about 4 ppmv) per year as CO2. We measure only an increase of 2 ppmv in the atmosphere. That means that 2 ppmv is absorbed somewhere (no CO2 escapes to space, or we shouldn’t have an atmosphere left). Thus nature as a whole is a net absorber of CO2, not a source. It is that simple.

    Cohenite makes much of the fact that not much CO2 of human origin still is in the atmosphere after 160 years of emissions, but that is not important at all. If you bring your earnings to the bank, it doesn’t matter that your banknotes disappear from the bank in a few days, only the total amount of money matters, not the origin of the notes. If at the end of the year your bank has less gain than your savings, better look for another bank…

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Ferdinand at 171
    Climate science has become so heavily politicised by the Left, so yes, the politics of MattB are extremely important since it has been totally corrupted by government intervention and funding to find their answer, the truth being only of passing concern in the process of indoctrination to the less well educated and young impressionable minds through schools and universities. The UN (an unelected, undemocratic, incredibly powerful, corrupt, self perpetuating cancerous tumour on the world IMO) has alot to answer for with it’s agenda being a power grab toward world government as its’ aim- and if you don’t believe that this is its’ desire then you are very naive and much mistaken in my opinion. It is those who have hijacked the science that are my major concern- fact and fiction are now totally indistinguishable from one another (whose fault is that- Skeptics?- I don’t think so with all due respect)- the argument that CO2 does anything deleterious is weak, the world below 200ppm would be devoid of plant life, CO2 at higher levels is a boon for the biosphere and has little or no effect on the livability of this planet, even if there is a tiny effect on temperature which remains quite dubious at best.

    00

  • #

    Winston at 172

    I do agree with your remarks about the influence of CO2 on climate, which is highly questionable, but that doesn’t mean that other parts of science are equally corrupted by funding in one direction. The main problem in nowadays science is that more weight (and funding) is given to computer games like climate models, which are proven wrong, and hardly any funding is going to the essence: the observations. See the struggle against all kinds of administration that C.D. Keeling had to continue the funding of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa:
    http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf

    My fear is that by reacting against everything that the AGW world says, even where they have good arguments (as in the case of the origin of the CO2 increase), you weaken the arguments of the sceptics where the alarmists are on thin ice: the (lack of) effect of the increased CO2 on temperature…

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Ferdinand,

    How is human emission of CO2 discriminated from natural emission of CO2?

    You cannot use C12/C13 ratios as this has been experimentally falsified.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Re post 153

    It is total rubbish to suggest that a molecule of CO2 produced by nature will not be subject to the same natural processes as a molecule resulting from Human sources.

    If 4% of all CO2 produced each year results from human activity then at the end of the year, after natural sequestration, the total CO2 will consist of the same percentage (4%) of human sourced CO2.

    It is Lawyer talk to suggest that the percentage of human created CO2 in the atmosphere will increase.

    The total may increase but the percentages of natural and human related will remain unchanged.

    10

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    “(as in the case of the origin of the CO2 increase)”

    More warmer logic.

    What we need is science.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Ferdinand@173
    I understand where you are coming from, but the suspect nature of the AGW science means those involved have no one to blame but themselves that a pall of doubt has been cast over their whole body of work. I am reasonably sure that not all financial advice given by Goldman Sach’s prior to the GFC was dodgy, and not all the findings of the Warren commission were a whitewash, and not all Jan Hendrik Schon’s work was made up to garner fame and fortune in the nanotechnology field, but once you have been shown to exaggerate claims, fudge and suppress data, show yourself to be immune to criticism, advocate marginalizing opponents to your doctrine, etc, etc- then how can you reasonably expect anyone to buy what you are selling. To believe the 2 ppm idea you propose, you have to buy that the carbon flux data is accurate (not convinced) and that it is somehow rigid and non- dynamic which makes no sense whatsoever to me ( perhaps I am in ignorance there). The carbon sinks in the environment seem several orders of magnitude greater than that produced by man. Then, we have the “solutions” proposed to mitigate against this which defy logic by totally relying on renewables which can’t provide more than a fraction of the world’s energy requirements. Is it any wonder there is skepticism?

    00

  • #

    Louis Hissink at 174

    Hello Louis, good to see you again!

    Indeed there is a discrepancy between what is expected as change in 13C/12C ratio and what is measured. Only 1/3rd is showing up. That is because some of the human CO2 is replaced by natural CO2 over the seasonal cycle. About 20% of the whole atmospheric CO2 is replaced. Most of what is exchanged is with the oceans surface layer and with vegetation. That has more or less the same composition as what was absorbed in other seasons, so that doesn’t change the 13C/12C ratio that much. More influential is what is exchanged with the deep oceans: what is going into the deep has the same composition as in the atmosphere (with some fractionation), but what comes out has the composition of the deep oceans, which is much higher in 13C. Thus it is possible to calculate how much exchange there is between the atmosphere and the deep oceans. See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
    The discrepancy in the early years is possibly caused by vegetation decay, which is not accounted for.
    In that way, there is no falsification of human CO2 as cause, only that a large part of it is exchanged by natural CO2 over the years…

    MaryFJohnston at 175
    I didn’t say that only 4% of all CO2 produced is human CO2, that is what Cohenite said, but that is not right. Nature didn’t produce any CO2 in the past 50+ years, it is only a net sink for CO2. There is a lot of circulation of CO2, but that is only going back and forth, that doesn’t add to the total amount, only removes about halve the extra amount (of the toral mass, not specific human) which is introduced by humans. Thus the human production is 200% of the increase in the atmosphere. All what nature does with the huge amounts exchanged is thinning the “fingerprint” (the difference in 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio) of what humans emitted. Thus while the percentage of CO2 from human origin only slightly increases (currently around 9%), humans are responsible for (near) 100% of the increase in total amount of CO2. See a good overview, based on realistic emissions and exchange rates:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
    Where FA is the fraction of human CO2 in the atmosphere, as calculated from the emissions and (estimated) exchange rates. FL the same in the upper part of the oceans, tCA total carbon in the atmosphere as calculated from the emissions and sink rates and tCA obs. what is observed.

    00

  • #
    pesadia

    The Precautionay Principle (I believe) is being used to convince the politicians of the western world of the absolute essential need to take action
    to mitigate the projected theoretical effects of increasing CO2 in the atmostphere. In order to make their argument convincing, they are using a false analogy as mentioned in earlier posts, pointing out that sensible people insure their cars, houses and possessions against known and specified possibilities such as fire, theft, flooding and accidental damage.The cost bennefit analysis is fairly obvious. However, what is being proposed in order to reduce or contain CO2 is billions of dollars in so called insurance premiums to mitigate the projected theoretical consequences.
    If this course of action is justified then it must be justifiable under the same principle, to invest a reasonable proportion of those dollars investigating the very real possibility that the science is flawed.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bulldust go home, you know there is nothing you will do between 4:50pm and 5:00pm on a Friday arvo…

    Telling people where to go now, Matt? ;-)

    But Baa Humbug nailed you at 125.

    Don’t you all just love MattBs little boy naivety? I could just cuddle the little innocent cutiepie.

    That’s you to a “T”. Little boy innocence and ignorance go well with a child. But they don’t go so well with a man. You try desperately to appear wise and knowledgeable and that very attempt makes a fool of you every time.

    But there is one bright spot for you Matt. You aren’t alone. The world is full of cute little child ideologues like you.

