Reducing waste

dogbox · Guru

RE: Reducing waste

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dogbox wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

So why did you post it Dogbox?

why did you respond to the article ? if the thoughts expressed offend you "sorry" but it is what it is, someone else's point of view

Why did you post it?

Wanda · Guru

Too stir the pot
Ian

TheHeaths · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Buzz,

On a recently closed thread about a comment the Prime Minister made, in response to a post I made, you commented to the effect of people being allowed to hold views, as long as they didnt ram them down others throats. I had planned to reply but that thread had already been closed.

Perhaps you should consider your comment when you post, especially about your concerns re climate change and waste.

Not everyone is going to agree with you, and your comments re their views being rubbish is no better than your comments about how you feel attacked when your posts are called rubbish.

I suggest treating others how you want them to respond to you.

PS. l certainly dont see Morrison using his Christian beliefs often at all in comments. I would struggle to put it above one or two percent of his appearances.

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Thursday 28th of April 2022 01:47:56 PM
As I have started multiple times. One can disagree with the content but one should not insult the person. I beloved that I have not insulted Dogbox I've just have an opinion on the content of Dogbox's post. There's a difference.

I expect people to have differing opinions and my express those opinions without insults. I beloved I have drive that in the case of Dogbox's post.

Unfortunately I think many of your posts do in fact insult people, by calling their posts rubbish, questioning if you really want to discuss things with Greynomads due to their negative views, and such posts. That plays directly to questioning their opinions, and by extension, their worth.

I also see a great deal of irony in some things you find annoying, yet do yourself with your posting about climate change.

Perhaps toning down your posts about this, now your position is well known, may remove some of your frustration and angst about the positions of others.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

TheHeaths wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Buzz,

On a recently closed thread about a comment the Prime Minister made, in response to a post I made, you commented to the effect of people being allowed to hold views, as long as they didnt ram them down others throats. I had planned to reply but that thread had already been closed.

Perhaps you should consider your comment when you post, especially about your concerns re climate change and waste.

Not everyone is going to agree with you, and your comments re their views being rubbish is no better than your comments about how you feel attacked when your posts are called rubbish.

I suggest treating others how you want them to respond to you.

PS. l certainly dont see Morrison using his Christian beliefs often at all in comments. I would struggle to put it above one or two percent of his appearances.

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Thursday 28th of April 2022 01:47:56 PM
As I have started multiple times. One can disagree with the content but one should not insult the person. I beloved that I have not insulted Dogbox I've just have an opinion on the content of Dogbox's post. There's a difference.

I expect people to have differing opinions and my express those opinions without insults. I beloved I have drive that in the case of Dogbox's post.

Unfortunately I think many of your posts do in fact insult people, by calling their posts rubbish, questioning if you really want to discuss things with Greynomads due to their negative views, and such posts. That plays directly to questioning their opinions, and by extension, their worth.
I also see a great deal of irony in some things you find annoying, yet do yourself with your posting about climate change.

Perhaps toning down your posts about this, now your position is well known, may remove some of your frustration and angst about the positions of others.

I have refrained from posting climate change articles however, others seem to like switching off topic and mentioning it, so I respond. It is the single most important issue affecting the planet, in my opinion.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Wanda wrote:
Too stir the pot
Ian

I think you might be right. Dogbox has posted an obvious climate denier's article that is off topic, but then denies being a climate denier. So why post post it? Without an explanation, the only purpose I can see is to "stir the pot".

I've noticed this trend by a handful of people. The topic is switched to climate change, usually not by me, but then I respond and the topic is then closed. Is that the intention? I don't know.

There are a handful of people who do "stir the pot". I've been notified by PMs (that's Personal Messages not Prime Minister's) suggesting a list of people who should be banned and asking me to continue posting my topics. Maybe I should just keep posting topics in the hope that the 'stirrers' give up?

dogbox · Guru

Wanda wrote:

Too stir the pot

Ian

could you please explain " TO STIR THE POT " . Is not climate change /global warming all tied up with how we deal with our rubbish , our need for power , the clearing of trees to feed us , our constant need for bigger better and more consumer goods ect,ect and most of all our uncontrolled population growth . those people who demand that we act decisively NOW to save the planet do not have the support of the majority when they disrupt their comfortable lives by their actions even if we may agree with them in principle , we already think we are doing our bit by sorting our rubbish . the children of today are being educated to respect our world but they still demand all the perks of their privledged life styles

if we are going to change anything we have something to replace it with and it should be better ,cheaper and easier

