Mal said:Personally I feel carbon offsets are a joke and won't be supporting this initiative though.
Soundguy said:Me too, but (the socialist leaning) Malcolm Turnbull is suggesting this payment will become mandatory in a few years, so the joke is turning sour real fast.
AnonymousCoward said:You only need to look up "the tragedy of the commons"  to see what happens to communal resources (e.g. the atmosphere) when the benefits accrue to one group (underpriced airfares) but the costs are borne by others (people who live on earth)
 Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why not say what you really mean :?:simongr said:How the hell do the benefits of the atmosphere accrue to only one group (the "underpriced" airfares payers")? Do you breathe, drive, live in a house, own a computer, read a paper (online or not online - the cost is potentially no different)?
Do not blame fliers for global warming - blame your parents (well blame your parents if they are european) for theirs wars and reconstruction and booms of the 70's/80's that have moved us to this position. Blame India and China for their massive expansion in the pas few years for sustaining this.
Global warming is not the fault of the 50J/14F pax on a 744 - it is everyone's fault and the focus on fliers is detracting from the bigger issue.
For god's sake they are building and unnecessary desalination plant from concrete (again) in Sydney and polluting the bays - and people target fliers...
Sorry - fliers are an easy target that wins votes but doesnt fix a problem - the fundamental flaw in democracy and allowing people to vote (and don't get me started on the waste generated through the election process).
mbeder said:Can't imagine that my $1.28 (before merchant fees) on a Sydney-Melbourne flight is going to do much to help solve global warming. It may give me the warm & fuzzies, but that's about it....
simongr said:True in parts. For a start Government intervention in the market through the imposition of market adjusting factors is not in the spirit of free market economics.
simongr said:Secondly - airfares are the only "goods" that are the target of carbon offset taxes rather than little things like tower blocks made of massive amounts of concrete that is one of the other big CO2 producers that people dont like to talk about.
Air tarvel is not the issue - human beings are the issue.
AnonymousCoward said:Correting market failure is *not* socialism (which is the point I was trying to make before you turned it into some other debate about politics)
Would you care to point out the section of the constitution which deals with this?Soundguy said:Compelling people to eg pay a carbon tax or use only CF lamps by law (a la Turnbull) is pure socialism as it is based on an ideology alone (BTW the latter is also unconstitutional as you cannot ban things which have not proved to be dangerous in any way).
Soundguy said:Compelling people to eg pay a carbon tax or use only CF lamps by law (a la Turnbull) is pure socialism as it is based on an ideology alone
Soundguy said:(BTW the latter is also unconstitutional as you cannot ban things which have not proved to be dangerous in any way).
Soundguy said:In this case the green faith has claimed that CO2 is a pollutant and those that produce it must pay - a claim which is entirely false scientifically,
Soundguy said:I am proud of the CO2 I produce each day as it is very beneficial to flora and thus to the environment,
Soundguy said:so I choose not to pay a 'carbon tax' but I am happy for others to pay it if they freely choose to do so. If you look at global temperature record there has been no global warming trend here in the southern hemisphere and the recent warming in the norther hemisphere stopped about 8 years ago with temperatures dropping since then.
simongr said:I actually think that we agree generally - the polluter pays principle is great. My problem is the targetting of particular groups because they are easy visible politically safe targets. I don't think that we can justify carbon offsets under the polluter pays principle because it seems to be tinkering with the edges of the market rather than fully considering the full cost of the carbon emmissions.
AnonymousCoward said:Yes - to the extent that fliers are being targetted because it's politically easy, there's definately an issue there. I agree with you.
A broader based approach is required that targets the entire CO2-equivalent emission of pollution is required.