No JB, legislation passed by parliament is the law of Australia and is enforceable by the courts. Thats our westminster system of govt passed down from the brits of course. 
The legal system doesn't give two hoots about morals or sin.
Carbon Price ?
(385 posts) (28 voices)-
Jeffbloggs
MemberHuh??
You kid right?I thought the MMCC ideology was to save the planet from our self-destructive ways by enforcing directives from government, because it was the morally correct thing to do so that our children can survive?
If legislation becomes law, and the law is the basis for all man-kind's interaction, and the current form of economic fossil fuel enabled interaction (ie legislation/law) is the cause for environmental decay, and the CT proposal is meant to rectify that problem, then how is that not within the scope of a carbon price discussion??
What other reason is there to implement a CT? Or do you now believe it's unnecessary as well?
BTW just for your information wiki defines law as:
"Law[4] is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions.[5] It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people."
Sin as:
"A sin (also called peccancy) is an act that violates a known moral rule."Morality as:
"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)"I did not make the definitions. They all apply to the action of implementing a CT.
Posted Saturday 30 Jul 2011 @ 5:50:39 am from IP # -
"I thought the MMCC ideology was to save the planet from our self-destructive ways by enforcing directives from government, because it was the morally correct thing to do so that our children can survive?"
No I don't think that. I just think it makes sense not to crap in your own nest. Self preservation is what drives most humans. Science, and just normal observation, says we are destroying our environment and we need to listen to that message if we want to keep enjoying life of this planet.
I don't know if it is moral or sinful but I think it's pretty stupid to poison the water, soil and atmosphere. And each other.
Posted Saturday 30 Jul 2011 @ 6:12:44 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberRockabye how are we poisoning ourselves with carbon?
It is a carbon tax not a poison tax.The intention is to reduce the impacts of global warming.
This is not legislation against poisoning. It's solely to reduce global warming. Or are we being lied to?If "self preservation" is what drives most humans then what do we need to care about future generations for? Why care about anybody else? Surely you mean self-preservation of the species, otherwise wouldn't it void the long term argument for a CT?
As a species we need to function together.
We can NOT survive alone.
Therefore, surely it is a moral obligation, so that we can successfully function together now, and in the future.Even evolution does not require us to make the change, survival of the fittest will just mean we aren't fit enough to survive, if we do not change.
Without morals we would all die today.
Who will care about MMCC or CT then?Posted Saturday 30 Jul 2011 @ 6:29:13 am from IP # -
I didn't say carbon was a poison. Although it only takes a little carbon monoxide to kill you.
The carbon tax is to push up the price of fossil fuels, which are finite, make energy efficiency more attractive and encourage the use of renewables which will result in lower pollution of our atmosphere from all sorts of undesirable elements.
Posted Saturday 30 Jul 2011 @ 6:44:43 am from IP # -
Eco
MemberJeffbloggs said:
Even evolution does not require us to make the change, survival of the fittest will just mean we aren't fit enough to survive, if we do not change.God helps those that help themselves - and the way we as a people, as a society, help ourselves is by the enacting of laws that are of assistance to the survival of the species. Carbon tax legislation is but one of many examples of this.
Without morals we would all die today.
No we wouldn't die today - or tomorrow - if there is a systems of laws and associated penalties that make the pain of wrong action outweigh the gain to the individual of wrong action. But you are right in that if the only reason we did the right thing was from fear of retribution from an all powerful state if we broke a law we would have a very much diminished life.
Posted Saturday 30 Jul 2011 @ 7:07:15 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberRockabye said:
"I don't know if it is moral or sinful but I think it's pretty stupid to poison the water, soil and atmosphere. And each other."So what poisons are you talking about then that are included in a CT?
Rockabye also said:
"The carbon tax is to push up the price of fossil fuels, which are finite, make energy efficiency more attractive and encourage the use of renewables which will result in lower pollution of our atmosphere from all sorts of undesirable elements."Do you think global warming caused by MMCC is a real threat to our future survival?
Or are you only concerned with the emissions from fossils that "poison" us now? (whichever type they may be)Posted Saturday 30 Jul 2011 @ 7:32:38 am from IP # -
British prime minister David Cameron has praised Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon pricing plan as bold and ambitious.
In a letter obtained by Fairfax newspapers, Mr Cameron said Ms Gillard's policy "will add momentum to those, in both the developed and developing world, who are serious about dealing with this urgent threat".
The Conservative Party leader's endorsement of Australia's plan to impose a carbon tax undercuts a campaign against the scheme by fellow conservative, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-31/cameron-praises-gillard-carbon-tax/2817716
Posted Sunday 31 Jul 2011 @ 5:09:49 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberEco
On: "God helps those that help themselves". My variation would be to say that "God has given us the "tools" we require to survive, and it is up to us to use those tools in a sustainable fashion, as to continue all life on this planet".The subtle difference being that mankind has the ability to choose between good and evil, and accordingly use those tools for good or evil. (ie atomic power vs atomic weapons, corporations vs charity). Currently I see that much more evil is developing, and many "tools", be they political, social or technological etc are being used for "evil" rather than good, simply because many good people are letting it, and are doing nothing to stop it. We are not doing a good job of looking after what has been freely given to us. In fact we are using the fallacy of ownership to destroy our common wealth. This is unsustainable.
