Comments on: Why Would a Carbon Trading System Reduce Emission of Carbon Dioxide?

By: SuperGreenMe

SuperGreenMe — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:10:42 +0000

I agree that sustainable initiatives are much more effective if they are profitable! Then they are both financially and environmentally sustainable.

I also think we should stop polarising the community for & against the environment with the climate change debate. There are many more things that need our attention as well – overfishing, pollution, salinity, acid rain, deforestation, etc!

Here is a bigger list of issues: Environmental Issues

By: robert s

robert s — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:53:29 +0000

re comments by R Laverack:
It’s mindless comments like these that leave thinking people flabbergasted.
There is no science in an ETS, only a blatant tax grab, and a lot of Alarmism by well meaning but misinformed individuals.
I dont have to be a scientist to know that this ETS idea is stupidly flawed, and besides there are 30,000 + scientists out there who put their names on the internet in opposition to this CO2 hoax, unlike the ipcc whose scientist are hidden behind cloaks of secrecy or they show only the very few that will not dissent in public.
Quoting CO2 figures of 3.5 tt is neither here nor there as it is the overall figure of 385 parts per million which in cold hard facts is so small as to be laughable as a concern, considering the earth has seen higher levels in the past as shown by ice core studies, and inspite of these higher levels ( up to 10,000 times higher ) still went into ice ages.
Present day being another example of CO2 levels at it’s highest point since pre industrial levels and yet the worlds temps have plummeted to pre 1979 levels.
This planet originally had very little or no oxygen in the first billion years until certain biological factors went to work. Can you imagine Co2 was the norm and then these little creatures started creating a pollutant called oxygen which is 21% of the earth’s athmosphere today.
Can you imagine how much CO2 there was to have created a lot of this oxygen, There was no dangerous runaway green house affect then was there.
The earth did not cook in it’s own CO2 juices did it.
Whatever system the earth uses has worked well in the past and will continue to work well into the future until our sun expands even more and cooks most of the planets in the solar system, somewhere in the distant future. We should be enjoying the pleasant weather we are now experiencing because the next move will be to an ice age, admittedly it wont be in our lifetimes, or could it. LOL

By: MLEE

MLEE — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:30:36 +0000

Climate change has existed since human inhabit the earth. Only that very few of us ever live long enough to witness it. Those who does managed to experience it has ever just a touch on it. What comes arround goes arround. Do we ever know !

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:12:51 +0000

Oh dear. Kris,

Markets aren’t going seriously work for solutions to climate change until people are suffering severely from it’s effects. By then it will be way too late for action. Markets don’t have 50 year foresite. Governments, when guided by enlightened leaders, can have. What? Enlightened leadership in government? Impossible maybe but I still reckon government action will have a better shot at doing something in time that Mr Market. There are just some problems the market ain’t good at solving.

By: Merv Nash

Merv Nash — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:55:50 +0000

Of course we are going through a change of climate. Anyone can see that we have been in drought mode for ten years or so. The planet does this all the time going through its natural cycles BUT to try to claim it is our fault is where the argument starts. Yes, one very sound idea is to follow the money. Who is going to profit? Who is going to pay? Not very scientific but more often than not a very good guide.
Another is to try to find scientists who don’t stand to make any money either way. I went to a meeting held by Professor Bob Carter. He backed up his presentation with more hard data and rational than I have heard from any politician or grant bound scientist to date.
Try this site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU
Don’t bother if you already have fixed and highly emotional ideas.

By: Richard Laverack

Richard Laverack — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:34:44 +0000

I’m glad a semi skeptical friend sent me this link. First comment is how really badly informed you are. 2 years, or is it 3 now since Nicholas Stern and you haven’t even read it ? You pose as a financial “advisory” webpage and have no handle on an emissions trading scheme ? Don’t know why it’s being introduced so you mock up the old tax grab scam !

Come on, get with the programme or you’ll be completely embarrassed when a cap and trade is introduced next year. Oh yes, the “purpose” of the ETS is to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, that’s why they’re “capped” and then the total amount “reduced” next year.

I suggest you find out how Deutsche Bank think about this by Googling “know the number”. It will take you to a website partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which displays the TOTAL amount of emissions ALREADY in the atmosphere, currently 3,645,689,550,000 metric tonnes and INCREASING at the rate (globally) of 800 metric tonnes PER SECOND.

I also suggest you track the McKinsey Report on just how Australia can make the necessary 95% cut in emissions by 2050.

In case you hadn’t heard, Prof R Garnaut was an economist too, Austalian as well.

The sooner you get real about this “externality” the better for you and those to whome you ‘offer’ advice. You’d better be praying nothing happens in Copenhagen this December ……….

By: Thorpy

Thorpy — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:57:56 +0000

Considering that climate change started back when “God Created” and history shows earth went through a climate HOT and a mini ice age during the period 1000AD to 1600AD and we survived .. whats new? Kris I couldn’t have put the current position better

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:32:21 +0000

You are right – the latest CC vehicle is powered by money and driven by ignorance.
Carbon MONoxide comes out of the rear end of cars – not C’Dioxide.
Notice the sticker on the rear end of new cars has a CO2 efficiency rating (CO2 is a tiny gas just 0.038% of the atmosphere and it doesn’t come from cars) – BUT did you know that your car’s engine has at least one OXYGEN sensor which orders a richer mixture if it detects OXYGEN…they lost the plot years ago since the first car was made of wood and ran on hydrogen.
I’m glad I have a large store of incandenscent light bulbs to take me into the future…lol

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:34:56 +0000

Actually I’d dispute that banning something dangerous will never work. What about CFCs? Asbestos? If regulation of these substances had been left to the market we’d still be using them.

By: Rod Campbell-Ross

Rod Campbell-Ross — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:59:03 +0000

Having actually studied climate science as part of a broader Masters degree I unequivocally believe the science is right and has been settled for some time. In fact the notion that thousands of ernest scientists and hundreds of thousands of data gathering devices could be be tuned into creating a giant hoax is laughable, yet that is what lots of people believe.

Idiots!

So. What to do about it? In fact climate change is part of the far bigger and broader problem of energy generally. There is broad consensus that oil production has or is about to peak. This is a much more immediate problem than climate change and there will be no economic growth until our energy crisis is properly managed. And this will not be properly dealt with until we can talk about it.

The energy crisis is a subset of the much bigger problem of over population. Energy, food, water, deforestation, over-fishing, pollution, massive extinction – you name it we have problems, big problems. And they all go back to over-population. However it is even less palatable to consider curbing procreation. So we are going to suffer the effects of over shoot which will be horrible.

When a quantity of sugared water (grape juice) is combined in a bottle with some yeast, the yeast multiply rapidly, consuming the available sugar. Their population reaches a peak and then they begin to die from lack of sugar and because their environment is polluted with their detritus (alcohol). A metaphor for our own demise is literally under our noses, yet we do not see it. Are we any smarter than yeast?