View Full Version : Carbon Tax - post announcement
So are you happy with the proposed TAX?
NO.
It is a weak, gutless, half-hearted response, which only does half the job as it does not tax the carbon component of imports.
Still, it is a start, however small, and over time we can improve on it.
Nooooooooooo make it stop
geoffsta
11-07-2011, 8:14pm
No. I think it's wrong. The first installment will go on Bundy and new TV's. And 2 months down the track they'll be at St Vinnies.
This is an appallingly bad way to phrase a poll question. By phrasing it this way, you have made quite certain of the result. A genuine desire to gauge opinion would have required that the question be put in a fair and unbiased manner. "I like" in the context of taxes .... as if anyone bar the most careful or committed thinker is going to tick that box. Try running a poll on income tax, stamp duty, payroll tax, GST, any damn tax you like and have one of the options "I like the _____ tax" and you will get an even stronger negative result.
It is an appalling way to run a country, and this green coalition should be jailed, just for the poor contract they wrote re the NBN and now this. Time to ask for asylum somewhere, think I'll close down my business, lay of the staff and go elsewhere. I was going to ask the last one out to turn off the lights, but no one will be able to afford them soon anyway :)
Night all
ameerat42
11-07-2011, 8:57pm
At a hardware store I laughed when I read the name of a possum repellent, "Poss Off!".
What can 1 say about this? "Tax Off Us", maybe?
Well, I wish it would just GOA way, so we could focus on effective ways of "saving the environment".
ho-hAm.
I voted yes in the confident assurance that I'd be the only one. The tax doesn't go nearly far enough to satisfy its supporters, and any new tax will outrage everyone else.
So I'm a little miffed to fine someone else voted yes too. Somebody has some explaining to do.
^ That was me. But it was dumb to vote at all in such a badly worded poll and I regretted it immediately. Sorry Jim. I won't do it again.
geoffsta
11-07-2011, 9:12pm
It's a hard question to ask. Tannin
To me my interpretation of the question was fair.
Either...
1. No, it's the wrong way to go. As in.. I still don't believe that the tax will benifit Australia as a whole.
2. Yes. I like the Carbon Tax. I believe it is heading in the right direction. (In your case you could have added) But I think it is a weak, gutless, half-hearted response, which only does half the job as it does not tax the carbon component of imports. Still, it is a start, however small, and over time we can improve on it.
That my take Tannin on the question. :confused013
It's an easy question to ask, Geoff. All you have to do is put both answers into the same voice. For example, you could ask:
Do you think the carbon tax is the right thing to do? or
Do you think the carbon tax is the wrong thing to do?
Alternatively, you could ask both questions in a like/dislike form, and while that would be a slight improvement, it would still be inappropriate to a question about taxation, unless you were to ask the same question about all the other taxes and then compare the answers.
It's not rocket science, just a matter of being fair and impartial.
Yes, I like the carbon tax:eek: I'd rather Yes, I like the carbon tax in conjunction with all the the other parts of the package. Or I like all the other parts of the package but bugger that carbon tax business. WIIFM .
The never ever GST was going to by the end of the world for some. Thinking this isn't dissimilar.
Got my 60D today, I'll come back to this thread when I've read the manual, figured out what all the buttons are for (I won't start in auto mode), know how to PP and post a few photos for cc :)
J u l i a G i l l a r d y o u a r e a n e m b a r r a s s m e n t t o t h i s c o u n t r y a n d s h o u l d s t o p t a l k i n g t o u s l i k e w e a r e 4 y e a r s o l d.
Anyway typical Labor taking from the rich and big industries to feed the poor. Do they not see the big picture of how this will affect everyone. I know if it wasn't for the local big industries here the town would be dead. All the companies will do is take everything overseas where they don't have to pay a carbon tax. Good one you idiots.
To be honest I think global warming is just an evolutionary thing. I mean when the ice age ended there wasn't cars on the road and big industries pumping pollution into the sky
It's an easy question to ask, Geoff. All you have to do is put both answers into the same voice.
That depends on what you are looking to discover, too, doesn't it? For example:
Do you believe in the value of any carbon tax?
Do you believe in the value of this carbon tax?
Do you believe in any new tax?
Do you believe in this new tax?
Do you believe taxing carbon emissions will help the environment?
Do you believe taxing carbon emissions will hurt the environment?
Do you believe taxing anything will help the environment?
Do you believe taxing anything will hurt the environment?
Do you believe some politicians are lying, thieving, power hungry scumbags?
Do you believe some politicians are naive, ignorant, yet altruistic idiots?
There are umpteen different results that are possible depending upon how you frame a question and, as demonstrated above, even using the "same voice" is no guarantee against a skewed result.
If it were up to me I would frame the question as simply and unambiguously as possible while avoiding the underlying issue of environmental health. This debate is not really about saving the environment; anyone with half an ounce of sense wants to do that! Instead it's about taxing carbon emissions as a legitimate means to saving our environment. On that topic there can be no unanimous agreement IMHO. How about:
1. Do you think the proposed carbon tax will have a significant impact on climate change?
2. Do you think any carbon tax will have a significant impact on climate change?
Scotty72
11-07-2011, 10:45pm
This is an appallingly bad way to phrase a poll question. By phrasing it this way, you have made quite certain of the result. A genuine desire to gauge opinion would have required that the question be put in a fair and unbiased manner. "I like" in the context of taxes .... as if anyone bar the most careful or committed thinker is going to tick that box. Try running a poll on income tax, stamp duty, payroll tax, GST, any damn tax you like and have one of the options "I like the _____ tax" and you will get an even stronger negative result.