Without morals we would walk down the street and "naturally" pillage, kill, rape and plunder without remorse, instant chaos would ensue, families would function even less than they do today, and the result would be instant death of society and trade, with which mass starvation would occur. In such a "hell", if you weren't killed by your neighbor or spouse on the day, then you would starve because Woolies would no longer be open for trade! In such a place even death would seem a comfortable refuge.
Morals are the glue of society, but law is only the safety net for those FEW that fail morally and on occasion. But when whole sections of society fail, the law is utterly powerless, it cannot be enforced without further harm (see Middle East, England). It is even the same with a economic law or "incentive" CT. Morally it is, and we are, already too corrupted to do what is right. We are already beyond submission by law, in fact we have doctored law to enforce inequity.
A carbon tax, like all tax, is the forceful redistribution of a countries wealth, by government legislation, at the expense of it's natural citizens. Corporations can never be held accountable, they are designed to be body-less entities that cannot be punished. When they fail they are simply redistributed by corporate greed.
By extension governments are bodiless entities that cannot be productive in any way. Only people and their tools are productive. With "technological enslavement" Aussie mining uses very few people but big tools for 70% of GDP, China on the other hand uses "people enslavement" of many hands but few tools for producing goods out of "our" resources.
Nobody questions "why" or "how" these activities are undertaken, as long as it makes fake money for financial gain, under the premise that more money is good, regardless of the consequences (ie poverty, environment). The purpose, and the goals, are flawed and unsustainable. The fight is not against the climate, but rather it is against our unsustainable actions that diminish life on this planet. The world will only change to the better if we change first. That is OUR job.
Posted Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 @ 4:38:23 am from IP # -
JB, from reading your long contributions I get the impression that you are against a price on carbon dioxide emission (in public lingo 'carbon tax') because it does not go far enough. Am I correct?
So are you just a bit greener than The Greens (who refused the last price on carbon dioxide emission but are now supporting it)?
I agree in principle with a lot you are saying. However I cannot see that we, the people can change 'Fiat money' without a bloody revolution (without me!). But here is the chance to do something that gets us on the road of acting on climate change.Posted Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 @ 5:38:34 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberS2S
Aye aye. It doesn't go far enough at all. It doesn't even scratch the surface, thats why it cannot work. I am all for "real" sustainable action. Everything else just can't cut it. The revolution will come if we want it or not. It has already started and it will get harder the longer we leave it.Posted Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 @ 5:54:31 am from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberSo JB, were you playing devil's advocate when you asserted in the Climate Science thread that we can't live without burning fossil origin hydrocarbons?
(I believe we could now live 'almost' without burning fossil origin hydrocarbons as fuel and they will be very useful for future generations as feedstocks for plastics etc. - I emphasise GHG emissions resulting from burning fossil origin hydrocarbons as the primary element we as a planet need to mitigate - I have not found time to answer your probing questions yet - not sure I am qualified either)Posted Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 @ 6:27:15 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberdbindoff
I was playing nothing...my statements still stand:
1. There will not be an economy, like the one we have now, without fossils.
2. MMGW is not an immediate threat, not as much as any of the other immediate threats I listed: GFC, Energy security etc.
3. Fossils are too intricately interconnected in all economic and technoloigical activity, that we won't be able to progress further without using some of them in the short term, until we find and establish alternatives. Likewise we can't penalize fossils to bridge the gap to alternatives, without it negatively impacting on the development of those alternatives.Otherwise one could say: No fossils = No economy = No money to invest into alternatives. Rather, we need fossils to be used effectively and economically, to develop alternatives. We need to use the fossil energy and material "buffer" to make the transition. Without energy for our tools and economy we can't transition in time. No need to accelerate the inevitable shortages artificially.
When you say "can't live", then I would say "can't live as we do now", in energy and material excess. But that doesn't mean we can't survive. Although it will take much adjustment, especially in the "developed" world to become sustainable. The undeveloped will have it much "easier" to achieve sustainable activity, especially if we in the developed world assist them with the technological aid and know-how. In fact I believe they are OUR solution to sustainability as well, as a new and emerging market of sustainable, biomass based energy, materials and resources. Teach them how to do use them properly, from A to Z, and we will benefit also. They don't have an economy to loose in the first place, so why not give them a sustainable economy that is worth the effort? Afterwards, once they are "developed", we in the developed world can migrate to theirs!
Posted Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 @ 11:57:17 am from IP # -
I pretty much agree JB. However I think developing nations may just wipe out their remaining eco-systems in the struggle to survive.
Maybe this is the problem.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-25/three-planets-resources-population/2854812
Posted Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 @ 9:29:35 pm from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberReplying to JB,
1. Is axiomatic I think, importantly to my psyche, at this point I am optimistic that it can be transitioned into without catastrophe, just relentless investment....
2.
