We’re drowning in pollution - a carbon tax won’t stop that

Against the Man says:

06:39am | 29/09/11

But there are people who feel that the ALP/Gillard is doing the whole carbon tax because they care about us and our future not because they need the Greens support to stay in power.

Anyway the high cost of living and future unemployment it is causing is giving many people (especially the ex-ALP loving steel workers and HSU union folks) a stark wake up call.

Chris_D says:

07:19am | 29/09/11

The title of this article should have been written on every placard waved at all the anti-carbon tax rallies.  Says it all really.

Fiddler says:

07:47am | 29/09/11

I totally agree with this article. I oppose the carbon tax and cringe when I see people install solar panels on their roof. Who cares how much carbon dioxide is in the air when all those rare earth minerals are used up and have leached chemicals into our waterways. Similar for gm food which may be able to reduce our need for fertilisers and pesticides. The green industry is all about money and nothing to do with the environment.

Mahhrat says:

07:51am | 29/09/11

All the carbon tax debate has done is shown how completely close-minded most people are, either in support of or denial of the need for some kind of pollution reforms.

I reckon it started out as just trying to get one thing changed.  What’s now being realised is that it doesn’t matter - 1% or 50% change, it will be opposed shrilly by some and supported just as shrilly by others.

Meanwhile, the “great unwashed’ centralised majority, who link in with neither extremist camp, scratch our heads, put a little faith in the leaders we vote in to eventually do something about it, and recycle our plastic bottles like good little sheep.

wearestardust says:

08:19am | 29/09/11

Two fallacies in the first two paras.  First, no-one is suggesting that carbon is the be-all and end-all of pollution.  Arguing against a position that no-one actually holds is called the “straw man” fallacy, just for those playing at home.  (As a matter of fact rather than logic, I think one will find that environmentalists and politicians with environmentalist views who are driving the climate change agenda do actually have broader concerns.

Secondly, it is no argument to say that for any problem, one ought ignore it because other problems exist.  One can argue that about anything.

Moving on just from logic: should one take it from the comment about it being “balmy”.  That suggests either a view that climate change is not a real problem, or lack of understanding of the problems.  If the former, then the argument just is that climate change is not a problem, not that there are moe pressing problems.  If the latter: take the issue of nasty chemicals in food.  There is a global food shortage now.  Organic pretensions are all very well, but moving to an organic food system under current arrangements means someone has to choose what 40% of the world population has to starve.  That’s under current arrangements though: of food wastage could be curtailed, and meat-eating were severely reduced, then maybe we could feed everyone organically (maybe, and without further population growth.  Leaving aside, of course, that these measures would fix the food crisis now.  Hey, you know what?  This is why we should ignore this article, it doesn’t address food problems.  Just kiddin’)  Unless, of course, environmental change should happen to significantly reduce the global amount of land available for food production ...

As for those comments saying “yeah, man, stick it to the warmists” and the like: I await angry truck rallies being stopped on the ACT border (the film of the anti-carbon rally outside of the Federal Parliament House was faked, like the moon landing) and angry crowds of a hundred and fifty people refusing to be intimidated by a single politician, demanding the abolition of a swathe of polluting industries.  No mere compensated-for tax will satisfy from this point on!  don’t tax them, close them down!

Matt says:

08:21am | 29/09/11

So who exactly will fork up the money to implement all this new technology, instate all the new laws and regulate them while funding new research into green energy… Or did you think they were just going to print more money….. Whining about pollution whilst living a consumerist lifestyle is hypocritical to say the least, comparing the price on carbon to mercury in the water is apples to oranges. 

This is just another anti-carbon ‘tax’ article, like the multitude of others that fails to mention the $13b that will be invested in clean energy projects, $10b for the CEFC and $3.2b for research.  I don’t see you rushing for your wallet Brett..

Or like many others, you complain about how it won’t change pollution - which it will - and whine again when you have to pay for pollution to be dealt with… You can’t have it both ways.

Shenanigans says:

09:21am | 29/09/11

i think if you intend on living a comfortable life with out a sudden case of death, eating mercury laced fish inst in your best interest

MHH says:

09:28am | 29/09/11

The jobs lost and the reduced revenue to people will save the plantet. Nobody will have enough money left to by stuff, so they will not pollute.

Simon says:

09:30am | 29/09/11

What tax?