    00

  • #

    The Precautionary Principle – Gore and Blood letting will save the planet and your life!

    00

  • #
  • #

    “The Great American Bubble Machine – From tech stocks to high gas prices,Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Gret Depression — and they are about to do it again”

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Winston in 168… I’ve mentioned before – BSc Physics and BEng Environmental Engineering (not greeny – fluid mechanics etc) but I am honoured that this Sci Eng comes across as someone doing a PhD in Behavioural Science.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Just referring back to my comment about The objects of this Act are as follows:
    (a) to give effect to Australia’s obligations under:
    (i) the Climate Change Convention; and
    (ii) the Kyoto Protocol;

    Here’s the relevant Climate Change Convention http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1994/2.html

    I understand the document was signed by Roz Kelly ALP in 1992

    Just for interest ‘climate change’ is defined (s2) as a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and to implement its provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the following:

    Principles at 3 include:

    1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

    2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especially developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.

    3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties.

    AND hope for the future Note in particular

    Article 25
    Withdrawal

    1. At any time after three years from the date on which the Convention has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Convention by giving written notification to the Depositary.

    2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.

    3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from any protocol to which it is a Party.

    If we ever get adults back in Government we can withdraw and say to the precautionary principle ‘begone!”

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Ferdinand # 173

    even where they have good arguments

    The AGW scam has demolished (in the eyes of the AU majority) the credibility of scientists and science. It will be completely demolished within another few years. We are witnessing the killing of science. When the scam is widely exposed, there will be few politicians brave enough to vote for money for a “scientist“. It will take decades for science to recover. The irony is that CO2 is doing more damage to science and more damage to western economies than CO2 can ever do to the environment.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand at 178.

    I started to read the section re 175 and gave up.

    Do You understand that what you are writing is scientific Gobbledegook?

    Isotope ratios studies can be useful BUT only in the hands of a skilled engineer.

    Lets sort the problem

    1. Energy arrives from the Sun. We need to hold on to it. We wont survive without it.

    2. Escape of this energy back to space can be delayed for a short time and this helps keep us warm.

    3. Some of the energy is stored in chemical bonds in life forms on earths surface eg people, dogs, cats and lions. Vegetative matter is a good storage vehicle since it can be saved for use when we have our next ice age; we can burn it as wood or coal or oil.

    4. The main danger to Earth is Global Cooling and NOT Global Warming. Earth floats in a Vacuum at minus 273.16 Celsius Deg.

    5. CO2 will never lead to run-away-man-made-Global-Warming.

    SORRY that’s the science..

    I do, however, respect your right to follow any religious ideology that you choose – all of us need some sort of comfort in this harsh world and if you get that sense of oneness from the Church of Global Warming then I would never deny you that.

    00

  • #

    From the link I provided @ 183

    Bubble 6. Global Warming

    “….Heres how it works: If the bill passes [U.S.] there will be limits for coal plants,utilities,natural gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions [a.k.a. greehouse gases]they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

    The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government,which means that[they can hold no ore than 5% above their cap] this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparisons sake the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion…….

    Goldman owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange where carbon credits will be traded…..Al Gore…..”

    00

  • #

    I’ll put my house on it that while Windsor and Oakeshot were getting their ego’s massaged by being on a committee on climate change that the Carbon Tax Legislation was ready to go at the same time they were being played for suckers.

    00

  • #

    The KOOZZOO VID – link provided at 155 – is an essential watch in my opinon.

    It can be passed on by SMS or Email

    It is an easy and good way to spread the message.

    00

  • #

    “Well,you might say,who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds won’t we all be saved from global warming? Maybe – but cap-and-trade as envisioned by Goldman,is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenue.

    Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make,cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme.

    This is worse than the bailout.It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it is even collected.

    Taken from – The Great American Bubble Machine – Link @ 183

    00

  • #
    Trickie Dickie

    Section 5 advises us the Bill is intended to “……. deal with climate change by
    encouraging the use of clean energy.”

    However, Section 5 does not contain any definition of either “climate change” or “clean” energy, except to say that we can deal with one undefined and unknown issue by using an undefined and unknown agent.

    Interesting; a little bit like trying to nail jelly to the floorboards.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Ferdinand,

    The problem with the C12/C13 ratio is enrichment in C12 is not necessarily the result of biological activity. Passing methane up through a rock column results in that methane being preferentially enriched in C12, from chemical reaction with the rocks that removed C13 isotope. Further an archaean diamond produced a Pee Dee result of -35%, indicating a biogenic origin – a bit difficult to accept before life appeared on the earth.

    So if there is an increase in C12 in the atmosphere, that is not necessarily due to a biogenic source but could just as easily have come from entirely natural, non biogenic, origins. It’s just that the C12/C13 ratio cannot uniquely discriminate biogenic carbon from other sources.

    The carbon cycle itself is also problematical – its core belief is that coal and oil are comprised of carbon extracted from the atmosphere, and in all the carbon-cycle models geological origins are ignored, see here.

    So the mainstream carbon cycle model is plainly wrong, and missing a significant input from the earth itself, whether via volcanic eruptions, or via deep seated fractures in the ocean floors and crust. We even have methane coming out of Archaen aged rocks, one being an underground nickel mine in Western Australia’ north eastern goldfields. That methane cannot be of biogenic origin but has to be coming from the mantle. And in Africa there are unusual volcanic rocks known as carbonitites that are 100 % calcium carbonate – also from the mantle.

    This would suggest that the human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere should be decreased further, but then this is not politically correct, of course.

    Remember that what is driving this agenda is the belief that CO2 will cause global warming, not as a scientifically verified conclusion from observation and measurement.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I do recommend this
    http://barnabyisright.com/2011/07/25/the-500-biggest-polluters-exposed-everything-the-government-is-not-telling-you/

    Take a careful, close look at the exact words used by our government on the “500 biggest polluting companies” page of their new website (emphasis added) -

    Most are companies operating large facilities (with over 25,000 tonnes annual CO2-e emissions) that directly emit greenhouse gases, such as power stations, mines and heavy industry.

    Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

    If you take the government at their word, then you have been led to fully expect that “most” of the “500 biggest polluters” are power stations, mines, and heavy industry.

    And, that “most” of the “500 biggest polluters” “directly emit” greenhouse gases.

    Would it surprise you to learn then, that our electricity generators, along with all the related companies that supply electricity and maintain the transmission networks, only comprise a tiny 7% of the total companies listed on the government’s official NGER Register of “polluters”?

    And would it surprise you to learn that the 2nd biggest number of “polluting companies” are actually Freight / Transport logistics firms.

    00

  • #

    Julia – Get some commonsense – please,or else Australia will be in the hands of the receivers as Greece is now!

    Greece: Government signs over ALL of its assets [real estate,cash funds,and tax revenues] to the European Commission,IMF,and the European Central Bank as collateral for the bailout it received. The bailout money went to pay interest on loans from foreign banks.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/greek-debt-crisis-a-goldman-sachs-economic-coup/

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Louis , thank you for confirming my 187 re interpretation of isotope ratios.

    The biosphere is extremely complex.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Kevin @ #194

    Hmm, interesting link – fits in the progressive agenda to bankrupt countries, bail them out but then get their assets as collateral. Mind you the Greeks are in the poo because they also expect the state to support them – so, if your goal is a welfare state utopia, then a price has to be paid. Greece has, it seems but there is dissent building up. This is going to be very interesting indeed.