Somehow, I think that was Kym's point. :)
Scotty72
11-07-2011, 10:48pm
It is an appalling way to run a country, and this green coalition should be jailed, just for the poor contract they wrote re the NBN and now this. Time to ask for asylum somewhere, think I'll close down my business, lay of the staff and go elsewhere. I was going to ask the last one out to turn off the lights, but no one will be able to afford them soon anyway :)
Night all
Maybe they should tax melodrama too :lol:
Scotty72
11-07-2011, 10:52pm
The original question is rather like, 'Are you happy that the man who murdered your relative is in jail?'
Very dumb and so ambiguous as to be unfair...
Yes = ahh! Are you happy that justice was served or happy that you relative is dead?
Scotty72
11-07-2011, 11:52pm
J u l i a G i l l a r d y o u a r e a n e m b a r r a s s m e n t t o t h i s c o u n t r y a n d s h o u l d s t o p t a l k i n g t o u s l i k e w e a r e 4 y e a r s o l d.
Anyway typical Labor taking from the rich and big industries to feed the poor. Do they not see the big picture of how this will affect everyone. I know if it wasn't for the local big industries here the town would be dead. All the companies will do is take everything overseas where they don't have to pay a carbon tax. Good one you idiots.
To be honest I think global warming is just an evolutionary thing. I mean when the ice age ended there wasn't cars on the road and big industries pumping pollution into the sky
Yes, in the 1990s when the Newcastle steel (the area's main employer (incl the associated industry) & life blood) works closed down, that reduced Newcastle to a ghost town. Newcastle no longer exists. There is no jobs in Newcastle and apparently, the last one out did turn off the lights. :rolleyes:
I guess the thriving city I visited at the weekend (and will again tomorrow / Wednesday) is just my imagination.
Scotty
Well there are a bunch of people who are supposed to be better off thus liking the tax, and a bunch who think it wont do the job, or will be worse off etc. who don't like it.
It's a fair question, it gets personal and to the heart of the issue; i.e. how people feel about it.
The other questions start raising secondary issues.
The question as raised goes to the key issue juliar has to overcome if she wants to sell the tax.
Tannin
12-07-2011, 12:07am
So why did you phrase the questions in totally different terms - setting "I like" against "bad decision" - if you were not trying to be unfair?
What faith are you going to place in the answers to a loaded question?
Do you need some basic training?
ZgyKpkLpccE
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 12:08am
Well there are a bunch of people who are supposed to be better off thus liking the tax, and a bunch who think it wont do the job, or will be worse off etc. who don't like it.
It's a fair question, it gets personal and to the heart of the issue; i.e. how people feel about it.
The other questions start raising secondary issues.
The question as raised goes to the key issue juliar has to overcome if she wants to sell the tax.
Kym,
Are you happy paying personal income tax? Do you look at the P.A.Y.E. column on your payslip and smile at the hundreds taken out every single fortnight and give a :D?
The obvious answer is NO! Of course not: in fact you do everything you legally can to minimise this amount. If you were HAPPY, you'd ask the taxman to take a few extra dollars because it makes you feel so happy.
Given that you are not happy to see tax taken away from you... you probably do recognize that it is a necessary evil; that if nobody paid tax, society would collapse.
Thus, most people feel that taxation is a necessary evil helping a greater good.
Therefore, a legit question would revolve around whether the bad (any tax) being outweighed by the benefit to society (if any) (reductions in pollution / climate change).
So, a question framed around the 'happiness' of a particular tax is a question designed to elicit an obvious emotional response - which you clearly want.
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter but, to pretend this is a fair survey question is a :lol:
Scotty
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 12:12am
So why did you phrase the questions in totally different terms - setting "I like" against "bad decision" - if you were not trying to be unfair?
What faith are you going to place in the answers to a loaded question?
Do you need some basic training?
ZgyKpkLpccE
I love this clip and often use it in my classes to demonstrate the power of media to tell us what our opinion is.
geoffsta
12-07-2011, 5:47am
Are you happy paying personal income tax? Do you look at the P.A.Y.E. column on your payslip and smile at the hundreds taken out every single fortnight and give a
I don't mind it. At least I know the money spread Australia wide, on various things. I don't even have the tax free threshold. Although every August I get back over $5k
I think what the question is. Do you think the CT will benefit you in the long and short term, yes or no.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 5:58am
I don't mind it. At least I know the money spread Australia wide, on various things. I don't even have the tax free threshold. Although every August I get back over $5k
I think what the question is. Do you think the CT will benefit you in the long and short term, yes or no.
I agree - almost. We don't mind paying the tax - but are not wildly happy to do so.
But, even those who are proposing the tax are not claiming it is supposed to benefit US individually. It is supposed to benefit the environment. In the same way our income taxes don't benefit US individually, they benefit the community (and therefore US too).
Do you think the Carbon Tax will achieve its proposed environmental benefits?
I think this would be better question. Of course people will still be free to ignore the question and vote ME! ME! ME! Just as people now ignore the science, attack the scientists because they don't fit in with their world view. :th3:
Scotty
ricktas
12-07-2011, 6:41am
I don't believe a carbon tax will reduce the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere at all. What will happen is that the companies who are being charged, will increase their prices and we will all end up paying more (even if a just a small amount). Supply and demand. Consumers want/need a particular product or service, they will still want/need it, but pay more for it. I fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions one tonne!
