They've just done it. Did you know the Australian Prime Minister announced the new carbon tax last week? In fact the TV ad campaign for the new tax started today.


Andrew

PLUS carbon is a needed element that degrades quickly in a way. It is generally HARMLESS! Some people EAT the stuff! JUST YESTERDAY I went to a new vitamin store and one of the products, which I believe was from "NOW", was ACTIVATED CARBON.

Carbon dioxide is relatively harmless. For carbon on the outside of the planet to get to the point where it could even cause us to be sleepy, nearly everything here would be DOOMED! NEVER MIND though because we would probably be long dead because there would have to be so few plants on the planet!

Incandescent lights are made of:
INERT metal such as steel or copper. Just a LITTLE bit! Degrades quickly, is cheap, safe, etc....
TIN. as I recall, INERT.
LEAD. Okay, dangerous, but a very small amount.
Glass. HEY, this is made from a natural element that generally comes from coral! Don't worry though, they generally use it after it has effectively become beach sand, so no creatures were harmed to make it.
Inert gas or a vacuum. Either way, it is SAFE!
LIGHT QUALTY: TRIED AND TRUE

CFL bulbs are made out of:

INERT metal such as steel or copper. FAR MORE than incandescent. It WOULD degrade quickly, if not for:
PLASTIC or CERAMIC. Ceramic may be ok, but slows things down, but PLASTIC!!?!?
TIN. as I recall, INERT.
LEAD. Okay, dangerous, but more than an incandescent
Glass. HEY, this is made from a natural element that generally comes from coral! Don't worry though, they generally use it after it has effectively become beach sand, so no creatures were harmed to make it. BUT....
MERCURY, PHOSPHOROUS, etc.... DANGEROUS
Inert gas or a vacuum. Either way, it is SAFE!
LIGHT QUALITY: POOR

Now, as to the LIE that they last longer? I happen to own a home. Some bulbs are hard to change. Some are close to 20' up. I think there is ONE that is at 10' in one part of one bathroom, the rest are higher up. I have one light that is on almost all the time. Another lights up about 4 hours every day.

I have lived here for only about 12 years! I HAVE tried SEVERAL CFLs! I always buy the ones that say they will last the longest. At the local CVS, they have two GE(IIRC) bulbs that look IDENTICAL! ONE says it lasts 4 years. The other says it would last 6. PLEASE TELL ME how I can get them to come CLOSE to meeting their claims? I even screw them in touching only the base, and never touch the glass. GUESS WHAT!!!!!! Ten years is a LIE! I haven't had a light in that restroom for YEARS, because it isn't really NEEDED. If any light could last a decade, I would DEFINITELY use it!

BTW where I live now it has, for YEARS, been illegal to build a laundry room, or provide certain lighting, without it being FLOURESCENT! At least THOSE bulbs are MADE to be flourescent, so they don't need the ballast that is disposed of with the CFL bulbs.

You see, FLOURESCENT bulbs need a BALLAST to work. So EVERY flourescent fixture has them. INCANDESCENT bulbs DON'T, so none of those fixtures have a ballast! You know that gadget between the screw part of the CFL and the tube? THAT is the BALLAST to convert your incandescent fixture into a flourescent one. Granted, it isn't the dangerous part, but it IS garbage that won't degrade!

This is kind of like the toner cartridges for HP printers. The TONER lasts for maybe 1000-5000 pages. There is the most important part of the printer, the light sensitive drum, and it can last for HUNDREDS of thousands of pages, but HP included IT in that cartirdge. Its cost and complexity and waste go up.

The ballast for a flourescent light could last for DECADES! The most common symtom of "failure" is probably buzzing, though the bulb may simply fail to start. Oh well, when you throw away a CFL, you throw away its ballast ALSO!

Steve

That email isn't even close to being correct.

Eruption Corruption | FactCheck.org

Tim the email was written about the carbon tax debate in Australia, so in the local context the numbers are close to being correct. ie The world's volcanoes probably do emit more CO2 than Australia does.


Andrew

is that really true? Where the source? I have seen so many Mcblogers sprouting B*S* I take it with a pinch of salt. Show us the scientific source for this..

One article i did read alst year kind of brough it all home. Shipping. 99% of ships sailing our oceans emit TONS of CO2. It's a very diry combustion method. No attpemt has been made at all to clean this up. The figures were massive. So whilst we are all getting carbon taxed to death...shipping isn't even being touched.