    00

  • #

    Winston at 177:

    To believe the 2 ppm idea you propose, you have to buy that the carbon flux data is accurate (not convinced) and that it is somehow rigid and non- dynamic which makes no sense whatsoever to me ( perhaps I am in ignorance there).

    The carbon flux data are far from accurate, and contain a lot of unknowns about height of the flows and their year by year variability. But we don’t need to know the individual flows, as we have quite accurate data about the CO2 emissions (which may be somewhat underestimated), as these are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency, and we have very accurate CO2 measurements of the atmosphere. The difference between these two is what nature as a whole does. In this case about halve of the emissions (in quantity) disappear in natural sinks (mainly the oceans and vegetation). That is the case for at least the past 50+ years of accurate measurements. In that period, the variability of the sink rate was about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend, mainly caused by temperature variations, which is surprisingly low (less than 2% of the total fluxes). Probably because the two main temperature dependent fluxes (oceans and vegetation) react opposite to temperature changes.

    00

  • #

    Louis Hissink @196

    Englands National Debt began in 1694 when William Patterson,a former captain of a pirate ship was appointed Governor of the newly created private bank called the Bank of England.Instead of being a pirate of the high seas he thought it safer to be a pirate of the high land – less chance of getting hung.

    He thought it a great joke when he remarked that the Bank has benefit of interest on money which it creates out of nothing. He was right,we sheeple continue to blind fools. We could shake off parasitical leeches if we cared to inform ourselves. Money should be issued as a credit,there is no need for it to be issued as an interest bearing debt.

    00

  • #

    incoherent rambler at 186:

    We are witnessing the killing of science

    I agree, the majority of the scientists still do good science, but the few that tweak results, “hide the decline” by withholding results that doesn’t support the scientific “consensus” (a contradiction in terms), gives a bad view of all science…

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Kevin @ #198

    The Bank of England and the creation of the “City of London” by William of Orange comes to mind.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 187:

    Isotope ratios studies can be useful BUT only in the hands of a skilled engineer

    I have a B.Sc. in chemical engineering (earned some very long time ago) and was process engineer (synthetic resins for paint) for halve my working life, the other halve shifting my interests and job to process automation of a huge chlorine/VCM/PVC factory. Now retired. I think I may say that I know where I am talking about on the subject of isotope ratios…

    I do, however, respect your right to follow any religious ideology that you choose

    My opinion is based on observeable facts. Which all support the theory that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 160 years or so is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Any alternative explanation is contradicted by one or more observations. But that doesn’t say anything about the effect of such an increase, so I do largely agree with your points 1 to 5.

    I only wonder if you don’t accept that humans are responsible for the increase, only because you don’t like to support one of the pillars of AGW: if humans are not responsible for the increase, then any effect of that increase is not caused by humans…

    00

  • #

    Louis Hissink @ 200

    To quote from a source that should know – “What also indeed is, in substance a loan,especially a foreign loan? A loan is – an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital.If the loan bears a charge of 5%,then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed,in forty years it is paying a double sum,in sixty – treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.

    From this calculation it is obvious that with any form of taxation per head the State is bailing out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting those coppers for its own needs without the additional interest.

    So long as loans were internal the [.....} only shuffled their money from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich, but when we bought up the necessary person in order to transfer loans into the external sphere all the wealth of States flowed into our cash-boxes and all the [.....] began to pay us the tribute of subjects.

    Re the City of London and Oliver Cromwell – you’re on the right track

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand @197

    You comment “the variability of the sink rate was about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend, mainly caused by temperature variations”

    The above comment is preposterous because if you knew any chemistry you would know that the capacity of the sinks will grow (soil based organisms, ocean life and visible vegetation) under pressure from the extra CO2. Basic chemistry.

    Only the AGW proponents could estimate sink capacity to the accuracy you quote.

    We need real science here.

    00

  • #

    To get a picture of the U.S. debt crisis:-

    US Debt Clock.org

    http://usdebtclock.org/#

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand @ 201

    I have a B.Sc. in Metallurgical engineering (earned some very long time ago and also a more recent BSc with Neuroscience, Psychology, Psychobiology majors and Stats.

    The difference in our University experiences is probably the I did Geology as a compulsory.

    Geology puts perspective on our Planets Mass, Heat and Momentum Transfer functions.

    The stats is important in allowing perspective on correlation claims.

    As to saving the human race I feel insulted by your inference that I don’t care. I love the bush, I love trees and abhor politician who preside over rampant chemical pollution of our world.

    That said, CO2 is not a pollutant, does no real harm and cannot lead us to annihilation.

    Maybe you could look at some more ideas on the real science of MM AGW. There are lots of good books, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter to start with.

    .

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    ferdinand you had an earlier comment

    “In this case, MattB is right: humans emit 8 GtC (about 4 ppmv) per year as CO2. We measure only an increase of 2 ppmv in the atmosphere. That means that 2 ppmv is absorbed somewhere (no CO2 escapes to space, or we shouldn’t have an atmosphere left). Thus nature as a whole is a net absorber of CO2, not a source. It is that simple.”

    If you read it over again what you see is reasoning by LOGIC. That is interesting for philosophers but not useful for science.

    On a personal note I have been looking at the AGW thing now for many years.

    The confusion I faced at the start was in no small part due to the above type of logical reasoning,

    I was sucked in but my early training has now returned and discrimination between “warmer University” material and Real Science is now much easier.

    Don’t be misled by “authority”.

    00

  • #

    Ferdinand @ 197

    This may help you answer the problem -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUuzxjwXVXE

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    the theory that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 160 years or so is caused by humans burning fossil fuels

    Well as an ex chemist. I think there a few questions about the statement.
    (This is all from memory, dig out your own references).
    The records show that chemists have been chemically measuring the amount of CO2 in the air rather accurately at various spots around the globe since 1812. This is not a proxy measurement (e.g. ice cores), this is chemical measurement. I recall that 1812 thru about 1840 it was at about the same levels as now. Yep, we have added some Co2. Have we made a significant change to the atmosphere since 1812? Maybe, but probably not.

    Ref: check out Ernst-Georg Beck (Energy and Environment 2007) “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods”

    The indicator that nature has the CO2 thing under control is that levels drop as you move away from industrial sources.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi “incoherent rambler: ”

    As you say “wet analysis” data shows that there has been little real change in CO2 levels eg readings in the 350 ppm range being not uncommon in the mid 1800s.

    Any increase in the partial pressure of CO2 will result in more efficent plant grwoth and return to stasis determined by temperature.

    The main variable is not CO2.

    The main variable is the Solar output and changes in galactic radn.

    Geological perspective shows that Earths temperature increase and ocean level increase began about 15,000 years ago and have just about stopped.

    watch out for the switch in the next few thousand years – it will get cold.

    00

  • #

    Louis Hissink at 192:

    if there is an increase in C12 in the atmosphere, that is not necessarily due to a biogenic source but could just as easily have come from entirely natural, non biogenic, origins. It’s just that the C12/C13 ratio cannot uniquely discriminate biogenic carbon from other sources.