If these companies for some reason in a year of three develop ways to reduce their carbon output and thus are not taxed as heavily, will they reduce the price of their product/service at that time? Historically, business is not known for reducing its prices, rather keeping any extra to add to the profit margin for the shareholders.
I'm sure the already bloated tax office is looking at employing even more people now, to manage this new tax..just what this country needs, more public servants.
The political direction of this country is so far off kilter, that it isn't even funny any more!
ricstew
12-07-2011, 7:03am
how can we employ more public servants when we cant afford to pay the ones we already have? Wasn't there action because the police/nurses had the wages capped?
Tommo1965
12-07-2011, 8:23am
if the government was serious about reducing pollution..they should give everyone a free solar electric system for our houses ...my electric bill is always $500-600 every 2 months..sometimes in the summer that will go to $800-900 because of aircon usage.... I've tried everything I can to reduce this....but apart from living in a cave, or a hothouse..im stuck...so until we have a greener alternative...what are we supposed to do ??..just keep paying more I suppose ...:th3:
.... I've tried everything I can to reduce this...
Put on a jumper in winter. And acclimatise? I come from a cold country, but the days when I really need aircon—as opposed to just liking it—are really very few. And at that I'm just being self-indulgent. But even using it every day I couldn't get up to $800/month.
Rattus79
12-07-2011, 8:56am
this is such a short sighted decision.
Unless every dollar collected from this goes to planting trees, then it's just another mooney grab and should have just been a raise in the GST.
We are going to watch the cost of absolutely everything in australia go up in the next couple of months as the trucking/shipping companies pass the tax off to their customers.
They are not allowed to tax a tax, but fuel has:
World Parity Pricing (huge tax as we make 70% of our own fuel)
Fuel Levy
GST
and now Carbon Tax
It's over 60c in the litre of TAX!!!
I'll say it again... The question is designed to get at how people feel about the issue.
There are no lead in question per Yes Minister (which I like); it is a pure binary option + gravy.
The lead in questions would have been ... (from a juliar perspective)...
- Do you think we need to reduce pollution?
- Do you think we need to help the environment?
- Do you want a better future for your kids?
- Do you want to pay less over-all tax and more social welfare payments?
- Would be prepared for a small increase in prices to get that less overall over-all tax and more social welfare payments, with you being net better off?
- Do you like the carbon tax?
The argument per the questions above is terribly flawed, but that is the crock that juliar is trying to sell.
The primary problem is the CT won't actually make much difference at all to CO2 output, and will damage our economy for no net benefit.
Art Vandelay
12-07-2011, 9:15am
I changed my mind. I now think this carbon tax is terrific.
It looks like the average household will have extra expenses of $9.90 per week, but get subsidies of $10.10 per week.
Just think, every few months I'll have enough extra in my pocket to shout myself a cappuccino.... I may even just sit pondering in the coffee shop with a smug grin celebrating the crafty way I've just saved the planet from the impending doom of man made global warming.. that didn't exist anyway. :th3:
Are we all in some sort of time warp in one of those Yes Minister episodes ?? :lol:
Are we all in some sort of time warp in one of those Yes Minister episodes ?? :lol:
History only ever repeats itself.
I'm not sure who to attribute that quote to.
History only ever repeats itself.
I'm not sure who to attribute that quote to.
"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."
Karl Marx.
I don't believe a carbon tax will reduce the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere at all. What will happen is that the companies who are being charged, will increase their prices and we will all end up paying more (even if a just a small amount). Supply and demand. ..... I fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions one tonne!
It is called the law of supply and demand and it is the fundamental rule of economics. When the price of anything goes down, demand goes up; when the price goes up, demand goes down. The amount that demand goes up or down with price can vary according to circumstances (this is called "elasticity") but the fundamental fact that people buy more of cheap stuff and less of that same stuff when it is dearer is always true.
(Actually, in your state a lot of the electricity is already carbon-free because it's renewable hydro. This power will become relatively cheaper as there is no carbon tax to pay on it. The mainland states tend to be dry and flat and have a much larger population so hydro supplies only a tiny amount of power there and, in the main, we use the worst possible alternative - brown coal. So the carbon tax will provide Tasmania with a modest boost to its competitiveness because it will have largely tax-free electricity. Whether it's a big enough boost to notice at the present very low tax level I couldn't say. It will certainly become noticeable if and when the tax increases to a more reasonable number over time.)
So here is the first benefit of the carbon tax: people like you will use less electricity. You're not stupid, you know that turning the aircon up costs you money, you know that your old gas hot water service is expensive to run, you know that it's better for the planet and cheaper too to put an extra blanket on the bed instead of turning on the central heating.
Longer-term, the more energy costs (because of the tax) the more likely you are, when the time comes to build a new house or renovate your old one, to build it more sensibly - face it north to catch the winter sun, eaves to keep it cool in summer, good thermal design so it stays warm and stays cool .... all the things that make living in it more pleasant, and owning it cheaper.