We should just let it go....let the planet heat up 2 or 3 C over the next couple hundred years. by then oil will run out and things shoud go back over the next 1,000 years or so. No doubt we will have wiped each other off the planet by then any how. Good day.

Which numbers?

Oh for god's sake people...........

If you are still getting your freaking panties in a bunch over carbon - go join a volunteer effort to replant the areas that humans are desertificating. THOSE are the areas that are heating up and used to spike statistics. Warming is localized phenomenon, not global.

There has always been tons of carbon released into the air after a warming spell - the only difference is that we have cleared out all of nature's balancing attributes.

Worry about being inside of the damned 6th major extinction and see what you can do to mitigate the pollution you cause and the land clearing that is going on. It doesn't matter if it gets colder or hotter -- once too much land is cleared, nothing is going to make much of a damned difference.

Get your science from scientists - not politically edited trash.

Kurt - Art? Who the F is Art and why would you assume that is where I get my info? Trying to discredit my sources isn't logical as you have no knowledge of who those sources are - and those sources aren't TV or Internet in MANY cases. I do like a few sources better than others though - one of them is NASA. Do you have a problem with NASA?

Are the Himalaya scientists who got so furious at IPCC for saying their glaciers are in trouble also cranks and idiots?

Second - when earth warms, all planets are warming - are you going to save them, too? The last sun cycle was pretty strong. What were we going to do about it?

Third - Earth is not warming -- check your statistics and sources, yourself before telling me to "deal with it". Who are YOUR sources? Did you check the "scientists" credentials that signed the KAYOTO compact? Those hairdressers and restaurateurs are formidable aren't they?

Fourth - why do you think I was specifically wagging my finger at YOU? This is about you? Okay, whatever.

Fifth - 30,000 scientists disagree with what you are saying. Granted, not all are climatologists, but they are degreed in sciences, not hair dressers. Someone tried to discredit the whole lot of them because a couple died after signing the petition. They knew what they were signing while alive, so dying discredits them? Again - whatever.

Sixth - did you know when they were screaming that Russia was burning due to global warming that just West of that area they were experiencing very normal and pleasant weather and the crops were actually doing very well compared to the previous few years?

Do you realize how many areas are experiencing colder than usual weather right now....because the sun isn't as active as they expected and the tilt of the earth has shifted a little bit? Make sure to check the dates on satellite photos before you presume there's no snow up there. Also, where there are underwater volcanoes going off is not the best example of "global warming". Molten hot lava has a way of heating up the areas that it is spewing into.

Did you know that if you cut the forests at the bottom of a glacier, it will not get the normal amounts of snow whether it is colder or warmer? No snow on a glacier is not indication of warming - it is indication of desertification.

Last -- I am impressed with, and applaud, your efforts to create sustainability. You and I both know things aren't right here -- even though we disagree very broadly on the base issues. I also do what I can to cut my "carbon footprint" in as many ways as possible.

From what I can see, it doesn't matter why people think we are in deep dooky as long as we are all pulling our weight in any way we can to put it all back together.

I don't see giving politicians more money as an effective way to do so. They waste or pocket so much of what they already get, why give em more. Give the money to the scientists to empower them to get the fixes made - no matter what their views on how we got to this point. If they have a good answer - go for it.

heysal,

CAREFUL! That poll that says "fox viewers are stupid" claims it because they say things like what YOU are saying! They figure that they are so smart they know EVERYTHING, figure all must bow to them, and those that don't are simply STUPID!

Ths is NOT to say I disagree with you! I am VERY sensitive to the heat! VERY sensitive! I have avoided parties when others HAPPILY went because it is TOO HOT! People say "nice day", and I think "YEAH RIGHT, FOR YOU!". Ironically, I tend to handle the cold rather well. Anyway, lately it HAS been hot. My A/C is out and, for various reasons, I may not get it fixed until next wednesday. YIKES! OK, it is HOT! I ADMIT IT! My point? I had the SAME problems over 40 YEARS ago! BTW back then, they said we were headed for another ICE AGE!

BTW I fly jets as little as possible, drive little, and car pool. When I am gone from my home, the A/C is off, and the heater only makes sure the temp stays above 55 degrees fahrenheit. I could name some big pro carbon tax people that EACH put out THOUSANDS of times the CO2 I do. And have several homes putting out hundreds of times what mine does. One person made ONE TRIP that put out MUCH MORE than I do in one year, and possibly more than I have in my entire life(taking into account the people that were to be on the trip). And that includes school busses, cars, trains, and jets I have taken.