    I have looked at many sources of CO2. In general, abiogenic sources are around zero per mil VPDB, while biogenic sources are much lower in 13C/12C ratio. The near-zero d13C level is the case for ocean’s CO2, near all volcanic eruptions and volcanic vents, near all carbonate deposits (subject to rock weathering), etc… Indeed there may be abiogenic fractionation, but the bulk of what is going around via the atmosphere is either abiogenic and near zero per mil or biogenic and has a distinct lower (or higher) per mil profile. If the current biosphere as a whole is a source or sink for CO2 can be deduced from the oxygen use: there is a small deficiency in oxygen use by fossil fuel burning, that means that currently the biosphere is a net source of O2, thus a net sink for CO2 and preferably of 12CO2, increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. Thus the biosphere is not the cause of the decrease of the 13C/12C ratio.

    But let is assume that the current decrease in 13C/12C ratio has some abiogenic origin. That kind of source should have a remarkable linear emission ratio to the human emissions, as can be seen in the past 160 years or so. There was little influence of temperature on the 13C/12C ratio over the ice ages in the past near million years, even less during the Holocene (as seen in ice cores and wood carbon) and in the pre-industrial past 600 years, as seen in coralline sponges, which grow in surface waters (down to 200 m deep). See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

    I don’t know of any natural source which would (or can) follow human emissions in quantity and in 13C/12C ratio in such an exact ratio. The facts point to human emissions and nothing else…

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 204:

    The above comment is preposterous because if you knew any chemistry you would know that the capacity of the sinks will grow (soil based organisms, ocean life and visible vegetation) under pressure from the extra CO2. Basic chemistry.

    Please, read more carefully what I did write: I said that the variability of the sink capacity around the trend is temperature dependent. The trend itself is completely defined as % of the human emissions:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
    Thus some 53% of the emissions (as mass) remain in the atmosphere, the difference is what is absorbed by nature (mainly oceans and vegetation). This percentage of airborne fraction of the emissions is remarkably stable over the past 110 years. Thus with increasing emissions, the CO2 level of the atmosphere increases and so does the average absorption rate.

    But the year by year variability around the trend is mainly a result of temperature variations: warmer means less absorption by the oceans (but more by vegetation) and vv. In general, the oceans are dominant in that part of the processes.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 206:

    As to saving the human race I feel insulted by your inference that I don’t care

    I never said or implied such things, and never will. I am only interested if some arguments, from any side in this debate are right or wrong…

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand

    I followed your reference to fig 4 in 211 above.

    It mixes Jamaican isotopic records with deep freeze Antarctic CO2 proxies.

    As mentioned above there are better values for pCO available in the literature which should have been more relevant.

    As an example there are wet analysis values of 350 in the mid 1800s that translate to 0.00286 on you RH axis.

    You are getting tied up in detail and I am now getting the real motivation behind this following your reference to your work on fig 4.

    I should now go and give myself a foot up the rear for being so gullible.

    Good luck with your “science”.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    It’s OK Ferdinand; I understand now.

    “The trend itself is completely defined as % of the human emissions:”

    This is not about discovery it is about hitting the AGW target.

    You seem to be overlooking a few factors here and there in the Planets CO2 flux.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 207

    If you read it over again what you see is reasoning by LOGIC. That is interesting for philosophers but not useful for science.

    Wow, I always thought that logic was at the base of all science? But let us see what simple math shows:

    dCO2(atm) = CO2(emissions) + CO2(natural sources) – CO2(natural sinks)
    where
    CO2 from natural sources and sinks are largely unknown but
    dCO2(atm) = 4 GtC/year nowadays
    and
    CO2(emissions) = 8 GtC/year nowadays

    Substituting the above:
    4 GtC = 8 GtC + CO2(natural sources) – CO2(natural sinks)
    or
    CO2(natural sources) – CO2(natural sinks) = -4 GtC/year

    Thus even by this simple math, one can see that the natural sinks are 4 GtC (2 ppmv) larger than the natural sources. Thus nature was a net sink and didn’t contribute one ton, gram or molecule to the total mass of CO2 over the past (at least) 50 years…

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Just amazing science: are you sure you have a Degree in Chem Eng?

    “Thus even by this simple math, one can see that the natural sinks are 4 GtC (2 ppmv) larger than the natural sources. Thus nature was a net sink and didn’t contribute one ton, gram or molecule to the total mass of CO2 over the past (at least) 50 years…

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Ferdinand Englebeen @ various

    Okay, so how come it’s getting colder?

    00

  • #

    incoherent rambler at 209:

    The records show that chemists have been chemically measuring the amount of CO2 in the air rather accurately at various spots around the globe since 1812. This is not a proxy measurement (e.g. ice cores), this is chemical measurement. I recall that 1812 thru about 1840 it was at about the same levels as now. Yep, we have added some Co2. Have we made a significant change to the atmosphere since 1812? Maybe, but probably not.

    I had many discussions with the late Ernst Beck over the years about his work. While I admire the tremendous amount of work he has done, I completely disagree with his conclusions. What he has done is simply averaging all available data, without any check of what is measured is even plausible. While many of the historical measurments were reasonably accurate (+/- 10 ppmv), the places where was measured in many cases were completely inappropriate for comparison with CO2 in the bulk of the atmosphere: over land, near huge sources and sinks.

    I haven’t looked at the 1812-1840 period in detail, but have looked at the 1942 +80 ppmv “peak”, based on all the historical measurements on his website + a few more I did find on the web. That “peak” is mainly caused by two long series of measurements: Giessen (Germany) and Poona (India). The latter should have been rejected from the start (except for a few days of measurements), because most measurements were above and below leaves of growing plants (soy, rice). That is interesting for the influence of CO2 on growth (or reverse), but completely worthless for global CO2 estimates.

    Giessen was more interesting, as they did take 3 samples a day at different heights. But even there, nearby sources (small town, soil respiration) and sinks (vegetation) give a huge variability over a day (especially at the historical morning and evening sampling time). Here a comparison of modern measurements at Giessen (1/2 hour samples), compared to the raw data (hourly averages of 10-second samples) from Barrow, Mauna Loa and the South Pole:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
    The variability of the historical measurements at Giessen was 66 ppmv (1 sigma), average 462 ppmv, measurements between 250-680 ppmv.
    In the same period, measurements at the other side of the Atlantic (again over land) shows levels of 250 ppmv.

    More interesting are the CO2 levels measured over the oceans or coastal with wind from the seaside: these show levels around the ice core measurements over the same periods. Unfortunately there are no such measurements in the wide period around 1942.

    Last but not least, it is physically possible (but highly unlikely) to have a sudden increase of CO2 with 80 ppmv (160 GtC) in seven years from volcanoes or deep oceans, but is physically and chemically impossible to remove that again in only 7 years. The current sink rate with 100+ ppmv is only 2 ppmv/year…

    See further my comment on the late Beck’s data:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 214

    It mixes Jamaican isotopic records with deep freeze Antarctic CO2 proxies.
    As mentioned above there are better values for pCO available in the literature which should have been more relevant.
    As an example there are wet analysis values of 350 in the mid 1800s that translate to 0.00286 on you RH axis.

    In 95% of the atmosphere, that is everywhere over the oceans and over 500-1000 meter over land, you will find the same CO2 levels +/- 3 ppmv if averaged over a year (to remove the seasonal variation). Over land, one can measure any value, with changes of hunderds of ppmv within an hour. Thus any (historical or current) measurement over land has little value for what happens/happened in the bulk of the atmosphere. Only at high wind speed, CO2 levels are rapidly mixed over land and are nearing the levels in the bulk of the atmosphere.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “If you read it over again what you see is reasoning by LOGIC.”