-- Edited by dogbox on Saturday 30th of April 2022 07:34:14 PM

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dogbox wrote:
Wanda wrote:

Too stir the pot

Ian

could you please explain " TO STIR THE POT " . Is not climate change /global warming all tied up with how we deal with our rubbish , our need for power , the clearing of trees to feed us , our constant need for bigger better and more consumer goods ect,ect and most of all our uncontrolled population growth . those people who demand that we act decisively NOW to save the planet do not have the support of the majority when they disrupt their comfortable lives by their actions even if we may agree with them in principle , we already think we are doing our bit by sorting our rubbish . the children of today are being educated to respect our world but they still demand all the perks of their privledged life styles

if we are going to change anything we have something to replace it with and it should be better ,cheaper and easier

-- Edited by dogbox on Saturday 30th of April 2022 07:34:14 PM

The thing that mostly affects climate change is the release of CO2, and equivalent gases, into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. We must stop those emissions.

Consumption by the population is a major issue not the population itself. If we lived like the average African then the world could support 8, 9 or 10 billion but if we live like Australians and United Statesmen then the world can only support a few billion. We must reduce consumption OR the population.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 3rd of May 2022 09:35:44 AM

KevinJ · Senior Member

I'll do my bit by only exhaling every second breath.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

KevinJ wrote:
I'll do my bit by only exhaling every second breath.

Won't that make you look fat?

KevinJ · Senior Member

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
KevinJ wrote:
I'll do my bit by only exhaling every second breath.
Won't that make you look fat?

biggrin

dogbox · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

dogbox wrote:
Wanda wrote:

Too stir the pot

Ian

could you please explain " TO STIR THE POT " . Is not climate change /global warming all tied up with how we deal with our rubbish , our need for power , the clearing of trees to feed us , our constant need for bigger better and more consumer goods ect,ect and most of all our uncontrolled population growth . those people who demand that we act decisively NOW to save the planet do not have the support of the majority when they disrupt their comfortable lives by their actions even if we may agree with them in principle , we already think we are doing our bit by sorting our rubbish . the children of today are being educated to respect our world but they still demand all the perks of their privledged life styles

if we are going to change anything we have something to replace it with and it should be better ,cheaper and easier

-- Edited by dogbox on Saturday 30th of April 2022 07:34:14 PM
The thing that mostly affects climate change is the release of CO2, and equivalent gases, into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. We must stop those emissions.

Consumption by the population is a major issue not the population itself. If we lived like the average African then the world could support 8, 9 or 10 billion but if we live like Australians and United Statesmen then the world can only support a few billion. We must reduce consumption OR the population.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 3rd of May 2022 09:35:44 AM

would you live like a average African ? not that i would know what the average African lives like, been there a few times as a tourist so what i seen was mostly the high end of town .
consumerism is a direct result of population more people more resources required . back when we lived in tribal settings if the population of the tribe became excessive it would split , when the resources of an area became depleted the tribe moved on, when there was to many tribes competing for the resources of an area they would go to war add natural disasters ,diseases, famine, kept the population under control to some extent . average life span 20-30 years maybe. we are getting better at living longer

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dogbox wrote:

would you live like a average African ?

No I would not bit I have cut down on my consumption in the last 25 years and especially the recent teen years.

We can all do our little bit.

Now that I've answered your questions could you please answer my one question that I've asked if you multiple times?

dogbox · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

dogbox wrote:

would you live like a average African ?
No I would not bit I have cut down on my consumption in the last 25 years and especially the recent teen years.

We can all do our little bit.