As for the companies making the power (or any other carbon-intensive product), they can reduce their costs and increase their competitive advantage simply by reducing their carbon emissions. Up until now, they haven't had any financial reason to do so, but as the price on carbon kicks in, they are naturally driven to start looking for ways to dodge the tax by emitting less of the nasty stuff. By renovating their plant to burn coal more efficiently, for example, or by switching over to gas (which is still bad, but not nearly as bad a coal, and is going to be a very important stepping stone for 30 years or so while we transition to post-carbon technologies). And those same companies (if they are smart) or other companies (if the old ones are stupid) turn their attention to generating cheap carbon-free electricity with geothermal, tidal, wind, and solar power. The higher the cost of carbon, the less attractive coal is as an investment, the harder people work on coming up with better alternatives and putting them into production.
All of this is just basic economics. A first-year student learns about supply and demand inside the first ten minutes, and he won't have changed his mind when he is a Professor with a Nobel Prize.
I'll say it again... The question is designed to get at how people feel about the issue .... it is a pure binary option.
You can say it again, but it's still rubbish.
Tannin
12-07-2011, 10:48am
^ I better expand a bit on that blank contradiction, just to show that it is indeed reasoned and sensible, not just blind contradiction. You ask both halves of the question in the same way if you want a sensible answer to any question. Pretending that you have to use lead-up questions to bias a poll won't wash. You can (and indeed just did) bias a poll by asking the question in a biased way.
Bennymiata
12-07-2011, 10:59am
What really irks me about this tax, is that the government and the Greens are trying to make out that they are so concerend about the environment that they are willing to put us all into even greater debt, risk our international competiviness and our jobs, to try and clean up our environment, and our air in particular.
Sounds wonderful.
However, the facts are quite different.
Ever since Kevin Rud came in, every single federal budget has seen massive cut-backs to the CSIRO and the employment of their scientists, so we will have less resources to fight this so-called "problem"
There is one country on earth that has planted millions of trees in their country since the late 1940's (well before it became fashionable to do so) and has managed to make desert into arable land - and the Greens Party has decided that this green country should be banned!
It is with this hypocracy that I seriously doubt the intentions of our government, and this whole scenario just reeks of something crook in Tallarook.
If you are going to give back the tax to people, how do you expect them to cut down on their emmissions?
Why should they if it doesn't cost them anything (or that is what the government think we are stupid enough to believe)?
Just wait unitl the subsidies cut out (which wil be just after the next federal elections) and then we will REALLY suffer from it, and for what?
General consensus seems to be that mankind is responsible for around 3% of emmissions, so why don't they try and do something about the other 97%??
No-one in the government or any other agency that I can recollect has come up with ANY plan to try and reduce the massive outputs of emmissions that the earth puts out, yet it is we that have to suffer for only putting in a minor amount of emmissions.
It's like having a really bad rash all over your body + 1 mosquito bite and going to the doctor to try and stop the itch.
If the doctor told you that he won't even look at the rash, but will give you something just for the mosquito bight instead, what would you think?
You'd think he was an idiot! And you'd be right!
This is exaclty what our wonderful government is doing right now.
It is heavily fining the owner of a noisy dog, that lives right next door to a dog pound with hundreds of barking dogs, and doing nothing about the noise from the pound.
The financial records of our wonderful government are also very, very poor indeed, and with their past records like the NBN, the schools building debarcle, the insulation debarcle and many others, lead me to believe that Juliar is just grabbing for cash in any way she can, so she can continue her unbridalled spending of our money, without doing any good for us as a whole.
By the way, that family that Juliar saw yesterday who are so enamoured with the Carbon Tax, it turns out that they were not just a family chosen at random, but good frineds of the local, Labour member for that area, a Mr Bradbury - so she wasn't just lucky to find a willing household, but the whole sham was arranged.
No wonder they call her Juliar.
Tannin
12-07-2011, 12:38pm
If you are going to give back the tax to people, how do you expect them to cut down on their emmissions?
This is the whole point. The purpose of the carbon tax is to make bad things cost more and good things more affordable. If you go on with your current wasteful habits, using fossil fuel products as if there was no tomorrow, you will be a little bit poorer or about the same (depending on your income bracket and a few other things). Only if you are massively wasteful will you be very much worse off than you are today.
If you start being more sensible in your consumption habits - e,g., turn the air-con down a click, get a solar hot water service, insulate your ceiling properly, upgrade your computer to a modern, lower power one, and so on - you will be a little bit better off than you were before the tax.
Even better, if you want to dodge this tax, good We want you to figure out ways to dodge paying the carbon tax! The more tax you dodge, the better it is for everyone!
rellik666
12-07-2011, 12:57pm
If you start being more sensible in your consumption habits - e,g., upgrade your computer to a modern, lower power one, and so on - you will be a little bit better off than you were before the tax.
I am sorry but how can you say that with a straight face?
I have a 10 year old car, my car isn't the most fuel efficient car in the world but it ain't bad, it is well maintained and looked after. Your telling me I should buy a new one so that I can be more fuel efficient? What happens to the old one? Where is the new one made, what is it made from, what energy, emissions and materials go into making it so I can save 4ltrs per hundred? Why is this saving the environment?
I have a 10 year old computer, it is slow but it does me, the screen is an old CRT. Your telling me I should buy a new one so that I can save a few watts of power every year? Again what is it made from, what energy, emissions and materials go into making it so I can save a few Watts? Why is this saving the environment?
Lets pour millions into electric cars, but where does the power come from? Oh wait power stations? Buy a prius? Why? See above oh and what about those batteries?
Oh lets look at the scrappage scheme....well thought out that one....see above...
Why are we not debating where our power is going to come from before taxing us into a choice we cannot make?