    Well I took it as a compliment!

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 215:

    This is not about discovery it is about hitting the AGW target.
    You seem to be overlooking a few factors here and there in the Planets CO2 flux.

    Whatever the planetary CO2 flux or its variability, the plot is what the increase in the atmosphere does against increasing emissions. Which is remarkably linear. That is observation compared to observation. Nothing to do with AGW. Or don’t you like observations, if these support some part of the AGW theory (which doesn’t say anything about the other parts)?

    Or do you think that other (natural) sources are defining the increase in the atmosphere better? See the influence of temperature on the CO2 increase:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 217:

    Just amazing science: are you sure you have a Degree in Chem Eng?

    Please show me some science which proves that nature is a net source of CO2 in the atmosphere, while the measured increase is less than what humans emit…

    00

  • #

    memoryvault at 218:

    Okay, so how come it’s getting colder?

    That is because other influences (solar, clouds,…) have more effect on temperature than increased CO2 levels…

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’ve tried telling them that Ferdinand. I know big picture you think I’m wrong, and to be honest big picture I accept that I could be, but there are certain basics I feel are worth defending.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    OT. Reports of the UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, supporting Juliar’s Carbon Tax , show just how desperate has the state of public representation in the countries of the EUSSR, become.

    The public really have little choice among the mainstream political parties, who offer just different shades of the same Common Purpose, Global Governance agenda.

    Don’t expect any leadership from the UK in waking up to the Carbon Con, except from it’s freelancers such as Lord Monckton, who the Establishment are going to such inordinate lengths to silence & distance itself from. That alone should be telling you something.

    As long as there is still a Free World for him to address, Christopher Monckton will be addressing it, but of the only two remaining countries that still offer any real hope, Australia already has a Govt. Dept. for Climate Change, so you really are living on the edge. Don’t let the Zombie Govts. of the EUSSR. Talk you into going over it.

    00

  • #

    It seems very ODD to me that while this nation is in great danger with the enemy obtaining a victory unless we all rally to the cause – that all some on this site can argue about is the weather.

    00

  • #
    Papaya

    That is because other influences (solar, clouds,…) have more effect on temperature than increased CO2 levels…

    Thank you, and good night.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand Engelbeen: at various.

    This is Australia.

    You are from the EEU.

    The EEU is stuffed because of Alternate Energy MM AGW logic and religion.

    We are going to take back our country.

    Australians have rejected Malcolm Turnbull twice because they felt manipulated. We are not ALL drunks here – that is also a political manipulation of our vulnerable youth by the alcohol industry.

    We can see through Man Made Global Warming.

    Good night and good luck. — We see you — IF you have a degree – then you need a lot of REVISION before you will start to make sense.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Papaya @228

    Exactly.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Papya, did you see this above?

    “”Please show me some science”"

    No degree, a Graduate of Warmer University posing as a real scientist.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    When I said “If you read it over again what you see is reasoning by LOGIC” you both missed the insult.

    Logic is OK , it is impartial.

    Reasoning, as currently seen by the latest science is not OK.

    The current view on “Reasoning” is that it implies the winning of an argument and beating an opponent by any and all means possible REGARDLESS of truth or scientifc validity.

    ie. Reasoning IS Manipulation of Logic outside of science.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    From 219 above “”The current sink rate with 100+ ppmv is only 2 ppmv/year…”"

    The method apparently applied to get this seems FAULTY or Deceptive depending on how you want to interpret it.

    Good night.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 229:

    My wife and I have been in Australia in 2002 (Cairns to Adelaide, including the eclipse in the outback), my impression was very positive about nature and people there. Hope to be there again next year (Perth to Darwin)…

    I am a member of the few, but growing, number of sceptics here in Belgium and The Netherlands. And we react here against a lot of disinformation by the AGW industry, including the real price of the “green” alternatives for energy (in Belgium we still are lucky to have some 50% of our electricity from nuclear power).

    But that doesn’t mean that sceptics should use arguments which are very easily rejected on good grounds by their opponents. That undermines your position where it is far more important: the (lack of) effect of the increased CO2…

    Nevertheless, good luck with the rally and I hope this will be THE turn in the fight against the catastrophists…

    My turn to get some sleep (must get early up)…

    (BTW, you haven’t answered on #223…)

    00

  • #

    YouTube – Matt Taibbi on How Goldman Sachs Has Been Robbing Us Blind

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DA6EY-iPjM

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Ferdinand,

    C13/C12 ratios cannot be used to discriminate abiogenic and biogenic carbon. An archaean aged diamond with a Pee Dee value of -35% implies a biogenic source but this is contradicted by it’s non biogenic origin.

    Non biogenic methane when passing through a column of rock is depleted in C13, causing preferential enrichment of C12 making it biogenic when it wasn’t from the start.

    These facts suggest that C isotope ratios are not capable of discriminating carbon sources.

    So we need to find another discriminant to identify human emitted Carbon from natural.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand

    You said

    “Please show me some science which proves that nature is a net source of CO2 in the atmosphere, while the measured increase is less than what humans emit…” and then “(BTW, you haven’t answered on #223…)”

    Answer
    By Logic

    Human emission = x

    Nature emission = y

    Total emission = x + y

    Assume 75% turnover / sequestration of CO2 by nature to leave 25% of annual input from both sources.

    Therefore nett change = (x + y) – 3(x + y)/4 = x/4 + y/4

    Ferdinand I am not by any means a genius, but even I can see that you cannot expect nature to selectively sequester only CO2 molecules from natural sources. Human CO2 is dealt with in exactly the same proportions.

    Natural CO2 emissions, which you seem to be aware of, are enormous compared with human CO2 emissions and it is misleading to show graphs with only human CO2 component when you have failed to quantify the natural component.

    In any case we are disputing over trifles : CO2 has pretty much NO CHANCE of inducing runaway global warming, so whether it is man made or natural the total CO2 content is basically irrelevant.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mary, rather than guess at 75% lets use what is actually thought to be happening:

    “Ferdinand I am not by any means a genius, but even I can see that you cannot expect nature to selectively sequester only CO2 molecules from natural sources. Human CO2 is dealt with in exactly the same proportions.”

    That would be consistent with my and Ferdinand’s opinion. No one is suggesting selective CO2 treatment based on source.

    But if you look at the diagram the natural processes are:
    FROM ATMOSPHERE 213.8 GT/a

    TO ATMOSPHERE 211.6 GT/a (“natural”) + 5.5GT/a (“from fossil fuels”)

    So that means that other than human emissions the “natural cycle” at the moment has more CO2 leaving than entering the atmosphere, and it is human emissions that reverses that.

    Of course only ((5.5/217.1) * 100) % of the annual increase in the atmosphere is man made… but if it were not for the man made there would be no increase…

    00

  • #
    MattB

    A key, Mary, is when you say:

    “Assume 75% turnover / sequestration of CO2 by nature to leave 25% of annual input from both sources.”

