Carbon Price from 2012 - FUEL RELATED

[SB076]

I can undertand peole wanting to improve the enviroment and I am all for that (although I am no greenie) However a carbn tax simply willl not reduce carbon

The carbon tax isnt going to shut down our coal power plants, it may force companies like Alcoa to move offshore, but the emissions will remain they will simply move them to another country. If Australians reduce their power ususage by 20% that still isnt enough (I presume) to shut down any of our power plants.

I suggest people think about who will be affected, farmers will be affected (higher running costs due to power, transport etc) as will manufacturers. Some of our farmers have endured 10 years of drought and have now been flooded, our manufacturers have just endured the GFC and a high aussie dolar. Neither of these two industries need any more additional costs imposed on them.

If the government wants to improve the enviroment, you have to ask what plans have they made to replace our coal fired power stations? Most of our emissions are out of general populations hands, so why tax them? Yes we all contribute, but look at the reasons why, what options do we have?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by gunner

I could be wrong but from memory I think the aim is to keep atmosphere CO2 levels below 400 ppm (parts per million). This will give us a 50% chance of keeping temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius.

Current CO2 levels are 391 ppm. Source: http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

Thanks for your efforts in researching CO2, however there doesn't seem to be an answer regarding "what is the correct level".

It has repeatedly be stated/inferred that this tax will reduce CO2 pollution/levels, so what reduction to CO2 ppm, will this tax make to the CO2 levels?

[gunner]

Originally Posted by cheap

Thanks for your efforts in researching CO2, however there doesn't seem to be an answer regarding "what is the correct level".

It has repeatedly be stated/inferred that this tax will reduce CO2 pollution/levels, so what reduction to CO2 ppm, will this tax make to the CO2 levels?

That's because there is no "correct level".

The higher the CO2 level the greater the temperature increase. Some would argue that reducing the CO2 to pre-industrial levels is the correct level however I would say that somewhere near the current levels is the "correct level" as it will minimise temperature increases while maintaining current economic activity.

I think this idea of a "correct level" is purely subjective.

As for reducing CO2 the general idea is that if you make something more expensive people / business / government will look for alternatives that are cheaper. For example if petrol was 20c/L hybrid and diesel passenger cars would not exist. There's no incentive to reduce fuel consumption. (That's a simplistic example but I'll leave it at that.)

[GOLDIE]

none it cant there is no technology out there yet that will.

co2 is a natural thing so it cant be done.

Remeber in primary school we were told about trees and plants they suck in co2 during the day and emit of a night.

Well does that mean to help the planet i can chop down some more trees goody where is my dozer.

Ian

[melbzetec]

Ummm Goldie, sorry mate, I don't know what primary school you went to, but trees do NOT emit CO2 at night. Or during the day.

They absorb CO2, and emit OXYGEN.

Unless it's different in Queensland

Oh dear.

[GOLDIE]

melbzetec i believe you need to go to school again sorry here is your answer.

Yes they do during darkness and when dormant.
Deciduous trees give off O2 (Oxygen) while in the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis can only occur during daylight periods and when the tree is not dormant. During the trees dormancy and at night, trees breath in O2 and breath out CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

Since the average of light and darkness is equal regardless of where on the Earth you live and that trees are dormant approximately half of the season, trees end up to be nearly zero sum game.
The largest producer of oxygen is in the oceans where algae is the world's largest oxygen producer.

Despite common knowledge, trees are not significant oxygen producers. They are nearly as likely to give off CO2 than O2.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_trees_g...#ixzz1FPxi0SSh

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

melbzetec i believe you need to go to school again sorry here is your answer.

Yes they do during darkness and when dormant.
Deciduous trees give off O2 (Oxygen) while in the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis can only occur during daylight periods and when the tree is not dormant. During the trees dormancy and at night, trees breath in O2 and breath out CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

Since the average of light and darkness is equal regardless of where on the Earth you live and that trees are dormant approximately half of the season, trees end up to be nearly zero sum game.
The largest producer of oxygen is in the oceans where algae is the world's largest oxygen producer.

Despite common knowledge, trees are not significant oxygen producers. They are nearly as likely to give off CO2 than O2.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_trees_g...#ixzz1FPxi0SSh

So then it doesn't really matter if we logged all of the worlds forests than?

[GOLDIE]

as far as co2 yes that would appear right but we do need them for clean oxygen as they filter it and other things too.

Same as grass there is some info that says some grasses add carbon to soils so we should plant more grass.

Ian

[melbzetec]

Thanks Ian (Goldie)

A cut and paste job from Wiki.answers is hardly a great source, given it is anonymous answer from one person (Has as much veracity as " a bloke down the street says"). Not everything your read on the internet is true Goldie

Yes dormant and deciduous trees will give off CO2, predominantly through dying and decaying leaves and branches.

But you conveniently only talk of deciduous plants (most plants aren't) , and conveniently ignore the production of oxygen in your original bald statement that "they suck in co2 during the day and emit of a night."

Your original statement suggests that CO2 just flows into trees during the day and flows back out of trees at night, and nothing else happens. That is just wrong.

You conveniently ignore photosynthesis and the production of oxygen altogether. (which is what you would have learnt at primary school)

The truth is far more complicated that can be discussed here.

But the very fact that photosynthesis (during daylight) coverts some CO2 into oxygen, means that a plant cannot possibly release as much CO2 than it absorbs which is what you were suggesting (or at least the quote you lifted verbatim from the bloke at Wiki.answers suggests)


To answer your PM, I'm 53, university educated (in economics) at Monash University, and have an IQ measured to be in the top 0.5% of the population. I'll ignore the rest of the PM

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

So then it doesn't really matter if we logged all of the worlds forests than?

