Monday, 14 March 2011

Questions for Ms Julia Gillard

Letter to the Editors by Leon Ashby- President - The Climate Sceptics.
Unanswered Questions on a carbon tax

The recent broken promise by Julia Gillard on the carbon tax has some great irony and unanswered questions.

It now means Penny Wong has to eat her words of the last four years when she explained many times why a carbon tax wouldn`t work.
But better than that, the PM  needs to explain to us all:
  • Which scientist has shown CO2 is overheating the world;
  • What temperature an Australian CO2 tax will prevent occurring;
  • What temperature the planet will be in the next 10 years when China increases its emissions 600 times what Australia will reduce it`s by;
  • What electricity prices we will have when wind turbines (which produce electricity at 500 % the price) and can only reduce emissions by 3% - (and still not provide baseload power);
  • What financial advantage we get from crippling our economy if we introduce a CO2 tax and the rest of the world doesn`t.
But the biggest question is - Will beer and soft drinks be taxed because of their CO2 content? 
One wonders if the CO2 tax idea could lose its fizz in coming months?

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Editor's note -

Another Question that should be answered:

By how much will your carbon tax cut Global Temperatures?

David Evans has calculated the maximum, most generous possible amount.

Assume the IPCC is right. Assume that Australia would have kept emitting the same proportion of global emissions of CO2 for the next four decades — despite the rapid catch up in emissions-per-capita as the developing world gets cars, frozen foods, and holidays-in-Bali. Then assume somehow, theoretically, we might be able to completely stop emissions of CO2 suddenly (by Tuesday). What’s the most generous possibility of success we could get from massive Australian sacrifice and green action now? Answer: Tops, absolutely as high as it gets, exceeding beyond our wildest expectations — if Australia stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we could save … 15 thousandths of one degree of warming (0.0154 °C) by 2050. Spiffy eh? David has done the number crunching that we’re “sure” the ALP has done many many times as they redirect billions of Australian dollars in search of a world that’s immeasurably (and un-measurably) cooler. — Joanne Nova

Average reduction in Australia’s                              Decrease in the temperature in 2050     
 emissions from now to 2050                                      due to  Australia’s reductions
                   0 %                                                           0.0000 °C
                   5 %                                                           0.0007 °C
                  10 %                                                          0.0015 °C
                  20 %                                                          0.0031 °C
                  50 %                                                          0.0077 °C
                100 %                                                          0.0154 °C

Even if the IPCC are right, it's not worth spending a cent on mitigation.

Goodbye, Kyoto.

The United States didn't sign up to the original Kyoto Protocol. Existing curbs expire in December 2012.
 Japan, Russia and Canada have said they will not agree to an extension as they instead want a new treaty that targets all major emitters. (LINK)  Meanwhile Mr Bob Brown and MS Gillard doesn't want to be left behind and so the Brown/Gillard Government  is going to lead the pack.

Fred Singer has addressed the Kyoto protocol in the American Thinker:
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, after surviving 15 years, mostly spent on life support.  It reached its peak in Bali in 2007 at the annual UN gabfest, had a sudden unexpected collapse in Copenhagen in 2009, and has been in a coma since. 

Kyoto had its real beginning at the 1992 Global Climate Summit in Rio de Janeiro.  I missed that great party but George Bush the elder went and signed up for the United States.  The language of the Global Climate Treaty, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), was vague enough to not be completely objectionable -- although we should have known better than to let the camel's nose enter the tent.  It has prejudiced the subsequent discussion by focusing only on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
As Fred says, this was the protocol that brought us such famous household words like "Hockeystick," "Climategate," "Mike's trick" and "hide the decline."