Now that I've answered your questions could you please answer my one question that I've asked if you multiple times?

if your on about why did i post , well i think all these thing that you express an interest in, are related and interconnected the person whose post i copied and posted seem to have a different attitude to yours if i support something i like to see what the other options are
the people who hang from bridges , glue them selves to roads tie themselves to trains ect ect are in the extreme, an cause a lot of inconvenience to the masses do you think these people that have been inconvenienced are going to cheer them on. same as unions that go on strike an inconvenience the public they get no sympathy even if they have exhausted all other avenues .
people like to be lead not pushed

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162

dorian · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162

I don't remember contributing anything to the carbon tax, but that idea was rejected, even though it primarily affected the corporate emitters. Why should individuals now be asked to shoulder the burden? Is this another plan to transfer more of the tax burden to the PAYE tax payer? How is it proposed that we should pay? I'm against any additional personal impost because it will only end up in general revenue.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162
I don't remember contributing anything to the carbon tax, but that idea was rejected, even though it primarily affected the corporate emitters. Why should individuals now be asked to shoulder the burden? Is this another plan to transfer more of the tax burden to the PAYE tax payer? How is it proposed that we should pay? I'm against any additional personal impost because it will only end up in general revenue.

The question was "How much more would you personally be willing to spend each year to help prevent climate change?" so the majority of people would be willing to voluntarily pay between $100 to $500.

Dorian,

You don't have to pay it of you don't want to but the majority of people surveyed would pay it.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 7th of May 2022 03:53:17 PM

dorian · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

The question was "How much more would you personally be willing to spend each year to help prevent climate change?" so the majority of people would be willing to voluntarily pay between $100 to $500.

Dorian,
You don't have to pay it of you don't want to but the majority of people surveyed would pay it.

My point was that we already had a carbon tax, but that was rejected. Why not just reintroduce it and then no individuals will need to pay anything, at least not directly?

It seems ridiculous that people weren't prepared to accept the former, yet are now prepared to reach into their own pockets. I don't get it.

As for your claim that "the majority of people would be willing to voluntarily pay between $100 to $500", that's not actually what the survey is saying. (A greater number of people would actually be willing to pay more than that.)

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

The question was "How much more would you personally be willing to spend each year to help prevent climate change?" so the majority of people would be willing to voluntarily pay between $100 to $500.

Dorian,
You don't have to pay it of you don't want to but the majority of people surveyed would pay it.
My point was that we already had a carbon tax, but that was rejected. Why not just reintroduce it and then no individuals will need to pay anything, at least not directly?
It seems ridiculous that people weren't prepared to accept the former, yet are now prepared to reach into their own pockets. I don't get it.
As for your claim that "the majority of people would be willing to voluntarily pay between $100 to $500", that's not actually what the survey is saying. (A greater number of people would actually be willing to pay more than that.)

The trouble was that the liberal national party repealed the carbon tax and that made it a political no no.

I can't get the Vote Compass details to add up the numbers. I was just going by the total percentages in the article:

$100 to $500 - 93%

$500 to $1000 - 79%

> $2000 - 67%

Less at extremities.

yobarr · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162

So it is claimed that the majority of people would willingly pay up to $500/year in an effort to fix a natural event that can never be "fixed" by humans? Talk about sucked-in! Personally I know of NOBODY who would willingly fork out $10/week to fix the unfixable, but it seems that they are among us, having been suitably brain-washed at school. How did we older folk manage to grow up never even hearing of "climate change", or did this only happen in the last 40 years? Talk about gullible! Cheers

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162
So it is claimed that the majority of people would willingly pay up to $500/year in an effort to fix a natural event that can never be "fixed" by humans? Talk about sucked-in! Personally I know of NOBODY who would willingly fork out $10/week to fix the unfixable, but it seems that they are among us, having been suitably brain-washed at school. How did we older folk manage to grow up never even hearing of "climate change", or did this only happen in the last 40 years? Talk about gullible! Cheers

No. The majority of people are willing to pay in an effort to fix a man made disaster that CAN be fixed by humans, because they've listened to the science and haven't been brainwashed by the private media.

As I've mentioned multiple times yobarr, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, we've known about the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas since the 1850s. We've been warned about the effects of rising CO2 on the climate since the 1970s and yes, the worst has been happening in the last 40 years. It's just that some people ignore science. Maybe you need some informed friends.

Keep bashing those rocks together yobarr.

yobarr · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162
So it is claimed that the majority of people would willingly pay up to $500/year in an effort to fix a natural event that can never be "fixed" by humans? Talk about sucked-in! Personally I know of NOBODY who would willingly fork out $10/week to fix the unfixable, but it seems that they are among us, having been suitably brain-washed at school. How did we older folk manage to grow up never even hearing of "climate change", or did this only happen in the last 40 years? Talk about gullible! Cheers
No. The majority of people are willing to pay in an effort to fix a man made disaster that CAN be fixed by humans, because they've listened to the science and haven't been brainwashed by the private media.

