This is a presentation (see article attachment) from the Climate Sceptics of Australia and provides some thought provoking arguements against the climate change promoters. I think everyone believes that we should reduce our emissions, but at what cost. The ETS is a lose/lose situation for agricultural businesses. We have already enabled Australia to achieve Kyoto targets via the native vegetation laws. I fear we will be left holding the can for Copenhagan targets as well.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| The madness of ETS [Compatibility Mode] Website version.pdf | 516.66 KB |
Search
All Headlines - Agricultural News
- AD: Affordable news and content feeds from FeedSyndicate
- Monday's stocks miss earlier highs, but up sharply into closing bell
- Yao Ming hopes for a slam dunk with his new wine
- Cost of the gifts in "12 Days of Christmas" now top $100,000
- Syracuse University assistant basketball coach fired over child molestation accusations
Comments
What is the cost of doing nothing ??? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)put the cost of abatement at somewhere between 1- 4% of World GDP per annum which equals 600 billion to 2.4 trillion US Dollars. They also suggest that if warming goes beyond 3 degrees C that the cost to the economy will be approximatly 20% of global GDP or $12,000,000,000,000 . Who Should pay ???? The consumers or the producers ? The Western world has been the main culprit at producing CO2 and has reaped the benifits in the form of Luxury goods, cheap electricity and so on. Making CO2 more expensive GLOBALY is the only way to curb emissions. Pete, please tell me how we do this without some form of tax, ETS or cap and Trade system?? We could restrict the supply of Coal therefore increase its price??? OH yeh, tell that bloke from Climate sceptics to stick his head in a bag for three minutes and then tell you that CO2 is odourless, colourless and non toxic. Regards, Rod Grant