    The reality is

    “Assume ((213.8/217.1)*100)% turnover (so 98.5%) to leave 1.5% of annual input from both sources”

    so BY LOGIC…. when annual input from man made sources (2.5%) is greater than the TOTAL input from all sources (1.5%) then the net increase is wholly due to man made sources… if they were not there the atmosphere would be 1% in defecit.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    about 240
    “so BY LOGIC…. when annual input from man made sources (2.5%) is greater than the TOTAL input from all sources (1.5%) then the net increase is wholly due to man made sources… if they were not there the atmosphere would be 1% in defecit.”

    Are you and Ferdinand Brothers?

    That at least is a start. You now understand that both lots of CO2 diminish in the same ratio.

    What you and Ferdinand CANT tell me or anyone else is the essential ingredient which you both assume is a constant.

    ie How much Natural CO2 is produced;;; you don’t know. So you also dont know total CO2.

    Normally warmers ignore this factor because it’s too hard. You both tried to hide it.

    That’s why I now am certain you are both from Warmer U.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    @ 238

    Faulty science.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mary – I became aware of Ferdinand’s existence on this blog a few days ago. We have no other connection and we don’t even agree about climate change – me being a warmist and Ferdinand a skeptic from what I can gather.

    “You now understand that both lots of CO2 diminish in the same ratio.”
    What do you mean… are you implying that is something I learned from you in this discussion… ego much?

    “What you and Ferdinand CANT tell me or anyone else is the essential ingredient which you both assume is a constant. ie How much Natural CO2 is produced;;; you don’t know. So you also dont know total CO2.”

    Look Mary I’m not a skeptical specialist so I can’t vouch for this line of atack. Personally it is the 1st I’ve heard of it, but could any of the regulars here – Bulldust, COhenite, Brian G V, Richard, Bob C… anyone, vouch for Mary’s assertion that our basic understanding of the carbon cycle is so flawed that we have no idea of the various carbon fluxes?

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    OK MattB

    Nobody know for sure how much CO2 is emitted by sub surface volcanoes; all that is known is that it is Very Large.

    What this means is that If a large rent occurs in the ocean floor there will be large amounts of CO2 entering the ocean which may take a very long time to surface. Ask Louis about the lapse rate.
    It could be that the CO2 being purged from warmed ocean layers results from an even that took place 50 years ago.

    What I am saying is that the idea that Nature pumps out even, predictable and unchanging volumes of CO2 is a faulty, baseless assumption. Nature is violent.

    I have looked at Ferdinands web site and he seems to be a genuine skeptic, personally I don’t like the term but hey. All I am doing is holding Ferdinand to the rigid scrutiny he holds others to and which is the basis of science.

    His main and ongoing theme is that Natural CO2 emission is constant and predictable; he implies this quite clearly in his calculations and web site.

    Natural output varies, that’s a fact, and If you don’t factor that in you have bad science.

    00

  • #

    Jo,
    I am a retired senior lawyer. Before concentrating on the Climate Change Bill 2011, a few preliminary thoughts.
    The new legislation is based on the Garnaut Review 2011 recommendations.The Climate Change Authority is closely modelled on the UK Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Commitee(CCC).Garnaut’s central concept is of course an ETS in 2015 with a floating price preceded by a fixed price, the carbon tax from 2012.

    Garnaut has assumed the “market mechanism” of the ETS is the best approach, and normally this is correct.He has almost no discussion of the EU ETS in his Review.The ETS is,as you and others have noted, an artificial construct invented by bureaucrats for the benefit of merchant bankers.

    Some late breaking news.The CCC in the UK last month announced a new enquiry into the EU ETS.Go to the website http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees. The announcement of 4 July says,”The scheme was intended to form the core of a global carbon market, but is looking increasungly isolated after the failure to achieve binding emissions reduction commitments under the UNFCC for the period after 2012, when the first commitment period of the KYOTO PROTOCOL comes to an end.

    Submissions are sought by 12 August on-
    Does the EU ETS remain a viable instrument for climate change mitigation in the EU?
    Can the EU ETS operate effectively in a world without legally binding emissions reduction commitments and other cap and trade schemes?
    What reduction in emissions will the EU ETS deliver in Phase III, within the EU and abroad?
    How serious an impact have the recent cases of fraud had on confidence in the EU ETS? etc.

    These are the very questions that Garnaut avoids in his Review.

    Bear in mind that up to 50% of our carbon offsets will be sourced from overseas, principally I expect, the EU.Garnaut at p.75 suggests it is “a remote circumstance” we could be left with insufficient overseas trade.If that occurred he notes “the independent body should examine the case for continuing the fixed price arrangements,”i.e a fixed carbon tax.

    We look to have a lot riding on the future of the EU ETS.Our targets are largely tied to its success or failure. Are the brains trust at the Department of Climate Change putting in a submission to the UK CCC?

    00

  • #

    The Great American Bubble Machine by Matt Taibbi

    Bubble No. 6, Global Warming:

    “…..The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that [persons can hold no more than 5% above their cap] this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time.

    The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparisons sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S.total $320 billion.

    Goldman Sachs own a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange where the carbon credits will be traded….?

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

    00

  • #
    will gray

    I read Ferdinand’s post till my eyes blead, on defending the Global Co2 data with the contention that its crap because data is obtained near an active volcano. (just Google/bing and WUWT)
    I think you did too MattB.
    So was there a discussion on Co2,s ‘violent flux’?
    Have you all seen the timelapse clip looking upon earth showing the global Co2 flux? Looks rather ‘violent’.
    Some say that the Co2 cycle is amplifying naturally and that humans have contributed 1/5. From Co2science.org
    How do we know that isotope Co2-(13)from soil’s rocks etc doesn’t emit more than burning ‘fossil fuels’? We don’t as research is hijacked by agenda driven survival. SUcks.
    I’m am a troll briefly-
    as usual of a troll.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 237-243

    Mary, I never said or implied that the natural emissions are constant or even that they are known with sufficient accuracy. The amounts emitted and sequestered are only roughly known. But what is quite accurately known is the difference between what is emitted (human + natural) and what is sequestered (natural), including its variability. And only that is what matters. Not how much is going back and forth over the seasons, that is completely unimportant.

    Take a fountain where water from the bassin below is pumped around with different speeds: 100 or 1000 or 10000 l/h. Besides some evaporation, that doesn’t change the level in the bassin. Take a hose and add 1 l/h to the fountain and one can be sure that the bassin will have an overflow some time later, no matter if the additional flow is only 1 or 0.1 or 0.01% of the main flow. How much is circulating by the main flow doesn’t matter, only what is added (or lost) is important.

    Back to your calculation:

    Human emission = x
    Nature emission = y
    Total emission = x + y
    But it doesn’t end there, we also have sinks:
    Total sinks = z

    x is known, as calculated from fossil fuel use. y and z are unknown, but we have the measured increase (i) in the atmosphere, which is the difference between all emissions and all sinks:
    i = x + y – z = 4 GtC/year (about 2 ppmv). The natural variability of the increase over the years was about +/- 2 GtC (1 ppmv) around the trend.
    thus
    8 + y – z = 4
    y – z = -4

    Thus whatever the real height of y and z, the natural sinks are about 4 GtC larger than the natural emissions and there is no contribution from nature to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. No matter if y = 100 or 1000 or 10000 GtC, as in these different cases z = 104 or 1004 or 10004 GtC.

