Australia passed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

1. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 12 years ago

   After many years in the making the Australian Senate finally passed a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.  Despite considerable opposition by the Conservative parties and the deniers we now have a scheme which will reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on carbon.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      ngurecoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It’s better late than never. We salute you, Australia.

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Do you see this as a good thing or not?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      barryrutherfordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes although the scheme is flawed it will mean that we are no longer hypocrites on the international stage when we try and persuade other countries to reduce their emissions

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Oh okay. Thank you.

         replyreport
3. 66

   Pearldiverposted 12 years ago

   Cool... let me know if you want to buy any great 'carbon' trading domain names - dot com of course.
   
   I have a lot of carbon related domains for sale. Some absolute rippers.. as Australia was always going to do this.
   
   6fxus dot com is available - 'carbon affects us'

   replyreport
4. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 12 years ago

   A cut to carbon pollution of at least 160 million tonnes a year in 2020;   
   
   Tax cuts and increases to household payments and pensions for millions of Australians;
   
      A clean energy economy with new economic opportunities and clean energy jobs.
   
   
   
   Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the passing of our Clean Energy legislation through the Senate was a major milestone in Australia’s efforts to cut carbon pollution and seize the economic and job opportunities of the future.

   replyreport
5. 62

   prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago

   good to know, AUS is way miles ahead in terms of environmental protection

   replyreport
6. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 12 years ago

   Hopefully America will start to catch up I believe California is doing something...

   replyreport
7. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 12 years ago

   Govt recommendations on Climate Change  by Australian Government in August 1991
   
   link here
   
   http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea … %2F0108%22

   replyreport
8. 83

   CMHypnoposted 12 years ago

   But doesn't Australia export a lot of coal to China?  And doesn't that coal go into all those new power stations they are bringing on line every day?
   
   A bit like here in the UK, its all well and good for us to reduce our carbon emissions, but it is the big population countries like China, India and the US who need to cut back for a worldwide difference to be made

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Jed Fisherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, but...
      Iran trying to go all-electric with nuclear power and the World Community is all up in their business accusing them of wanting to make a-bombs. I don't belive none of it, it's all a big scam. They should have the courage to tell us the thruth so at least we'll know who's boots to lick and what stocks to buy.
      I'm all about getting with the progam but I do think I deserve to know what the program is and who is runnig it.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      barryrutherfordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed the coal does go to China in record amounts.  However the New Power Stations that China has built are far cleaner than our old power stations which are about to be decommissioned.

      replyreport
   3. 88

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Right, emissions mitigation on a GLOBAL scale is needed.  But those countries who take their responsibilities seriously are showing leadership to laggards, and hopefully bringing effective action closer.  In the meantime, at least "every little bit helps"--there is always the difference between "bad" and "worse."  And had the EU not taken Kyoto seriously enough to meet their collective target, we would be in even worse shape today.
      
      By the way, China is an interesting case.  Because Chinese emissions have been and are growing rapidly, and because of China's famously awful air quality--particularly in Beijing--the perception is that China doesn't care at all about any of these issues, and will just pollute recklessly no matter what.  But that is not true.
      
      While China clearly places a lot of emphasis on economic growth, and certainly has paid (and continues to pay) an environmental price for that, it is also true that China does aspire to much better things, environmentally speaking.  And more than aspire--China now has the world's largest installed wind capacity, and has for a decade or more blown through ambitious targets for the deployment of renewable energy.  (Couldn't resist that awful pun--what I mean is that they've *exceeded* their targets consistently.)
      
      Even the coal plants they are adding are now supposed to be only *replacements* for older, less efficient ones--and the efficiency differences are very substantial.  (Though honestly I also suspect, without much evidentiary basis, that they are on average also larger than the old ones--so that they use as much coal and emit as much CO2, but get quite a bit more energy out.)
      
      The overall result is that China has had about the best decrease in emissions *intensity* over the last couple of decades--that is, the ratio of emissions to GDP growth has fallen faster than anywhere else.  (For 1990-2002, the drop was 51%; next highest was Poland, at 43%--but that wasn't a high-growth time for the Polish economy.)
      
      Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that decreasing intensity is enough--it's the actual emissions the atmosphere "cares" about.  Nor am I idolizing China; their human rights record frankly appalls me, and the rule of law there seems a bit tenuous from what I can tell.  But it's clear that the stereotype about the Chinese attitude toward pollution and the climate change issue is wrong in significant ways.

      replyreport
9. 67

   MikeNVposted 12 years ago

   What are they denying exactly?
   
   A whole lot of Elite just got even richer.
   
   This is just a TAX.
   
   C02 is NOT dangerous.  But it sure is easy to attack because of the volume.
   
   If the people who created this TAX wanted to really do something about pollution there are dozens of other chemical pollutants which actually are dangerous.
   
   Now if you want to pollute you just pay more tax, and you pass the cost on to the consumer... the poor and the middle class who MUST purchase power to survive.
   
   Regressive.  Pathetic.
   
   Same old scam in a new package.
   
   http://www.debtclock.com.au/

   replyreport
   1. 75

      barryrutherfordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am not sure I suppose you are a carbon dioxide denyier sure we need carbon in the atmosphere but the balance has to be about right.  Right now the balance is predicted to go out of kilter.  The effect of this will be to warm the whole planet by just a few degree on average.  This is predicted to have a catostophic effect on weather patterns including rainfall as well as melting ice that is now on land -hense the prospect of dangerous sea level rises...

      replyreport
   2. 60

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      But it is that volume that makes it dangerous! Or perhaps you don't think death is dangerous!
      
      "CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]"
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

      replyreport
      1. 84

         kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think we could hit 10,000ppm globally even if 100% of the permafrost melted and the methane clathrates belched out everything. But given the kind of effects we're seeing currently at ~400ppm, the ~1000ppm possible under the business-as-usual emissions scenario is plenty scary enough.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            barryrutherfordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            350 ppm is the maximum we should be reaching...

            replyreport
            1. 84

               kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I would even argue for 300ppm, but given that we're already almost 400ppm, 350 is probably more feasible for now.

               replyreport
10. 84

    kerrygposted 12 years ago

    I'm dubious about carbon taxes and even more so about carbon trading schemes, but Australia is supposed to be pretty hard hit should we fail to get carbon emissions under control, so it's nice to see you guys are at least trying to be proactive. Wish I could say the same of the US!

    replyreport
11. 75

    barryrutherfordposted 12 years ago

    FROM: Al Gore
        TO: Don Henry
        SUBJECT: What you accomplished
    
        Dear Don,
    
        This is a historic moment. Australia’s Parliament has put the nation’s first carbon price into law. We’ve turned a pivotal corner and this success is because of activists like you.
    
        You took on the deniers, the talking heads, the campaign dollars behind them and you won. I am impressed and inspired by this victory and the part you each played in it.
    
        As I said during 24 Hours of Reality (at 00:53:50), I’ve spent enough time in Australia to know that your spirit of independence as a people cannot be underestimated. This motivation, this incredible energy, is what has powered you to victory. There is no doubt in my mind that your work made the passing of this legislation possible.
    
        Of course, our efforts do not end here. This victory will be tested; it will be pushed and pulled and twisted by those very interests you have triumphed over. We need to keep up our work as concerned citizens and activists.
    
        Today, we celebrate. Tomorrow, we do everything we can to make this legislation successful.
    
        With sincere gratitude,
    
        Al Gore

    replyreport