Well it sort of depends what you do with the land and the timber. If the timber is stored as paper, wood in buildings, its taking co2 out of circulation, and if the process is continued by growing trees on the cleared land then the process could continue adfinitum and this would basically be the only way known to get the excess carbon out of the atmosphere.

But if the trees are turned into paper that eventually makes its way into landfill and or burnt then there is a net gain in co2 in the atmosphere, unless of course the forests are continually regrow at the rate they are cleared.

in response to the threads above, there is a equal flow of oxygen and co2 from plant life to the atmosphere.(please dont confuse this with the actual amount of co2 and O2 in the atmosphere)

But some will say they have to provide more oxygen than co2 to fuel living species that suck up only oxygen?
No living things have to consume plant matter or eat other things that do to survive, we are only burning the amount of oxygen that the plant we are eating produced by photosynthesis in the first place.

[melbzetec]

Originally Posted by GOLDIE

as far as co2 yes that would appear right but we do need them for clean oxygen as they filter it and other things too.

Same as grass there is some info that says some grasses add carbon to soils so we should plant more grass.

Ian

Oh this is getting scary

Sorry Ian, plants just don't filter oxygen, they release it via photosynthesis

Photosynthesis converts the CO2 into Carbon C (which is stored in the tree as it grows) and releases oxygen O2.

In your theory, no carbon is absorbed by the tree at all.

Just puffs CO2 in and out.

Given a tree is roughly 40% carbon, where does that carbon magically come from?

Mate, the fact that you believe that cutting down all the forests will have no effect on carbon absorption is scary. And the fact that other young blokes on here believe it, is frightening.

Yes, the truth is that oxygen and carbon dioxide are not created or destroyed. They remain constant. But how they are stored or released is the question.

I'd suggest nobody on here believe Goldie OR me.

Go and research it yourself.

But an answer from Wiki.answers is next to useless as a source as it is the unedited opinion of one person

[olfella]

[QUOTE=sudszy]Assuming you are saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas? Very puzzling, how did you arrive at your conclusion, basically its not a point under dispute from any scientist.[QUOTE]

Well, I think it is in dispute. What ever happened to photosynthesis. Was it not the greens that stopped us cutting down trees and suggesting that we plant more - for this reason? Carbon is like water. When GOD made the earth he/she made a certain amount of water and a certain amount of carbon. Man cannot add to it. All we do is redistribute in some way.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by olfella
If this tax is bought in, who is going to pay for all the carbon following a bush fire?
Sudszy - As I understand it the carbon tax is only payable for releasing extra carbon back into the biosphere , ie burning fossil fuels that were beneath the surface of the earth. [QUOTE]

Carbon is carbon - can't change that.

Do you really think any rational government would institute a carbon tax as a way of raising revenue when it is so obviously unpopular with a lot of people, if they need more revenue they can basically get it anyway they like, raise income tax, double camera fines, whatever.

Yep - A lot more bucks involved here. They did it with fags, grog... They could incerease the GST, but that would be a bigger stink than this one. This is just a grap for cash. They dipped out on the Mining Tax but still continue to spend like drunken sailors - so got to get it from somewhere.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

So then it doesn't really matter if we logged all of the worlds forests than?

it does because trees and forests are the habitat of many animals

also if you take the old deep rooted trees and replace them with trees that have shallow roots, there is a much greater chance of mud slides when it rains heavily

[GOLDIE]

so melbzetec the fact is they do realise into the air of a night you even sat that i never said they all did like you said none did.
I also never said to cut it all down read my post so much for your iq.
I dont care if you have i high iq that does not make an expert in anything.

ecomomics is just that not enviroment and as i have stated besides being a mechanic for over 30 years i have been brought up and still am involved in farming all my life so i may know more than you in this area but being as i have never been tested for my iq or gone to uni that would mean i have know idea.
I suggest you get out from your a/c office and live in the real world.


Ian

[GOLDIE]

Tryy thid melbzetec. Dear Laska,

There was a badly-reported story on this in the press a little while ago, and unfortunately this myth was the result. All normal plants, in the process of photosynthesis, take up carbon dioxide by day and release oxygen. This switches over in the dark, and they then produce carbon dioxide through respiration in the same way as animals. While they are growing, they take up more carbon dioxide overall than they give out, which gets turned into plant tissues (especially cellulose and, in the case of trees, lignin).

When a plant reaches full size, the difference between the carbon it takes up by day and emits by night drops. Trees still take up more carbon than they give off, because they continually produce leaves, repair tissues, increase their root network and add to their trunks. A lot of this carbon ends up back in the air though – when leaves and branches fall and rot, the carbon is simply released again. The forest as a whole can be approximately in balance, or can even lose carbon due to other processes (which is where the bad science reporting comes in).

There may be some occasions when a tree raises its respiration rate above photosynthesis – this might occur when producing lots of flowers or leaves, fighting a pathogen or creating chemical defences. This will, however, only be a short-term effect. Also, many deciduous trees in Europe rot in the middle of their trunk – you may see some old British oaks like this. It’s usually not harmful to the tree, but it does mean that they ‘give off’ carbon dioxide, albeit not because the tree intends to! When the tree is dying the same will happen.

So in answer to your question – overall no, large trees don’t give off more carbon dioxide than they take up, but the difference might only be very small.

Last edited by Markus Eichhorn (20th Feb 2007 09:29:06)

[melbzetec]

Ian, we don't need personal abuse.

You asked me my age and education level in the arrogant and insulting PM you sent me.

I was simply answering your question

[Romulus]

Padlock time I think. If those that support a carbon levy/tax/ETS pay my and my families contribution I'll happily jump on board.

[SpoolMan]

Dam I was enjoying baby sitting this thread...