    Even if one volcanic eruption should suddenly emit 10 times the amount which humans emit per year: that will show up in the amounts measured in the atmosphere as a sudden increase. Or not, if it is compensated by something else. In the case of the Pinatubo e.g., the largest eruption of the past decades, there was a lot of extra CO2 injected, but the temperature drop caused by the volcanic dust blocking sunlight increased the CO2 uptake by the oceans more than what was emitted…

    Further:
    Assume 75% turnover / sequestration of CO2 by nature to leave 25% of annual input from both sources.

    Sorry, but that is impossible: if human emissions are only a small percentage of the total flow, then the net result of 25% of all inputs would give an increase far beyond what is emitted by humans:
    25% from (8 GtC human + 220 GtC natural) is an increase of about 57 GtC (each year!), but the real increase is only 4 GtC/year. The turnover indeed is about 98.5%, as MattB calculated. And without the human contribution, you would have a net loss of CO2…

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    I’ll top that..NO GHGs exist period.

    00

  • #

    Mary and Ferdinand,it seems that your arguement is endless and has nothing much to do with the carbon tax legislation. This clip may help you in coming to a conclusion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUuzxjwXVXE

    00

  • #

    Will Gray at 246

    Will, before saying such things, please look a bit further in the literature. CO2 is measured at 10 “baseline” stations, from near the North Pole to the South Pole, the latter even started before Mauna Loa, but has a gap of a few years. Besides that, some 70 stations measure CO2 in “background” atmosphere, while some 400 others measure CO2 fluxes over land in forests, industrial areas, etc. Further, we have mobile measurements via airplanes and seaships… See for some of them:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

    Nowadays we have satellites, which show the mixing of CO2 in the mid-troposphere, but please, have a look at the scale! The satellites show a (seasonal) variability of +/-4 ppmv, unimportant for any effect on temperature (as far as there is an effect), as what count is the averages and trends over many years, which are quite identical, with a small lag between the NH and the SH:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

    And we know for sure that nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source…

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Ferdinand,

    There are two statements made in your posts and 247

    1. “I never said or implied that the natural emissions are constant or even that they are known with sufficient accuracy”

    2. “But what is quite accurately known is the difference between what is emitted (human + natural) and what is sequestered (natural), including its variability.”

    The problem is,and it is a real sticking point, that the statements contradict each other.

    Then you use 4 or 8 GtC/year in various parts of your presentation.

    By your own statements you acknowledge that 4 is actually “about” 4 because there is uncertainty.
    In your previous presentation you have subtracted these very “approximate” quantities and made some calculations with the difference.

    It’s all a bit too circular for me when we all know that the magnitude of the “error” in the natural emissions can be about the same size as the entire man made emission.

    I fail to see the point in this sort of exercise Unless you can specify the quantities more accurately.

    I remain deeply troubled by this “science”.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi incoherent rambler:

    Thank you for some great science at 209.

    00

  • #

    Mary – I think you can conclude that nature is self regulatory. If a tax regulation can alter nature then we are all doomed.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    we all know that the magnitude of the “error” in the natural emissions can be about the same size as the entire man made emission

    Same goes for the temperature record. The error margin appears to be of the same size as the variation of the last 200 years.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 251:

    By your own statements you acknowledge that 4 is actually “about” 4 because there is uncertainty.
    In your previous presentation you have subtracted these very “approximate” quantities and made some calculations with the difference.

    Have a look at the calculated emissions and what is measured as increase in the atmosphere over the past 50 years (need some update for the last years, but emission inventories are always a few years later):
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg

    The emissions increased from about 1.3 ppmv (2.6 GtC) to near 4 ppmv (8 GtC) nowadays, steady increasing with little variability (maybe somewhat less in the last years due to the economical crisis).
    The increase in the atmosphere in average follows the emissions at a ratio of about 50-55%, but with a larger variability of +/- 1 ppmv (+/- 2 GtC).
    The difference between the emissions and what is seen as increase in the atmosphere, is what is absorbed by oceans and vegetation. That shows the same variability as the increase in the atmosphere. The main cause of the variability is a combination of temperature and precipitation (which explains 66% of the variability), where temperature variations act in opposite ways on CO2 sequestering by oceans and vegetation and precipitation enhances the uptake by vegetation.

    Over this rather short period, it seems that the natural variability doesn’t increase or decrease over time, with low increase (high uptake) at lower temperatures (1992 Pinatubo eruption) and high increase (low uptake) at high temperature (1998 El Niño). The variability was relative large when emissions were low, but less and less important with increasing emissions. At the current emission rate, the variability in sink rate is not more than 25% of the emissions. More important is that in the past 50 years, there was always more natural sink than source, even including the error rate of the emissions and CO2 measurements. Only 1973 was borderline within the error margins, thus may have had a tiny contribution by natural emissions.

    Conclusion: even including the error margins of emission calculations and CO2 measurements and including natural variability, near all increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 50 years was from human emissions.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Ferdinand, you are wasting a lot of “ink”.

    It ain’t warming!

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

    00

  • #

    Mark D. at 256:

    I am a fan of Roy Spencer, who is very good in analyses of satellite data. In this case he has shown that increased radiation to space precedes temperature changes, while all climate models have it reverse, which means that gain in temperature included in the models is too high and thus the warming by increased CO2 levels is less than modeled.

    But nevertheless, what we sceptics tell to convince others (most of the people who aren’t convinced either side) should be sound science, or we are making the same errors as at the other side of the fence…

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Re 255

    Your emissions are RUBBISH

    Go Away

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston

    The traits of a psycopath are:

    Assessment – manipulation – abandonment

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Kevin @ 253. “I think you can conclude that nature is self regulatory”

    An excellent summary.

    My posts with Ferdinand may seem a little over the top but I wanted to see what he was up to.

    His main purpose is to isolate Man Made CO2 from all other factors, compared it with the UHI affected temperature records of the last 150 years and then say: CO2 did it, we are Guilty.

    When cornered, like MattB, he descends into ever more complex and deceptive calculations on irrelevance.

    I’m finished.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Kevin @ various.

    I can imagine you straddling a fence.

    Isn’t it uncomfortable.

    If you have neither questions nor answers maybe you need to reconsider making comments that don’t contribute to the science.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 260

    Mary, I am not interested in word games and appeal to motivation as you do. I am only interested in science, whatever the result may be, even if that is against my own opinion. If the evidence is against my opinion, I change my opinion.

    Again:
    - the increase of CO2 in the past 160 years is near completely caused by human emissions. All evidence points into the same direction. Not at least the mass balance, which shows that nature was a net sink for CO2 over the past 50 years. That is based on one of the fundamental laws of nature: the Law of non-destructability of mass (except for nuclear processes). That is rock solid science.
    - the effect of such an increase is highly debatable. The expected huge influence is only implemented in climate models, which are proven wrong, as the temperature increase over the past decade is less than predicted and recently proven by Dr. Roy Spencer e.a., based on evidence from satellite observations of the radiation balance. Thus in my opinion, the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is not zero, but small, much smaller than the 1.5-4.5°C range of the current climate models. And largely beneficial (especially in my cool and wet country…).

    On a personal note: I have had far worse discussions than this one with Greenpeace (even a lawsuit by them in Germany) and others (I was a murderer, killing children by defending the use of chlorine/PVC), so I am not that fast offended. But please keep in mind that you don’t convince others by insulting them about motivation, you only convince them (or at least the silent readers) with good arguments…

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand

    The only aspect of your posts that I find Unscientific is the method used to arrive at the mass balance of man made CO2. Maybe it’s the language barrier, If I could speak French as well as you write Engl I would be very happy.