RBarron says:

11:27am | 29/09/11

The more complete the combustion of carbon fuel the higher level of Co2 and water vapour emitted.
The measurement of cleaner emission is the increase in Co2 levels emitted.

So the cleaner the emissions the higher the levels of Co2 and water vapour and it is a tax on Co2 that they are going to charge us on.

If you have an old engine you get higher levels of Nox, Soot or Carbon, and Carbon Monoxide

So for the health of Human higher Co2 levels means the less of the bad emission of Nox Soot and Carbon Monoxide and So2

From
BP
Exhaust emissions as they are known are just the by-products of combustion of a fuel. For every 1kg of fuel burnt, there is about 1.1kg of water (as vapour/steam) and 3.2kg of carbon dioxide produced. Unfortunately we don’t have 100% combustion and so there is also a small amount of products of incomplete combustion and these are carbon monoxide (denoted CO ), hydrocarbons (vaporised fuel) and soot or smoke (actually hydrocarbons in a different form). In addition, the high temperatures that occur in the combustion chamber promote an unwanted reaction between nitrogen and oxygen from the air. This results in various oxides of nitrogen, commonly called NOx.

There are also several minor contributors to exhaust emissions which are burnt crankcase oil and sulphur from the fuel. Both of these components will show up mostly as particulates. Oil consumption is obviously a function of engine design and amount of wear but sulphur dioxide is formed from the sulphur in the fuel.

Currently on road diesel emissions are not measured in Australia but in the future we may adopt regulations from overseas.
While it is difficult to quantify the typical emissions from a diesel engine, using the current USA regulations for an approximation, 1kg of fuel would produce around 30gm of carbon monoxide, 3.5gm of hydrocarbons, 1.7gm of particulates and 8gm of NOx.

Total unwanted emissions which could be attributed to ‘inefficient ‘combustion accounts for something less than 4% of fuel used. Note that this does not necessarily relate to wasted fuel because these components are the product of incomplete combustion and so have still released much of their energy content. As an aside, this shows that there is not much scope to improve fuel consumption through improved combustion alone.

The main concern with diesel engine emissions has always been smoke because it is clearly visible, particularly at high engine loads. In the past this smoke was considered to be undesirable because of aesthetics and odour but now there is growing concern about the health effects of this particulate matter when it is breathed into the lungs. The term particulates is used to describe the collection of small particles that make up smoke.

The catch for our human health the higher the Co2 and water vapour the better it is for us. But for the earth and their Climate Change the lower the level of Co2 emission the better.

So the catch is the cleaner the emission the higher the CO2 produced.
And Co2 is what they are taxing us on.
These Guys are mad.

I can tell you 1st hand I have a lung condition that has been contining for the last 11 to 20 years and it is said to be Sarcoidosis but the problem is that it has never been problem the only thing they did find when they done the biospy of my lungs was Carbon or anthracosis.

This is normal found in coal miners.
I have never lived near a coal mine, never worked in a coal mine, I have never smoked or lived with a smoker. And the age of me smokeing was banded at work and I never when to the nightclubs.

But for the 1st 26 years of my life I have lived 2kms down wind from a oil refinery. 6 metres from our front door 12000 cars a day past. 180 metres to the south is Parramatta Rd with 55,000 cars a day and 220 metres to the north is 100,000 cars above room high on the m4 a day, 750m to the west Church st and woodville rd is 80,000 cars a day and 30 to 40 diesel trains on the main western line. The oil refinery puts out 240,000 kgs if fine particular matter PM10 and 20,000kgs of Pm 2.5.

The trouble is that once you get the Fine Particular matter in you lungs you can’t get it out. and it goes on to cause inflammation, fibrosis, and in the worst case, necrosis.

Already part of my right middle lobe doesn’t inflate anymore.

I alway have Shortness of breathe at 43 years of age.

Amber says:

12:00pm | 29/09/11

Everything on earth is natural - has always been here and probably always will be. Nothing has ever been created out of nothing. Everything has its place. CO2 is not a pollutant - and REAL pollution has been diminishing , where a country can afford to do so, for many years. So what’s the problem?
Poverty, driven by corruption - which also drives this perverted GFW movement.

The Long Blow says:

12:42pm | 29/09/11

Dr Brett Hill is a “wellness expert ...whose clients live a long life”. Is their life long or does it seem that way because it is so insufferably boring.
Imagine sitting next to this bloke at a dinner party, you would be eating all the mercury-laden fish you could get your hands on.

