Push to add $30 climate fee to domestic flights

[oz_mark]

I'm more concerned about the earth running out of oil than the increase in temperature.

...and of course there is an interesting debate about global warming and peak oil going on at the moment in the scientific community.

 

[NM]

I have a problem with this. As far as I can see, there is some evidence of a temperature increase of 0.8 degC over the past 127 years, although satellite measurements indicate no increase in recent years.

Were temperature readings taken 127 years ago accurate to within 0.8 or a degree?

 

[NM]

I dont have kids, have only one car and try and keep energy use down - but that is not enough

What does having kids have to do with carbon emissions?

 

[oz_mark]

What does having kids have to do with carbon emissions?

carbon emissions would reduce if we stopped having children

 

[NM]

carbon emissions would reduce if we stopped having children

I can think of some other emissions that would be reduced

 

[rhjames]

Were temperature readings taken 127 years ago accurate to within 0.8 or a degree?

See www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf. This is one of the problems. There is evidence that at these early times, temperature measurement may have been underestimated.

 

[StevePER]

What does having kids have to do with carbon emissions?

Children 'bad for planet' (May 07 2007)

Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

news.com.au

 

[NM]

Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

Then again, on a per person basis a large family may have less environmental impact. I know when it comes to water consumption, under level 5 restriction the target usage is 150 litres per person per day. With 6 people in our household, we are running at half that target level.

A family bus carrying 6 people is likely to have a lower environmental impact that six small cars travelling the same distance.

 

[simongr]

It did the same for me. The questions were written by someone who has already made there mind u there will be one, now working in what form, and how much they can get away with charging.

I just responded 1% to as many questions as I could...

 

[rhjames]

I just responded 1% to as many questions as I could...

I did the same - all questions assumed that climate change was real, and caused by human activity. The survey is a waste of time and effort if, like me, you don't accept this as a proven fact. I find there are more and more people going to the trouble to examine the scientific reports themselves and now questioning the validity of climate change. I therefore expect that a high percentage of people sampled couldn't give meaningful answers.

 

[Altair]

We cannot even buy offsets now

Well from this article we cannot buy offsets from companies that offer it.
I actually agree as I do not believe in the offset program nor that it is the solution.
Carbon credits don't grow on trees - Environment - smh.com.au

PEOPLE who pay to have trees planted on their behalf to clean up greenhouse gas pollution cannot be sure they will get what they pay for, according to research that shows the so-called carbon offset market is vulnerable to profiteering and lacks credibility.
Planting trees is the least credible form of offsetting a consumer's greenhouse gas emissions because of the long time lag between when the pollution is generated and when the tree absorbs carbon dioxide, a report by the Total Environment Centre said.

Now I do believe that there is climate change happening, what the primary cause is does not matter. CO2 does contribute but to what extent but every bit of savings would help? What is irrefutable is that flying uses up our diminishing supply of hydrocarbon fuel and it does cause pollution that has toxic effects on the total environment.
Will $30 carbon tax or environmental offsets help? I do not believe it does. If governments are concerned about flying and its effects, then re-regulate the industry limiting the number of flights, build airports to reduce the congestion and unnecessary waiting, improve ATC measures etc.

 

[dajop]

Regardless of whether global warming is real and is attributable to human activity (admittedly I am somewhat sceptical), I find this proposal to single out flying quite OTT.

Incredible that this is being proposed in Australia, where the tax regime is such that it favours people driving round and round in circles to get 15,000kms p.a on their vehicles to actually save taxes.

Interesting that last weekend I drove to MQL from MEL instead of flying (too late to book cheap fares, plus co. car = free petrol). Wonder which has a greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions, one of 34-36 pax in a Saab /Dash 8 or a single driver in a 2.5 l vehicle?

 

[simongr]

Interesting that BA has an in place existing program that you can volunteer to contribute to. I saw it on manage my booking today when selecting seats (which actually worked with my AA number for once).

 

[stryker]

Regardless of whether global warming is real and is attributable to human activity (admittedly I am somewhat sceptical)

I guess that could make you a possible supporter of Little J and GWB.
At least we now know where you might be coming from...

 

[shillard]

Typically mindless socialist tosh.

The warm period 800-1300 saw greenland become one of the most productive farming regions in the Northern hemisphere - today it's covered in ice and permafrost.

Carbon emissions?

My cough.

This is the latest manifestation of the lefty mother-earth cult. Marxism failed.

Socialism failed.

Mother Earth-ism is the next big gig. Anyone and everyone is getting on board. Peter Garret, the Goracle (Al Gore), etc are the high priests of the trendiest new religion in town. As far as apocalyptic examples of millenialarianism go, "global warming" (ever so subtley renamed to "climate change" as evidence of cooling emerges) is one of the biggest hits ever.

Leaves Y2K, chook flu, Cold War nuclear apocalypse and SARS for dead.

As for carbon taxes, voluntary offsets, etc - I have only one thing to say:


A fool and his money are soon parted.

 

[shillard]

I guess that could make you a possible supporter of Little J and GWB.
At least we now know where you might be coming from...

Witness the hysterical vilification that any declared "climate change sceptic" is subjected to.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stryker]

Nice to hear from you shillard. Hope you're having a nice day.

Too much at stake to let climate-change sceptics bluff the world - Opinion

 

[simongr]

Setting aside whether climate change is real or not - I am trying to minimise my imprint on the planet environmentally. So I try and conserve energy and want to try and minimise the cough that my existence generates whilst not living in a biosphere... I dont think carbon offsetting is that bad an idea - any push to renewable energy is not a bad thing...

 

[shillard]

Setting aside whether climate change is real or not - I am trying to minimise my imprint on the planet environmentally. So I try and conserve energy and want to try and minimise the cough that my existence generates whilst not living in a biosphere... I dont think carbon offsetting is that bad an idea - any push to renewable energy is not a bad thing...

Sound principles - I guess one of the best ways to minimise your energy use is to pontificate on internet forums - which rely entirely on fossil-fuel derived electricity generation for their very existence.

Your PC, the server on which the forum resides and the umpteen servers in between, the energy loss on the power and telco lines, the oil-derived plastics used in the construction of your computer and the associated paraphenalia, the environmental damage done to extract the gold, copper, iron, etc in your machine......



Buying "Carbon credits" is a bit like sending $2 a week to some starving kids via World Vision. It might salve the conscience of the Gammas/ Deltas/ Epsilons as they tuck into their third helping of ice cream for the evening (or board their second domestic holiday flight for the year), but it will do little to change a damn thing.

BTW: Oil counts as a renewable resource - it just takes a bit longer to do the renewing than some of the others. Of course, since energy (like matter) can't be created or destroyed, there's no such thing as a truly "renewable" energy source - even the sun has a finite lifespan.


Speaking of the sun, has anybody noticed what's been happening on Mars the whole time this global warming malarkey is gaining traction on planet Earth? Now what possible role could the largest single source of heat in the solar system play in influencing the surface temperatures on this planet....?????

 

[shillard]

Nice to hear from you shillard. Hope you're having a nice day.

Too much at stake to let climate-change sceptics bluff the world - Opinion

Keyword: "Opinion".