Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
No not at all but when understanding of the mechanism is not there for so many and so much infantile (your words) "science" designed to fuel doubt on climate change as a reality, is being purposley fead into the debate, it is easy to scare people off a percieved increase in living costs, no matter how small.
Cheers
ps don't admit to being lawyer, they will say anything to win an argument  ..100% just joking  |
Yeah that is most likely true all all accounts. Not the first time I have been accused of that with regard to admittance.
Well if they cannot deliver the message properly what hope do they have of implementation? If they cannot explain it all to the people now, instead of just telling us "in the fullness of time" they will explain, how on earth are people going to accept the tax at all. You're right to some extent about infantile science, but it goes both ways here too. Both parties are doing a cracking job on that front. Neither actually seem to have a handle on the climate change issues. Let's not forget that rent resource is still an option if not an extra. It was just stalled, now with old Bob running the Senate that is going to be assured.
The trouble is that the words climate change have been used to mean human inflences here. The climate has changed and been changing since the atmosphere formed around the planet. Human influence makes it a tricky proposition as no one can say 100% or with any degree of certainty that humans are definitely causing the climate to change. That is essentially the problem in the implementation or selling of the idea for the tax. People just don't believe or don't know what to believe is true. However, they do know that raising a tax will influence their life style and income. Especially in light of the fact that this year power, gas, water and food have all lept in price. Not to mention interest rates. All that has a negative impact when Julie is saying it will be good for our economy. I did economics 1A and I cannot see for the life of me how that statement is true. An impost is designed for revenue raising under economic thinking. See she cannot sell the idea either. If I cannot see the reason for the tax and if they cannot sell it to me then why would I just say ok go ahead. It's a dead duck. Might as well go ahead with it, because they are on a sinking ship anyway. At least make it small and put that money directly into putting solar panels or a really large solar generator out in central Australia somewhere.