The Gillard government tells us that the carbon tax is good for the environment, therefore it’s the right thing to do.
Maybe they should tell us exactly how good it will be, what it will achieve, and what all this “goodness” is going to cost.
End of March Tim Flannery (our Climate Commissioner) was asked by a journalist: “On our own, cutting our emissions by five per cent by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by ?”
His response: “See, that’s a bogus question because nothing is in isolation…”
When pressed, he responds by saying , it will be “a very, very small increment”.
Ross Garnaut, the government’s chief climate advisor (an economist), was asked a similar question, and also sidestepped the answer.
These guys are salesmen for the government’s carbon dioxide tax, any salesman should be able to tell you how much and what their product will achieve.
This carbon dioxide tax is going to cost billions (how many hundreds of billions of dollars, they can’t/won’t tell), and what will it achieve?
They (the salesmen and government) either do not know, or they do know, but they don’t want to tell us.
Cutting Australia`s emissions will achieve a drop of around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree, and cutting the world’s emissions will achieve a drop of less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree. All this “goodness” to the environment, one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree, at an astronomical cost. No wonder the Flannery & Garnaut et al doesn’t want to tell you.
Now all this is still assuming the IPCC (and IPCC modelling) is correct in putting most of the blame on carbon dioxide for all this global warming. With little factoring in things like water vapour in the air, cloud cover/cosmic rays etc.
More and more scientists (not from the IPCC) tell us climate change is very complex, and that “human-caused global warming” – often called the “global warming” – hypothesis (IPCC) depends entirely upon computer model-generated scenarios of the future, with no empirical records that verify these models or their flawed predictions… but that’s for another day.
Werner Smith,
Warwick