Why are we not supporting industry to change to better alternatives than making us pay for this?
IF governments are serious about climate change we need to fundimentally change the way we think.....but then again we aren't, just like we are serious about the road toll....all the way up until it is going to cost us some of that "revenue" we have made......
Bennymiata
12-07-2011, 1:13pm
The problem is that we have very little control over how much carbon we use.
As we don't all live on farms, all our food, clothing, and every other neccessity in life has to be transported by either road or rail, and both of these consume large amounts of carbon-rich resources, so we will pay more for EVERYTHING regardless of how much less electricity we use, or how economically we drive - or what the politicians are telling us now.
Remember when the NSW government said that privatising the electricity supply would mean cheaper electricty prices? :lol:
Energy consumption is something we all need, and once the subsidies and other payments stop, we will all suffer more than we should with NO improvement to our consumption.
The government says it will spend billions on finding alternative energy sources, but we all know that these alternatives have so far proved to be less efficient, and far more expensive than using what we do now and as the government is continually nobbling the CSIRO - who's going to do this?
Let me give you a little example.
The greenies would like us all to stop using petrol powered cars and use fuel cell vehicles instead, as there is no carbon pollution given off by these fuel cells, and that these fuel cells should be powered by hydrogen. The only emmissions would then be water vapour.
Sounds good, however, extracting hydrogen requires FAR more energy to get than it gives back - so we go backwards there, and what power are we going to use to extract the hydrogen?
If the only emmissions are water vapour, then we're in even bigger trouble, as water vapour is many times worse as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned so if every car n the planet was converted to hydrogen fuelled fuel cells, we'd be paying around 10 times more for the hyrogen than we do for petrol, and the atmosphere would have so much water vapour in it, that it would block the sun.
Then people say that we are running out of energy and that the world's oil supply will run out in 20 years!
Maybe oil will run out eventually, but then we can start using other energy forms that are far cheaper to get, far less dangerous to handle, far less risk of polluting our ground and water, yet no-one is using it now, and that is the frozen methane from under the oceans.
There's enough frozen methane in the Bay of Mexico alone to power the entire United States for over 3,000 years, so why isn't anyone using it now?
Because of politics.
I have little regard for most politicians, as Ive known too many of them and well-know that they are only in it for what they can get.
Forget about thinking that most politicians are really looking out for us, because they are only looking out for themselves, much like many aldermen who are actually property developers, and by being on the council, they can get things done that mere mortals could never do.
Take the ex-premiere of NSW, Bob Carr.
Just before he retired, he announced that by the year 2012 that Sydney Harbour would no longer be a working harbour, and that all the foreshores would be developed for the good of the Sydney residents.
The company that got the lion's share of the development just happens to be directed by his wife, and on his retirement from politics, he magically got a job as an advisor with Maquarie Bank for $500,000 + a year to oversee the harbour foreshore developments for them.
Fortuitous for Bob Carr isn't it? What a coincidence!
How is it that many politicians, and especially those that attain a high office, always seem to retire with lots of money when all they've ever done is serve the public?
There are just so many instances that I can tell you about people you know in politics, but suffice to say that honest politicians are like finding a needle in a very big haystack, so I always question these things.
Politicians are like bananas.
They all start out green, but end up being bent and yellow!
junqbox
12-07-2011, 1:13pm
Anyone got anything new to say which hasn't been raked over backwards and forwards a million times in the predecssor to this thread. I'm not even sure why a new version of the old was even needed.
I am not advocating wastage, Roo, and certainly not ignoring the embodied carbon in (e.g.) a new car. This is the great thing about a carbon tax - over time, we will start to see those embodied costs accounted for in the retail price of goods we buy - and all else being equal, simply by buying the cheapest one we will be buying the lowest-carbon one too. That's a win-win!
I absolutely agree with you that it would be good to ease back on our mad over-consumption and wastage habits, and that is another way we can all improve our living standards - buy less often but buy better quality that lasts longer.
But the point is, people already buy new cars and computers and refrigerators every few years. Given that (and like it or not, it's not going to change much anytime soon), it is an absolute no-brainer to buy more efficient, cheaper-to-own goods to replace the old ones you were going to replace anyway. It is an absolute no-brainer to plan that extension so that it catches the winter sun, to chose a more efficient, economical car next time you upgrade, to replace that worn-out electric hot waters service with a costs-nothing-to-run solar one.
Dealing with climate change isn't about hardship or giving stuff up, it's about being smarter in the way we live. Over time, as we all adjust, the carbon tax will mostly be paid only by stupid and wasteful people, and who can be against taxing stupidity?
(This is not to ignore the very real transition difficulties faced by poor people who don't have the resources to, for example, install a solar HWS. These are matters that will have to be worked through over the next ten years or so.)
Rattus79
12-07-2011, 1:20pm
make bad things cost more and good things more affordable.
I'm sorry, but since nearly everything sold retail in Australia ends up on a truck at one stage or another, everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) is going to go up in price.
I know that when I ship my goods out, I'm going to pass the expense of the freight off onto my customers, I'm certain that the "big boys" will too.
But the point is, people already buy new cars and computers and refrigerators every few years. Given that (and like it or not, it's not going to change much anytime soon), it is an absolute no-brainer to buy more efficient, cheaper-to-own goods to replace the old ones you were going to replace anyway.
