10% of Australia's Carbon Tax given to the United Nations

Report by the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/FFAC_020108_Beyond_Old_Growth_John_Gordon.pdf

The USA cannot even define what an old growth forest is.

No - it won't be "magic". It will be the fact your country is broke that will stop the carriers plying the world's oceans.

The unemployment, failing infrastructure, and Third World quality education and health in your country will see you all disappear down the plug hole of history. And guess what! No one will miss you.

 

Wow man, your bigotry has separated your touch with reality and led you into the world of delusions.

 

Well done.

That is the way to deal with things when you are shown to be wrong! Just close your eyes and go to your happy place!



When you get back - please tell us more about the USA and its wonderful management of old growth forests. I look forward to it.

 

I didn't say we were perfectly managing our old growth forests. Your claims are that we are not managing them at all, but that is simply not true. We don't have to meet some arbitrary Australian standard.

I admit it. By Australian standards we may not be protecting our old growth timber, but then Australia is under the control of whacked out greens who don't care about anything but hugging trees regardless of economic consequences. I just don't understand why everyone else in the world expects America to do what the world demands it do, as if we aren't a sovereign nation with rights over our own resources.

But exactly how does any of this fold in with America "collapsing" whatever that means.

 

thankyou bowerbird finally someone recognises the problem is not australia but actually the US and especially china. I crunched the figures on our 5% reduction. We produce 3.1% of the worlds emmissions in australia and 5% of that is 0.155%. Is it worth spending 72 billion over 8 years for a reduction so small? Especially on a crazy unproven plan that actually got half trialled in the uk and raped their economy?

I'm concerned that julia feels the need to push for this claiming that its so good and yet china is sitting there pushing our 4% extra of the worlds emmissions every year... yes they increase emissions more every year than australia outputs in one year. So in that 8 years they will pollute the planet 32% more and we will drop pollution 0.155% if we succeed? Is that even meant to sound sane?

I put forward the idea on another forum that if you really wanted to fix our emissions you convert every petrol car to electric for free. Sure it will cost around 30 billion to do it but this could be implemented in two years and would reduce emissions by 21%. We could still make the polluting companies pay for it too. So lets tally my idea up against the politicians. Its 4 times better on reducing emissions, 4 times quicker and under half the price. I'm only a single person with limited experience in politics and i came up with a better idea in less than a week. Our politicians have a lot to answer for.

Even my plan is pointless though as it only reduces emissions 0.62% worldwide and china will raise it 8% in 2 years on there own not to mention the rest of the worlds emission increases.

 

You jumped in with this post about management of old growth forests
http://www.politicalforum.com/4142549-post10.html
A subject you are clearly ignorant about. You opinion is not needed.

It if it was bad enough to display your ignorance about forest management - you jump in again to display your ignorance about general economic theory.

Have a look at your own backyard champ. The money wasted on resource exploitation at home and abroad.

Then come back to us.

Oh dear!!

Who called the Waaaaaaaaaaahmbulance!

Grow up sonny. Learn a bit about the world before posting on international forums.

Are you serious?!?!? Really!?!?!?

 

Develop? If you have a look at most african countries they are actually going backwards. Why would we want to help them 'develop' and start producing more anthroprogenic CO2 when they are steadfastly heading back to clean, green barbarism.

 

Silicon, Australia is still felling old growth forests, clear felling in some areas. We have an appalling record of forest destruction which is still continuing. And you are right, wacked out greenies have far too much sway in this country.

 

Interesting listening to the Canadian foreign minister on the news last night.
Canada has rejected carbon tax and carbon trading in favour of direct action to reduce co2 emissions.

 

You're right on the money. The carbon penalties are simply another layer of taxation, rendering Western manufacturing more uncompetitive in the global scheme. Now any drought or flood around the world (including the ones in Africa induced by Himalayas that drain monsoon winds of their moisture) will be blamed on the West's carbon emissions leading to higher taxes, penalties, obligatory relief/compensation to the Developing nations (through UN taxes), more double standards in emissions controls etc.

 

I came across some old geography textbooks dating back to early 60s, where the author of one would lament about the potential for Africa's development in agriculture and mineral resource extraction, if it just weren't for these useless jungles. I don't know if such attitudes still predominate with regards to land clearing. But if you travel across Appalachians from new York to Virginia, most of the land there is still thickly forested, so I suppose there are some laws in place that ensure eco-sustainability.