As I've mentioned multiple times yobarr, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, we've known about the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas since the 1850s. We've been warned about the effects of rising CO2 on the climate since the 1970s and yes, the worst has been happening in the last 40 years. It's just that some people ignore science. Maybe you need some informed friends.
Keep bashing those rocks together yobarr.

With Australia's contribution amounting to 1% of global emission, and now some hare-brained plan to reduce that to zero by 2050 (or whatevever) it all seems pointless. Particularly when our economy depends a lot on exports of coal, making an indirect contribution of another 2.6%. Chicken feed when compared with what China and perhaps India produce. And we've got 2 shows of stopping their contributions. Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Saturday 7th of May 2022 06:44:19 PM

dogbox · Guru

no one has asked me what i think i should pay "to fix the climate change " i have no idea how much you pay in taxes but i thought, i have all ready contributed and still contribute, at this point the only thing that stands out is the environmental levy that i pay when buying tyres and i have no idea who that goes to ( why are there still so many old tyres lying around)

-- Edited by dogbox on Saturday 7th of May 2022 06:00:43 PM

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162
So it is claimed that the majority of people would willingly pay up to $500/year in an effort to fix a natural event that can never be "fixed" by humans? Talk about sucked-in! Personally I know of NOBODY who would willingly fork out $10/week to fix the unfixable, but it seems that they are among us, having been suitably brain-washed at school. How did we older folk manage to grow up never even hearing of "climate change", or did this only happen in the last 40 years? Talk about gullible! Cheers
No. The majority of people are willing to pay in an effort to fix a man made disaster that CAN be fixed by humans, because they've listened to the science and haven't been brainwashed by the private media.

As I've mentioned multiple times yobarr, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, we've known about the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas since the 1850s. We've been warned about the effects of rising CO2 on the climate since the 1970s and yes, the worst has been happening in the last 40 years. It's just that some people ignore science. Maybe you need some informed friends.
Keep bashing those rocks together yobarr.
With Australia's contribution amounting to 1% of global emission, and now some hare-brained plan to reduce that to zero by 2050 (or whatevever) it all seems pointless. Particularly when our economy depends a lot on exports of coal, making an indirect contribution of another 2.6%. Chicken feed when compared with what China and perhaps India. And we've got 2 shows of stopping their contributions. Cheers

The survey did indicate that since people are not willing to pay to fix the climate. It shows that you are a minority in that respect.

yobarr · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162
So it is claimed that the majority of people would willingly pay up to $500/year in an effort to fix a natural event that can never be "fixed" by humans? Talk about sucked-in! Personally I know of NOBODY who would willingly fork out $10/week to fix the unfixable, but it seems that they are among us, having been suitably brain-washed at school. How did we older folk manage to grow up never even hearing of "climate change", or did this only happen in the last 40 years? Talk about gullible! Cheers
No. The majority of people are willing to pay in an effort to fix a man made disaster that CAN be fixed by humans, because they've listened to the science and haven't been brainwashed by the private media.

As I've mentioned multiple times yobarr, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, we've known about the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas since the 1850s. We've been warned about the effects of rising CO2 on the climate since the 1970s and yes, the worst has been happening in the last 40 years. It's just that some people ignore science. Maybe you need some informed friends.
Keep bashing those rocks together yobarr.
With Australia's contribution amounting to 1% of global emission, and now some hare-brained plan to reduce that to zero by 2050 (or whatevever) it all seems pointless. Particularly when our economy depends a lot on exports of coal, making an indirect contribution of another 2.6%. Chicken feed when compared with what China and perhaps India. And we've got 2 shows of stopping their contributions. Cheers
The survey did indicate that since people are not willing to pay to fix the climate. It shows that you are a minority in that respect.