The only problem I see with a train of thought like that on new cars etc is that without the government legislating that products must meet a certain standard of carbon emission "goodness" in their production before they are able to be sold in this country people will simply go and buy the cheapest car available and that will most likely be one imported from China made from Australian steel that is built in a factory running on electricity that was generated by Australian coal, thus feeding the demand for more steel, more coal, more electricity and more emissions in a country where the government of this country is powerless to impose any taxation.
I really think than instead of a purely based taxation regime the powers that be should have looked at more of a standards based approach before they started grabbing cash.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 1:41pm
I don't believe a carbon tax will reduce the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere at all. What will happen is that the companies who are being charged, will increase their prices and we will all end up paying more (even if a just a small amount). Supply and demand. Consumers want/need a particular product or service, they will still want/need it, but pay more for it. I fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions one tonne!
If these companies for some reason in a year of three develop ways to reduce their carbon output and thus are not taxed as heavily, will they reduce the price of their product/service at that time? Historically, business is not known for reducing its prices, rather keeping any extra to add to the profit margin for the shareholders.
I'm sure the already bloated tax office is looking at employing even more people now, to manage this new tax..just what this country needs, more public servants.
The political direction of this country is so far off kilter, that it isn't even funny any more!
To put this in a simple framework.
Apart from reasons of ideology, I can't understand what you don't get.
If the cost of power / fuels go up, businesses who fail to find alternatives or be more efficient will be taxed into a competitive disadvantage. Those that adapt will be at an advantage because, after the initial switch over costs, they will be more efficient. Simple!
As for the notion that no business ever passes on price reductions. Rubbish! Do flat TVs still cost $10,000 like they did < 10 years ago? Does it still cost more than an av week's wages to fly from Syd => Melb? Do you need several months wages to fly to Europe? No, because businesses in a market place are forced to pass on savings by their competitors.
Where companies do gouge is where there are monopolies or duolopolies that we allow to develop. Think Coles / Woolworths have now (because we fall for there schemes) cornered > 80% of the grocery market with similar levels in petrol and liquor.
Just like the GST, there will be some short term confusion and no doubt some will try to take advantage but, pretty quickly, we won't notice the difference.
The real question is, if we do nothing and don't start preparing for a world beyond cheap oil, how much will you have to pay then?
Case in point... Adelaide Brighton Cement said today that if power price go up as expected they will import rather than manufacture.
So jobs lost and no reduction in C02 - well done juliar.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 1:53pm
And Macathur coal is being bought out in one of the largest coal mining takeovers in history -$5 billion. Oh, the coal industry in in ruin!
I cannot believe the hysteria being whipped up by a lazy idiot with no policy other than scare the crap out of people for no reason. I can't believe I used to vote for this bunch of idiots.
Scotty
Rattus79
12-07-2011, 1:57pm
I can't believe I used to vote for this bunch of idiots.
You may have to be a little more specific then this... We are talking politics after all.
It is called the law of supply and demand and it is the fundamental rule of economics. When the price of anything goes down, demand goes up; when the price goes up, demand goes down. The amount that demand goes up or down with price can vary according to circumstances (this is called "elasticity") but the fundamental fact that people buy more of cheap stuff and less of that same stuff when it is dearer is always true.
I'm sorry, Tony, but that is perhaps the grossest oversimplification of the Principle of Supply and Demand that I have ever seen! Here is the Wikipedia version for comparison and even that's greatly oversimplified:
The four basic laws of supply and demand are:
1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and quantity.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and quantity.
3. If supply increases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and higher quantity.
4. If supply decreases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to higher price and lower quantity.
Now, let's examine the premise you used with specific regard to the impact of the carbon tax on supply and demand and its effect on price. Consider the following:
1. There are two coal-fired power stations near Muswellbrook in the Hunter Valley. They burn more efficient black coal, not the overly moist brown stuff used in the Latrobe Valley. They are estimated to each contribute around 8 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere per annum. At $23/tonne that means each will be taxed $184 billion dollars per annum. If demand for electricity remains unchanged, what happens to prices even without any consequent reduction in carbon emissions? If demand for alternative energy sources increases, what happens to prices for those sources and how are they produced?
Look up "photovoltaic cells" and try to work out how much carbon is emitted to produce a single solar panel. Add to that the carbon cost of transporting it to your home and transporting the installer and his team to fix it to your roof, then the carbon cost of manufacturing the piping and wiring as well and you just might get somewhere close to the carbon cost of that alternative energy-producing process!
A paper presented on the impact of coal quality on CO2 emissiona, and dealing with the relative efficiency of burning brown coal versus black coal to produce electricity, found that it would be possible to save in excess of 18 billion tonnes of carbon emissions per annum just by switching our power stations from brown coal to black coal! Yep, those dirty, brown coal-burning power stations are just that inefficient!
A power station requires less bituminous coal to deliver the same amount of energy as the brown coals. Brown coals are used throughout the world for power generation. The potential for very significant savings in global greenhouse gas production is possible for coal fired power plants if bituminous coals were the coals of choice.
2. There are millions of people in Africa who do not use electricity for heating or cooking. For them the only viable alternative is electricity from coal. Some African countries are trying to improve the lot of their people, AND save the forests and animals that inhabit them, by mining and burning coal to produce electricity so their people won't have to cut down trees to cook food or keep warm. That depends on mining or buying cheap steaming coal.