Re: "MMGW is not an immediate threat" , did you read the content at
http://theconversation.edu.au/speaking-science-to-climate-policy-1548and the other articles in that series?
Clearly the science says MMGW is an immediate threat which requires action now, even if the most damaging consequences of inaction are decades away.
This is not an ideology it is science - rather similar to engineering - you cannot physically engineer anything based on ideology, you rely on mathematical descriptions of physical processes. While ideology has a role in what to engineer, it relies entirely on the science to practically engineer it and cannot override the science.
So, I think you agree non-acceptance of the science is futile?
a. 25m sea level rises - in itself is astonishing enough in scope (bear in mind that erosion will take many multiples of the rise out of the available landscape also)
http://www.esa.org/esablog/research/the-domino-sea-level-effect/
As I read it, this one puts an even higher likelihood of 25m sea level rises.b. Agriculture per se will be become far more difficult both from climate effects and increased toxicity of common crops.
http://abceducation.net.au/~abceduca/videolibrary/view/toxic-crops-101
c. Increasing heat and acidity of the ocean will lead to damaged ocean ecosystems way beyond anything seen to date. (alarming as that is already)
The heat is currently building within the oceans at the astonishing rate of 5 hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second, the scale of this problem demands an immediate constructive approach.
3. first paragraph - I agree
second paragraph - I agree also, except that alternatives are already available and at this time we need to relentlessly invest..... individually, societally, globally. While we go on pretending we still have time..it costs just a bit too much that way .. it may lower our gdp... and on and on with the procrastination, the physical problem is expanding on a scale that we will soon be unable to address. I know underlying momentum is building but the Australian situation is very (depressing?)
third paragraph - pretty much agree - as per Rockabye I think, but keep up the optimism!
Thanks for your post, I think I understand your approach more clearly now.
Posted Thursday 25 Aug 2011 @ 7:49:30 am from IP # -
DaS Energy
MemberAustralian Carbon tax is in fact protectionism of the Coal industry. Note the 94% rebate to Coal burners and none to others. A fair playing feild to encourage alternate energy is discouraged by having to fully pay the carbon tax during its development and construction. Only when there be no exemptions to who pays full tax and who does not will alternate energy so threatening Coal be able to progress to the people.
Posted Wednesday 31 Aug 2011 @ 11:24:05 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberDaS
Good point. I agree and have made similar statements buried deep within this thread somewhere...
I'm glad others can see that it is not an effective mechanism to promote renewables or cut emissions from fossils. It's effectiveness is easy to quantify: If the fossil industry is NOT screaming and shouting in opposition to the scheme, you can be assured it is of little or no consequence.
Posted Wednesday 31 Aug 2011 @ 3:02:38 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberThe whole raison d'etre of ANY mechanism like the CT or carbon-trading is PRECISELY to encourage investment in 'alternative' technologies to those which use or produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
The CT is, and always has been desinged to be, a "short-term mechanism" with the mid-term and longer term goals being a market-based carbon-trading system and ultimately, reduction of production of carbon dioxide.
The COMPENSATION package is designed to prevent sudden price rises to consumers (ie: voters) as the CT is implemented.
As the compensation is reduced and then eventually removed, so the 'alternatives' will become more cost effective and RE will become more rather than less desirable as an investment strategy.
The compensation is buying time and votes, but ultimately, the costs WILL be passed on to the broader community and the poilluters will have to either pay or convert to less carbon-intensive methodologies.
So given that the compensation packages are fintie - will end at a set time in the future - this provides an opportunity for investors to PLAN the implementation of alternatives.
Power plants take 10 years from conception to on-stream, on-grid production.
While this may mean that gas is seen a a 'better' (as in, more lucrative) short-to mid-term solution, ultimately, RE will prove to have a place and once it can be shown to be cost-effective against conventional technologies - especially those afflicted by the CT measures - investment will flow to those RE technologies.
I maintain that in the 'interim' or 'transitional' period, wise govts should be subsidising the cost of construction OR the price of supply of as-yet-not-cost-effective renewable technologies, so that an NEW industry develops as the old one fades away.
Not to do so would be criminally negligent.
Posted Sunday 4 Sep 2011 @ 5:28:26 am from IP # -
Euro chief backs Gillard over carbon price.
Ms Hedegaard says Australia's decision to implement a carbon-pricing scheme has not gone unnoticed in Europe.
"We in Europe think that it is very good that now it seems like one more country is not doing the talking, but they are actually creating a scheme, a system as to how to start to do something about it," she said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-05/eu-pushes-for-gillard-to-hold-firm-on-carbon/2871144
Posted Monday 5 Sep 2011 @ 6:27:47 am from IP # -
Carbon price legislation to be voted on in a month.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-12/carbon-tax-legislation-timeline-released/2882204
Posted Monday 12 Sep 2011 @ 8:02:53 pm from IP # -
The chinese are well advanced on making things happen with their low carbon program. Tony Blair, who was here just recently, is a frequent visitor and part of the climate action group and his recent speech is worth a read.
Posted Friday 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:07:08 am from IP #
Reply
You must log in to post.