Not necessarily. Perhaps a minority of those surveyed, but nothing more. Results from surveys, and indeed statistics, can be manipulated to show whatever the people doing the survey wish them to show. Only gullible people take much notuce! Cheers

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dogbox wrote:
no one has asked me what i think i should pay "to fix the climate change " i have no idea how much you pay in taxes but i thought, i have all ready contributed and still contribute, at this point the only thing that stands out is the environmental levy that i pay when buying tyres and i have no idea who that goes to ( why are there still so many old tyres lying around)

-- Edited by dogbox on Saturday 7th of May 2022 06:00:43 PM

I don't think that any one tax only goes to what's being taxed. It's all part of the revenue which is then distributed according to the government directives.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 7th of May 2022 06:54:13 PM

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
yobarr wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Somewhere in this topic it was mentioned that people are not willing to pay to fix climate change, yet it appears that the majority of people would be willing to pay between $100 to $500 a year:

Australians overwhelmingly support action to reduce carbon emissions, Vote Compass data shows
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/australians-support-action-reduce-carbon-emissions-vote-compass/101039162
So it is claimed that the majority of people would willingly pay up to $500/year in an effort to fix a natural event that can never be "fixed" by humans? Talk about sucked-in! Personally I know of NOBODY who would willingly fork out $10/week to fix the unfixable, but it seems that they are among us, having been suitably brain-washed at school. How did we older folk manage to grow up never even hearing of "climate change", or did this only happen in the last 40 years? Talk about gullible! Cheers
No. The majority of people are willing to pay in an effort to fix a man made disaster that CAN be fixed by humans, because they've listened to the science and haven't been brainwashed by the private media.

As I've mentioned multiple times yobarr, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, we've known about the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas since the 1850s. We've been warned about the effects of rising CO2 on the climate since the 1970s and yes, the worst has been happening in the last 40 years. It's just that some people ignore science. Maybe you need some informed friends.
Keep bashing those rocks together yobarr.
With Australia's contribution amounting to 1% of global emission, and now some hare-brained plan to reduce that to zero by 2050 (or whatevever) it all seems pointless. Particularly when our economy depends a lot on exports of coal, making an indirect contribution of another 2.6%. Chicken feed when compared with what China and perhaps India. And we've got 2 shows of stopping their contributions. Cheers
The survey did indicate that since people are not willing to pay to fix the climate. It shows that you are a minority in that respect.
Not necessarily. Perhaps a minority of those surveyed, but nothing more. Results from surveys, and indeed statistics, can be manipulated to show whatever the people doing the survey wish them to show. Only gullible people take much notuce! Cheers

Well please show a survey that contradicts the results.

dorian · Guru

I notice that the survey makes no mention of tax, or specifically a carbon tax. It would have been interesting to juxtapose such a question alongside the questions relating to direct personal expenditures. I think the word "tax" would have been a more realistic way to elicit genuine responses. That's the reason that governments use less threatening terms like "levy" or "surcharge".

dogbox · Guru

dorian wrote:

I notice that the survey makes no mention of tax, or specifically a carbon tax. It would have been interesting to juxtapose such a question alongside the questions relating to direct personal expenditures. I think the word "tax" would have been a more realistic way to elicit genuine responses. That's the reason that governments use less threatening terms like "levy" or "surcharge".

when i think about it , i payed council rates that covered my garbage disposal i also payed water rates to dispose of my sewage so in effect we are already paying to dispose of some of our rubbish (levy /tax same as) the sewerage goes thru a treatment plant and comes out the other end as clean water with a solid by product that can be used for many things from fertilizer to making diesel fuel (not commercially viable when i seen it being done ) a lot of methane gas is another by product
how do we treat our other rubbish to make it neutral ? if it requires some sort of processing plant where will it go ? even the save the planet people don't want it in their back yard .
i stated previously that NSW was at one point sending their rubbish by B-DOUBLE to QLD because it was cheaper to dump it there than process it in NSW . some one is/was making a couple of dollars. what about asbestos, any demolition /renovations containing asbestos they charge extra but in most cases it gets treated as standard rubbish , or in some cases large amounts dumped on rural blocks to become someone else's problem later

if we are going to remove things from our lives that we now find are detrimental ,what are we going to replace them with ?

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dorian wrote:
I notice that the survey makes no mention of tax, or specifically a carbon tax. It would have been interesting to juxtapose such a question alongside the questions relating to direct personal expenditures. I think the word "tax" would have been a more realistic way to elicit genuine responses. That's the reason that governments use less threatening terms like "levy" or "surcharge".

There's more to "How much should Australia do to reduce its carbon emissions?" than just a carbon tax: reducing fossil fuel subsidies, renewable energy and EV subsidies, etcetera.