The government has exempted coal exports from the Carbon tax. So people in Africa will be able to access cheap electricity using our coal (probably the brown stuff we no longer use from the Latrobe Valley) but our poorer citizens will likely go back to burning wood from trees because they can't afford the price of domestic electricity from black coal and fuel oil is already overpriced! Heck, we'll probably have to start logging Tasmanian wilderness areas again to stay warm! Does that make sense to you? And just exempting the exported product is a drop in the proverbial bucket, because all locally produced materials that go to provide that product will go up in price, thereby impacting the cost of production and our export competitiveness anyway!
The whole CT deal is an exercise in boosting government funds and a waste of our money and time based on the flawed assumption that man-made carbon emissions are extraordinarily harmful to the environment. Carbon is emitted as CO2 which is essential for photosynthesis (converting energy from the sun in plants) and carbon monoxide (CO) which quickly gathers oxygen to become CO2. The greatest cause of atmospheric warming through the so-called "greenhouse effect" isn't really a gas at all; it's WATER VAPOUR!
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 2:26pm
Maybe our poorer people will go back to living in caves and hunting hairy mammoth too.
What's a tonne of coal worth these days? About $300 for the good stuff. This 'great big new tax' will about about $2 to that $300. Less than 1% - will the sky really fall down or should Chicken Little Abbott calm down?
i like the idea of taxing pollution in order to have it reduced in the long term... however co2 is the wrong pollution to tax. as i stated in the other co2 tax thread, if us humans didnt exist there would still be 97% of the current level of co2 being produced....
sigh!
ask me again in 2020... :rolleyes:
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 2:30pm
And, are we so mean spirited in this country that we can't help out starving (literally) Africans with a bit of subsidized coal. If so, we really should be condemned for the tight-wads we have become in our pursuit of the latest and greatest flat screen TV.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 2:32pm
i like the idea of taxing pollution in order to have it reduced in the long term... however co2 is the wrong pollution to tax. as i stated in the other co2 tax thread, if us humans didnt exist there would still be 97% of the current level of co2 being produced....
sigh!
ask me again in 2020... :rolleyes:
I think that 97% is also the percentage of DNA we share with a field mouse. Sometimes, 3% makes all the difference in the world.
I think that 97% is also the percentage of DNA we share with a field mouse. Sometimes, 3% makes all the difference in the world.squeek! :p
I think that 97% is also the percentage of DNA we share with a field mouse.
Or in David's case a purple cow.
What's a tonne of coal worth these days? About $300 for the good stuff. This 'great big new tax' will about about $2 to that $300. Less than 1% - will the sky really fall down or should Chicken Little Abbott calm down?
Ummm ... looks like you've shot from the hip again, Scotty. Steaming coal (the type used to produce electricity) is around $120 per tonne at the moment. Since coal product is over 80% pure carbon, it will more likely increase the price by around $18.50 per tonne. Our nearest competitor, Indonesia, sells poorer quality, wetter steaming coal for around $60 per tonne! A price hike is going to help that mismatch as well, I'd say ... NOT!
It's important not to let the facts get in the way of a good story though, so keep "telling it like it is", eh?:p
And, are we so mean spirited in this country that we can't help out starving (literally) Africans with a bit of subsidized coal. If so, we really should be condemned for the tight-wads we have become in our pursuit of the latest and greatest flat screen TV.
Oh, please! Mean-spirited tightwads stopping starving Africans from cooking and keeping warm cheaply (sic)? You've missed the whole point! :Doh: From an environmental perspective which is better, burning coal or chopping down trees and destroying habitat to burn wood? And how benevolent can we be as a nation when our government has legislated us out of business and into the poor house ourselves (figuratively speaking of course)? :confused013
geoffsta
12-07-2011, 3:30pm
As a gauge I suggest all do the poll the Herald Sun is running in Victoria.
The answer may suprise, or may confirm what you suspect.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tony-abbott-julia-gillard-dig-in-on-carbon-tax-package/story-e6frf7jo-1226092715231
KevPride
12-07-2011, 3:38pm
The problem is - it is not "carbon" - it is C02. Wrong from the very start with no chance of changing anything.
Our economy is the only thing that will change, and IMHO not for the better.
However saying any of this will not change anything as the current Govt. needs the Greens vote in the Upper House to pass legislation - thus we are stuck with the Greens forcing their issues on the rest of us.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 3:44pm
Ummm ... looks like you've shot from the hip again, Scotty. Steaming coal (the type used to produce electricity) is around $120 per tonne at the moment. Since coal product is over 80% pure carbon, it will more likely increase the price by around $18.50 per tonne. Our nearest competitor, Indonesia, sells poorer quality, wetter steaming coal for around $60 per tonne! A price hike is going to help that mismatch as well, I'd say ... NOT!
It's important not to let the facts get in the way of a good story though, so keep "telling it like it is", eh?:p
Ummm! Looks like you're mis-quoting to make the facts sat what you want them to.
I said the good stuff (coking coal which is closer to what I said and burns more efficiently). According to the industry itself (but, maybe you know better), a tonne of that gives you about $2 worth of tax impact once everything is considered.
Of course, both sides will manipulate the facts & figures to say whatever they want them to.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 3:47pm
Oh, please! Mean-spirited tightwads stopping starving Africans from cooking and keeping warm cheaply (sic)? You've missed the whole point! :Doh: From an environmental perspective which is better, burning coal or chopping down trees and destroying habitat to burn wood? And how benevolent can we be as a nation when our government has legislated us out of business and into the poor house ourselves (figuratively speaking of course)? :confused013
Just like the GST turned us into an economic back-water... Or did it?
