It's getting hot in here, so hot, so take off all your clothes...

Is it getting hot in here? Apparently not, if the people of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia are to be believed. And they probably should be believed since they're the people that have data from all over the world and have provided the majority of the data for the findings of the IPCC report.

Anyway, whether or not it's getting hotter is actually completely irrelevant to this particular post. However, I will outlay my own feelings, just so there's no misunderstanding.

I don't believe in anthroprogenic climate change.

The earth maybe warming. The earth maybe cooling. Both these things have happened many many times before. What's the difference? How can you believe computer models that can't even replicate what's happened in the past let alone look into the future? How can you ignore the role of sun spots, the fact that many measuring stations are now in built up areas, that changes to CO2 levels seem to historically occur AFTER major climate events, or the fact that the Mediaeval Warm Period was far warmer than current global temperatures?

Anyway.

My question for today is: Why do we need an Emissions Trading Scheme?

I do understand the basic idea, that the market will decide the price of carbon and by limiting the amount of the CO2 produced we get to utilise the benefits of the free market (possibly the only time many greenies would ever be interested in the benefits OF a free market). However, for me, the big problem is that any such scheme is impossible to administer without massive bureacracy and the invasion of government into many aspects of personal and business life, aspects that the government doesn't really need to be involved in.

Surely there is a simpler way?

If Australia wants to reduce the emissions of CO2, let's just whack a tax on all those things that produce it, or at least the main ones. A whacking big tax on coal and oil, basically. For good measure we could ban the export of coal as well, a good way to do our bit to cut global emissions. This will let the market decide the value of CO2, but it will be done in a much simpler, much cheaper way. If you burn coal, you pay more for it (do powerstations even pay for the coal they use at the moment?). You then pass on your costs to your customers, who will presumably use a bit less. Your customers then pass on their costs, and so on. Such a chain reduces overall use while not requiring any invasion of bureacracy, except into the start of the chain where you need to do the taxing.

For me, one of the big issues is this. If I truly believed (TRULY BELIEVED) that humans were causing the globe to warm and as a result everybody would die in fire and brimstone, I would be doing something about it. Not something like telling people to use 1 sheet of toilet paper or setting up some half arsed ETS that will have zero impact on global emissions, but will have the benefit of increasing govt (and therefore politican's) power and reach.

No I would be acting drastically to actually have a real and meaningful impact on emissions. Such a policy might be electorally unpopular, but if you can sell it as a life and death mission that you really believe in than it is not only possible, but mandatory to try.

What really gets me are those people who are fixated on climate change, but don't REALLY believe in it, they just use it as a way to exercise their own little hobby horse. Lots of greenies just believe that we should be leading simpler lives, growing our own food, recycling more, living in harmony with mother earth. Lots of other lefties just believe that they know better (symptomatic of their kind really) and this is a great excuse for telling people what to do. Not that they lead by example, (of course) but they're quite happy to tell you to have a short shower or not eat meat or not take holidays or not buy a new TV.

Hypocrisy people! I'm afraid I can't take hypocrites very seriously. If you tell me that global warming is the greatest threat to mankind in history and you arrived on a private jet to tell me that then I automaticall regard your opinion as being null and void. Don't like it? Don't be a hypocrite!

ps I'm not the biggest supporter of the Greens, but at least they put their money where their mouth is. They voted to defeat the ETS last time because it wasn't strong enough. The wishy-washy compromise hammered out by Gillard and MacFarlane is a steaming dog turd and the Greens are right to vote against that as well.