Polluter pays plain & simple says:

12:50pm | 29/09/11

A price on pollution makes perfect economic sense. There should be debate about what the price should be, but it is hard to argue that it should remain 100% free. Whoever wins government has to raise money in some way or another. If they tax your energy company for the CO2 it emits, this does five things: (A) It gives a reward to polluters for finding cleaner ways to produce the same amount of energy. (B) It increases the Net Present Value of investing in cleaner energy investments & research. (C) It gives you incentive to be more efficient with your own energy use, (D) In the long run it will contribute to a decrease in the percentage of our energy grid that is generated by the higher CO2 emitting generators (and this point is very important) only to the extent that this is taken from them by competition from new cleaner energy competitors. I don’t see us “importing” energy & do you? And last point (E) It takes pressure of all Australian Income earners because what is raised in this way will reduce what needs to be raised by Income tax.

I hear all the same arguments from the head in the sand conservatives all the time, they are basically disputing points A, B, C and D which saying that our demand for CO2 emitting energy is 100% price in-elastic (i.e. we do not waste any of it & we will need to consume the same regardless of any price changes because we have achieved 100% efficiency). As ridiculous as this proposition is, even if it were true, we would still have point E which means the net cost Australian households is zero. There may be income re-distribution effects as there are with all government decisions but if you think the income re-distribution is unfair,  why not come up with a better designed ETS? Remeber 2007? both major parties went to the election committed to an ETS. Honestly if people spend half the time they waste repeating the propaghanda of vested interests over & over and over and used that time to look into ways of reducing their own energy consumption, they would most likely find their net position (after receiving cuts to income tax) would be better off.

SalC says:

01:17pm | 29/09/11

Two words: Pacific Gyre

Steve says:

01:51pm | 29/09/11

Brett, while I agree we should do more, as you can see from the inane responses to your article, there are a whole lot of people who will grab your arguments and use them to justify doing nothing.

St. Michael says:

04:13pm | 29/09/11

Bolivian president Evo Morales said:
If we want to safeguard mankind, then we need to safeguard the planet.

Wikipedia said:
Agriculture and forestry accounted for 14 percent of Bolivia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2003, down from 28 percent in 1986. Combined, these activities employ nearly 44 percent of Bolivia’s workers. Most agricultural workers are engaged in subsistence farming—the dominant economic activity of the highlands region. Agricultural production in Bolivia is complicated by both the country’s topography and climate. High elevations make farming difficult, as do the El Niño weather patterns and seasonal flooding. Bolivia’s agricultural GDP continues to rise but has attained only a rather modest average growth rate of 2.8 percent annually since 1991.

Bolivia’s most lucrative agricultural product continues to be coca, of which Bolivia is currently the world’s third largest cultivator (after Colombia and Peru), with an estimated 29,500 hectares under cultivation in 2007, increased slightly when compared to 2006. Bolivia is the third largest producer of cocaine, estimated at 120 metric tons potential pure cocaine in 2007 and a transit country for Peruvian and Colombian cocaine destined for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Europe.

Wikipedia also said:
Mining continues to be vital to Bolivia’s economy. The collapse of the world tin market in the 1980s led to a restructuring of the industry. The state dramatically reduced its control and presently operates only a small portion of mining activities. Small-scale operations, often with low productivity, employ many former state miners. Natural gas has supplanted tin and silver as the country’s most valuable natural commodity. A discovery in 1997 confirmed a tenfold gain in Bolivia’s known natural gas reserves. Finding markets to utilize this resource, both domestically and internationally, has been slowed by a lack of infrastructure and conflicts over the state’s role in controlling natural resources. Although the world tin market has reemerged, Bolivia now faces stiff competition from Southeast Asian countries producing lower-cost alluvial tin. Gold and silver production has increased dramatically over the past decade. Annually, as of 2002 Bolivia extracted and exported more than 11,000 kilograms of gold and 461 tons of silver. Additionally, Bolivia has increased zinc production, extracting more than 100,000 tons each year. Other metals excavated include antimony, iron, and tungsten.

Fail.

andre says:

06:27pm | 29/09/11

Unfortunately for “mother earthers” in Bolivia an all over the world, since the fall there are two laws of thermodynamics in operation. Things are getting worse and worse, energy is running out , so are the resources ,animals are dying. and no legislation or carbon taxing can stop that…