ETS a practical way to understand

[cob115]

dont know if any one has posted this,is so sorry,jesus labor know how to stuff this country up



ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 125% which would produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Here's a practical way to understand Mr. Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.




Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.




97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.




Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.




And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometer!




As a hair is to a kilometer - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometer length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.




Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.

[|||]

very interesting. i have to look into this ETS

[cob115]

Originally Posted by |||

very interesting. i have to look into this ETS

very scary to!!the idiots that are labor are dead set keen on this crap

[|||]

i found this article by sarah palin that even give us aussies a mention. she's a hottie too

Originally Posted by Sarah Palin

Copenhagen's political science

By Sarah Palin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120803402.html

[cs123]

Originally Posted by |||

i found this article by sarah palin that even give us aussies a mention. she's a hottie too



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120803402.html

]

You're quoting Sarah Palin!!!! OMFG

[cob115]

Originally Posted by cs123

]


You're quoting Sarah Palin!!!! OMFG

nothing wrong with that !!!i would rather her any day ,over that fruit loop osama Obama who like Krudd sells his country down the toilet,

[snappy]

Originally Posted by cs123

]

You're quoting Sarah Palin!!!! OMFG

I agree she is not the way to win any credibility ,it really is a shame she not pro climate change .

[|||]

Originally Posted by cs123

]

You're quoting Sarah Palin!!!! OMFG

so point out why she's wrong?

[Cobra]

Sarah Palin has been unfairly misquoted, quoted out of context, and generally made to look a whole lot more stupid by the media than she really is. I don't deny that she's made a few mistakes, and perhaps said and done a few stupid things, but I think the media has just blown it out of proportion. If you actually read about her, you'll see that she's a real battler, she's had a really hard time getting to where she has and she certainly wouldn't have got to the position she is currently if she was actually stupid.

Be fair, judge her on her merits, and don't dismiss everything she has to say on an (most probably) incorrect perception. I thought that her arguments in the article were great, and it shows she's not a sheep or a politician with an agenda. We need more politicians like her to stand up or we will never have a chance to stop the ETS.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Sarah Palin has been unfairly misquoted, quoted out of context, and generally made to look a whole lot more stupid by the media than she really is. I don't deny that she's made a few mistakes, and perhaps said and done a few stupid things, but I think the media has just blown it out of proportion. If you actually read about her, you'll see that she's a real battler, she's had a really hard time getting to where she has and she certainly wouldn't have got to the position she is currently if she was actually stupid.

Be fair, judge her on her merits, and don't dismiss everything she has to say on an (most probably) incorrect perception. I thought that her arguments in the article were great, and it shows she's not a sheep or a politician with an agenda. We need more politicians like her to stand up or we will never have a chance to stop the ETS.

I wasn't calling her stupid just said she had no credibility , to most of the public anyway.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by |||

so point out why she's wrong?

Sorry, It was a knee jerk reaction. Sarah provided me so much entertainment during the USA elections. I'm not anti republican, just anti stupid, and she has it in spades.

As for the article, it's a bunch of right wing rhetoric, without substance. If people want to challenge the concept of man made climate change, I'm all for it, it should be rigourously challenged. She is trying to discredit them on a personal level.

[Falcon Coupe]

We already have two ETS threads running and yes this was posted in one of them.