    Unfortunately I feel it is more likely that science has conquered the language barrier and we have a difference of opinion.

    What you do not seem prepared to acknowledge is the disparity in magnitude between Natural and Man Made CO2 outputs.

    There is also resistance to acknowledging the great variability of natural sinks and sources.

    Putting all this together I find your conclusions lacking in rigor.

    You refer to Becks CO2 wet analyses and decide to discard some if them because they are skewed by being taken too close to active vegetation. I didn’t follow this up but assume you have compared like with like in terms of reading sites?

    This is the equivalent of the CO2 Urban Heat Island Effect.

    What else can I say?

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Herbert at 244. Yes, the Green Energy Bill has been suspended in UK. Because the European Parliament didn’t vote to increase carbon emissions because their carbon schemes are almost valueless and they know it has not been instrumental in cutting emissions. This was led by Poland
    and also the British Tory MEP’s whom Chris Hulne (under CPS
    at present) for fudging his speeding ticket and said his wife was driving, wants investigated.

    UK just sold 8% of their carbon trading permits. But the EU wants Australia to bale them out. Even the world bank got onto it on 1.6.11 by announcing carbon trading was failing and if people didn’t invest the planet would be engulfed with 3-4 C increases. Makes me feel the truth and bottom line is the banks and investors are hurting.
    The Scheme has crashed 4 times since implemented. Billions are invested in it and the same with clean energy etc.

    Shame Tony Windsor didn’t get this info from the horse’s mouth without spending tax payers money on a European fact finding mission. It disgusts me how he has ignored electers warnings about the incorrect science and he has been warned sent material since before 2007 when the ETS
    was mentioned. I wonder what he has to say when he returns.

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Just received from WUWT posted 24th July by Reuters.

    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E7IMIAM20110724?sp=true

    I read before the last General Election in UK, in the International Express under Environment that the then New Labor Government had decided that they would not be going ahead with a Green Bank as it would cost too much money that would harm the British Economy.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 263:

    Unfortunately I feel it is more likely that science has conquered the language barrier and we have a difference of opinion.
    What you do not seem prepared to acknowledge is the disparity in magnitude between Natural and Man Made CO2 outputs.

    Besides a few words like the difference between reasoning and logic (which have the same meaning in Dutch), I don’t think the language barrier is the problem.
    But indeed, we have a difference in opinion: you don’t look at the other side of the mass balance. Besides the natural emissions, you have natural sinks, which are completely ignored in your opinion. But in reality, all natural emissions (as mass) are completely absorbed by natural sinks, as the balance at the end of the year shows (more natural sinks than natural sources). Thus natural outputs are only a part of the turnover, not of the increase in CO2 mass of the atmosphere, because the natural sinks are larger than the natural sources… It doesn’t matter what the difference in magnitude is between natural and man-made CO2, because the amount absorbed in the natural sinks is the sum of the total natural CO2 emissions and halve the human made CO2 (again in mass, not in origin).

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Ferdinand;

    I apologise for any previous harsh posts but the matter has always been about the science, nothing personal.

    My concern has always been about the assumptions used in the mass balance of CO2 which seemed to be done to get a preconceived result ie rising CO2 levels because of human fossil fuel use only.

    Here is the crux of the matter when you state: “all natural emissions (as mass) are completely absorbed by natural sinks”.

    I am glad you have finally come out and said this because it has been implied in all of your work.

    The only possible way that the above statement can be true is with a qualification.

    It would need to be qualified with the phrase: “over time”.

    Obviously the system would come to equilibrium but would it need a month, a year or a hundred years, nobody can be absolutely certain.

    From my understanding, the sinks can never instantly adjust to the task of absorbing the additional natural CO2 (or in some cases reduced CO2 output per year). This tends to make day to day or year to year CO2 mass balance very uncertain.

    Given that for approximately every 3 units of man made CO2 produced there are about 97 units of CO2 with natural attribution, the use of the above assumption needs rethinking.

    It puts any final mass balance of human linked CO2 on shaky grounds.

    Since neither of us believe that the additional CO2 will leave us roasting in hell, this discussion is about science for the sake of being seen to be precise in our work and not leave ourselves open to criticism from pro warmer people.

    regards

    Dan

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston at 267:

    The only possible way that the above statement can be true is with a qualification.
    It would need to be qualified with the phrase: “over time”.

    The time needed to absorb the total amount of natural CO2 emissions is only halve a year, as what is emitted (mainly by temperature changes) in one season is absorbed in the opposite season, where oceans and vegetation react in opposite ways to temperature. That gives that the real change over the seasons is rather small: about 5 ppmv globally for a 1°C change in temperature. The main changes are in the NH, where most land and vegetation is situated.

    We don’t know exactly how much the natural emissions are, neither the actual sinks, but for every year, we know the difference quantitatively: more natural sinks than natural sources. The difference between natural sinks and sources is less than what was added as extra CO2 by humans. Therefore we still see an increase of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this goes on forever (with slightly increasing human emissions), a new equilibrium may never be reached (or only after a very long time).

    What is sure in the mass balance, whatever the height of the natural emissions, is that the natural emissions have zero contribution to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. It doesn’t play any role if the human emissions are 3% or 0.3% or 0.03% of the natural emissions, as the human emissions are additional, while the natural emissions are only circulating in and out, and important, they show a deficit if compared to the natural sinks. That is the case as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions. If there were no human emissions, we should see a year by year net loss of CO2 out of the atmosphere, until we reach again the temperature dictated equilibrium.

    How long it would take to bring the carbon cycle back into equilibrium is a different (but related) question, if it was very fast, then we shouldn’t see any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from human emissions, but the hundreds of years as the IPCC says is way too long, and only important if we burn all available oil and most of all coal. But here is a good estimate (about 40 years half life time) by Peter Dietze:
    http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

    Thus indeed, it is a question of good science that we sceptics should be held to a higher account than those at the other side of the fence…

    00

  • #
    gemini4

    @ John T

    The objects …

    (i) the Climate Change Convention; and
    (ii) the Kyoto Protocol;

    are the mechanism by which $AUD are funnelled to other countries and, in particular, the bottomless-pit known as the UN.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Ferdinand

    There are two comments in your post at 268:

    1. “”The time needed to absorb the total amount of natural CO2 emissions is only halve a year, as what is emitted (mainly by temperature changes) in one season is absorbed in the opposite season,”"

    and

    2. “”How long it would take to bring the carbon cycle back into equilibrium is a different (but related) question, if it was very fast, then we shouldn’t see any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from human emissions, but the hundreds of years as the IPCC says is way too long,……… But here is a good estimate (about 40 years half life time)”"

    These two statements contradict themselves.

    1. Indicates effective natural equilibrium.

    2. Talks again about bringing the “Human CO2″ component back into equilibrium as a separate item on top of the natural outgoings and absorption.

    Natural CO2 output is 33 times that of human output.

    Human output is BA and unimportant.

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnston @ 270

    http://ipa.org.au/publications/1888/tim-flannery-climate-prophet

    “How long will it take to bring the carbon cycle back into equilibrium.”

    Tim Flannery:Prophet of Gaia – He would be the best man to ask!

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    system not working

    00

  • #
    Yoo Duck

    “Rename to “Global Warming Tax” I will……I sense disturbance in the force…..ye”.

    00