GRANTED, I took ONE trip once that was the same distance, but it used less than 1/7th the fuel, and transported about 300 times as many people. Hard to believe, but TRUE! The fuel used cost approximately $280,000 per hour(I heard at the time they each used $40,000 per flight hour). Those are based on standard configurations. We probably aren't allowed to know the EXACT details. This means the cost of the fuel, round trip, was approximately $5,600,000. That's a LOT of money to spend on jet fuel! I wonder how much CO2 and CO THAT put out!

There was something called a "joy ride" that even scared new york, and IT cost about $40,000 per hour. I forget how long it flew, but taking into account distance, takeoff, and landing, you can bet it was at LEAST close to an hour. A 30 minute flight requirs the engines to run an average of one hour, to taxi, get to wheels up, "fly"(The time THEY count), and get from wheels down to the gate. So if they tell you a flight will take 30 minutes, it is 1 hour gate to gate.

And those are people that want ME to spend over 10 times as much for a bulb I technically can't legally dispose of, and accept inferior light, so I can reduce my carbon foot print. BTW I probably use about half the power of most people. I USUALLY even wash my own dishes, even though I DO have a nice dishwasher. I USUALLY don't cook. My refrigerator is usually closed.

Steve

Carbon footprints is a controversial issue for those who prefer the status quo, but I think if we can do something we should, regardless of what other factors come into play

BW wthout radiation, everything on this planet would be DEAD! NAH, scratch that! If we never had radiation, life as we know it, ANYWHERE on the planet, would not even have STARTED!

We all wait for this big thing in the sky to make its appearance! We have created TIME based on it. Many used to WORSHIP it! Some still may! There have been HORROR stories about it having some problem. The day is timed based on it! Benjamin franklin didn't think we followed it close enough, so he supported changing our time TWICE every year!

WHY? WHY? WHY?????????????? One word! RADIATION! OH, it may only put out two wavelengths of radiation the average creature depends upon, but they are important. So WHO KNOWS?

Saying that radiation is bad is like saying damage is good.

Just yesterday I watched a video about the shattered glass fallacy. A hoodlum broke a window, in a baker's shop, and people mused about it. ONE said it would HELP the economy, since the baker would now have to get t fixed, and would have to pay a glaser, etc... I'm SHOCKED they didnt talk about how the policeman could get the report and chase down the crook, possibly get injured, and go to the hospital for stitches and they might find cancer and put him in for chemo, etc... BAM, MILLIONS of dollars could pass hands!

Anyway, the baker came by, said they were crazy. He said "I WAS going to buy a new suit and put THESE people to work, but NOW I will pay and end up no better off". And the whole story assumes the baker has the money, is stingy, and the glaser needs the money. We DON'T need money exchanged! We need the ECONOMY to improve. Oh SURE, they LOOK the same! The economy usually moves money. But people can move ahead. There can be peace. All needed businesses are supported on a constant basis. With a riot or a war, there is NO peace, people can lose everything, plans must be stopped, and it only supports businesses which generally AREN'T needed.

And YEAH, I know, MAYBE you meant nuclear radiation. MAYBE he said that. But HEY, some have done this with ME, SO....

Steve

Even though the debate here is highly controversial, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the carbon tax is more scam than legit. Why? Because our retard*d Government is pushing something that we don't want - and they pushed it so hard that they got it. We didn't want it, but they made us get it.

As if putting a carbon tax on Australia is actually going to achieve any type of significant result globally.

Want to introduce a carbon tax? Introduce it for all countries then, not just a select few. Beginning with China would be a great option (if it was absolutely essential to introduce the carbon tax).

There is no doubt that our current Prime Minister is unfit to serve the position that she has wrongly obtained.

So much for "global warming"... yeah, the world is "cooling". How are we meant to pin "carbon" on that.

Maybe if the powers that be were not so fixed on their profits, we wouldn't even have a problem with carbon, or a problem with relying on oil. There have been, not many, but have been, discoveries where alternate fuels could be used. Yes, water does come to mind. But then we'll get the "you can't defy the laws of Physics" people coming out of their holes not realising that the "laws" of Physics are not being broken. If there was not such a greed for money, and willingness to supress technology and advancement, I don't think we'd have an issue.

Let's hope that whatever is coming in 2012 sets the world straight.