I would say that the hottest topic of 2011 is Carbon Tax by far. Whether or not global warming a.k.a climate change caused by human or not, it’s no longer relevant. Carbon Tax is just unnecessary sacrifice with massive consequences for no real purpose. Or is it ?
Science is Not DemocracyLet us start with this: it doesn’t matter if 2500, 10000 or even 1 million scientists agree on something, it just doesn’t mean what they agree is the truth. Just need 1 other scientist to prove it otherwise, and the one without open mind will learn it the hard way. Science is not democracy, the fact that you have higher number it doesn’t make it right.
Why? This is, in my opinion, because human knowledge is not at maturity as yet: we don’t even understand our own DNA completely, we still cannot travel near speed light, we still cannot cancel or create a storm, etc…
As we learn or invent something new, the old one become obsolete. History has proven this time and time again.
Remember Galileo Galilei – the telescope inventor? On his time, almost all existing scientist say that earth is flat and sun is circling earth. Now we know it for sure now that that was incorrect, but you may ask Galileo. He got the torture and pain to say it, that time. Even get banned and ex-communicated by Catholic Church. Only at 1992, the church apologize to him – more than 300 years late.
Remember pesticide called DDT? It was banned around 1972 because scientist say it caused cancers and danger to environment. And because of that, millions of people die for Malaria as before the ban, it was used to control the mosquito. And of course after learning it the hard way, it was then “un-banned”
About the Global Warming/Climate Change itselfSo Al-Gore and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) won the Nobel Peach Prize on 2007 for their work in climate change. Since then, his “Inconvenient Truth” flagship movie have been proven to be massive exaggeration, false data being used and most of the claims are proven to be untrue.
Put it this way: so someone is challenging a UN body and nobel prize winner, do you think if they don’t have a solid prove, they will go ahead? Of course, no. Why put name, reputation, money and everything else for something that has been declared winner? If they have only even half the evidence, do you think they just want to risk it all just for the sake to dispute it? Of course no…
CO2 giving a green house effect and produce some warming is known fact, but how much it will endanger the planet and whether caused by human is totally different question.
If you want to know first hand, bring yourself to the presentation from Lord Christopher Monckton and team. Visit Galileo Movement , ask them when is the next one and see it yourself whether it is just a BS or not.
My gut feeling telling me, the real truth will be somewhere in the middle. For the purpose of this Carbon Tax article, let us say that this matter is still need to be debated and investigated further and let me refresh some factors that make Carbon Tax just unnecessary sacrifice with massive consequences for no real purpose.
At present moment, Gillard government plans “Carbon Tax” as a fixed price that has to be paid by 500 top pollutant company for every ton of CO2 that they produce. Then in 3 years the price will be floated to the market as traded commodity. Knowing that the increased cost experience by those companies will be passed to the customer in domino price change that at the end have to be paid by every household, included in the tax is a compensation compensation money for 9 out 10 household in price to offset the increase of the price.
Just by this fact alone, we can see it is meaningless tax. By their own words: this tax is to hurt pollutant for them to change the behavior and favor the renewable energy. But if the consumer is compensated for the increased price (meaning they still buying from the polluter), then there will be no effect on the company , just business as usual. And the whole excercise is just money merry go round with huge admin cost.
Global Market makes Carbon Tax Causing Job Loss
Say ABC company traded in Australia, company XYZ traded in Brasil and they are both producing the same product i.e: they are competitor. Since Australia have carbon tax, the price of ABC company’s product will be higher than XYZ company – this is given. So, if this happen, ABC will lose market share, as their customer in China or India will prefer the cheaper prices. And at the end it’s about survival, ABC company will then just move its operation to say Malaysia or Indonesia to maintain their competitiveness in long run. This means: job loss in local market is imminent.Not sure how come government overlooked this. Government said that carbon tax will bring more job (as renewable energy sector will rise) ! That is totally absurd conclusion – try telling that to a miner that has 20 years experience digging iron core or coal in a mine, sure they can apply as solar panel technician, can’t they ?
How about local company? As the tax will eat the profit away, companies will grow slower, less staff will be hired, more company will go bankrupt, and at the end Australian economy will grind to halt.
What the Purpose?
And after all the fuss and problem, I still cannot see what is the purpose of this tax ?
If it were to save the earth, why all other nations is just laugh at Australia ? Australia just a small population. At about 20 millions mark population – the whole Australia population is just the size of Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. Even if all the activity stop and all Australian get extincted (i.e: all die), the effect of Global Carbon Dioxide amount will be very miniscule.
Is it just for warm and fuzzy feeling that Australia is the leader in Global Warming effort ? – such a childish purpose then…. How about if it is not warming as it claimed? It became leading embarrassment rather than anything else.
Remember a direct statement from Julia Gillard before the election “There will be no carbon tax on government I lead“? I kind of believe in what she said, she meant it. Unfortunately, as the election result is not up to her expectation and she has to negotiate with Greens (which is not really “green”) and independent senators to form minority government , she is the one take all the blame of all this fuss to maintain her power as PM – as the hard-left intention fuel its ambition.
With so much resistance at all level, I would think that it is in the interest of Government to know exactly what the Australian really want. Please respect us that we are not just dummy and idiot. We can see and look trough whether it’s good or not. If election is too much, then a referendum or plebiscite is not that bad really…. let us find out whether the nation is really want to sacrifice the wealth to be the “leader” in climate change.
In the meantime, REJECT THE CARBON TAX !
and more on the web