$5 billion investment in coal mines the day after the announcement. Sounds like the coal companies are crying wolf. :eek: How surprising.
geoffsta
12-07-2011, 4:49pm
OK. I can see that Australia is becoming a dictated country. Our democractic right is being eroded by the current government.
At the last election, The leader herself said "I will not be introducing a Carbon Tax" Just over half of Australia believed her, and took what she said as gospel. The result after a bit of haggling being the re-elected Labour government.
If she had said "I will be introducing a carbon tax" do you think that they would have been re-elected. Personally I do not think so.
At least John Howard had the balls to say he was going to bring in a GST prior to his election, and still stayed in.
If this country was as democratic as it should be, the current government should be taking notice of every single poll taken on the subject of carbon tax, including this one, and scrapping it. Then take the time to listen to their electorate who I believe is in favour of cleaner energy, and saving the enviroment. They should work with the CSIRO by giving them more funds to help the "Big polluters" to clean up the way they produce their product.
BTW I'm not a Tony Abbott fan either, he would not really have been any better.
Who cares who produces the most carbon, or who doesn't. The question is "do you want carbon tax or not"
Here is a quick fact that has not been considered.
An old growth forest gives off far more carbon with decaying wood and compost than all the transport companies combined.
Lance B
12-07-2011, 5:27pm
how can we employ more public servants when we cant afford to pay the ones we already have? Wasn't there action because the police/nurses had the wages capped?
It might interest you to know that more people either:
1) work for the government - ie have any sort of government job
2) receive some sort of pension from the government
3) on the dole
than people who do not recieve some sort of payment from the government. Therefore there are less people paying taxes in the private sector than people who receive money from the government in some way or form, whether it be for a job they do or in some sort of pension!! This is why it is so important for us to nuture our private sector companies as if we didn't there would be no way on this earth that Australia could survive with the burden that we have in order to pay all these people.
Lance B
12-07-2011, 5:38pm
The other day, when questioned about the future of the Australian Coal industry due to a carbon tax, Juliar Gillard said that even though there would be a carbon tax, the coal industry would expand??!!
Now, I am wondering how this could be if the object of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions and therefore our reliance on coal as a source of energy. So, she can’t mean that the coal industry would expand in Australia and therefore it must be the that any increase must come from an increase of exports of coal. But hang on a minute, firstly, if we have a carbon tax on coal, then our exports will be more expensive when compared to other nations who export coal and therefore we will lose out to those other countries as their coal will be cheaper. Secondly, the fact that we have introduced a carbon tax was supposed to “shame” (which is a joke) the rest of the world into having their own carbon tax and therefore their use of coal would also reduce, not increase!! So, on no level can she make the statement that the coal industry would expand when you look at these facts.
However, China is opening up a new coal fired power plant every month, so even if we reduced our emissions by by 100%, it would be more than taken up by China's increase in use. On no level will a carbon tax make one iota of difference to the world's CO2 levels and anyone that thinks it will is living in lala land and the whole thing is a con.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 5:48pm
When any govt listens to polls / focus groups they are mercilessly criticized for lacking courage / leadership etc.
When they don't listen to polls / focus groups and show leadership, they are mercilessly criticized for not following public opinion.
Usually by the same core group of whingers!
So, do we expect them to call heads and tails at the same time? Then the criticism would be indecisive.
The lesson for any govt, what ever you do, there will always be limitless complaints.
Scotty
Australian Coal facts...
08/09 Produced 438.0 million tonnes
08/09 Export 263.4 million tonnes (131.4 metallurgical, 132.0 thermal)
Australia's black coal exports were worth around $A55 billion in 2008-09, more than double the previous year's value.
Black coal remains Australia's largest commodity export, representing around 23 per cent of Australia's total exports of goods and services in 2008-09 - see chart below.
Australia maintained its position as the world's largest coal exporter with exports of 261 Mt in 2008-09, or 28% of the world total - see charts below.
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports.aspx
And the greens want to stop all coal exports? While that would definitely reduce CO2 it would hurt in a very big way.
Lance B
12-07-2011, 6:08pm
When any govt listens to polls / focus groups they are mercilessly criticized for lacking courage / leadership etc.
When they don't listen to polls / focus groups and show leadership, they are mercilessly criticized for not following public opinion.
Yep, like now. In this instance Gillard went to the polls saying she would not introduce a carbon tax. We should have the option to vote on such a serious issue. Intorducing a carbon tax when she said she wouldn't is lying and wrong in every sense of the word.
Usually by the same core group of whingers!
So, do we expect them to call heads and tails at the same time? Then the criticism would be indecisive.
The lesson for any govt, what ever you do, there will always be limitless complaints.
Scotty
Only from minority groups with their little agendas or those that are a staunch Labor voter or Liberal voter and therefore in a minority also. Generally, most government decisions are either unconcerning to most of the voters or applauded. And this is the problem with the system of voting we have at the moment. People who think they are disollusioned with the two major parties and then they either vote independent or green without really checking their mantras and we end up with minority parties dictating to the government what they want introduced - read cabon tax that the Greens wanted, when I am sure that Gillard wouldn't have introduced a carbon tax if she didn't have to appease the Greens. I am sure she would have kept her promise of "no carbon tax under the government I lead". So, what we have is not a majority running the country, but a minority, ie about 10% who voted for the Greens, and even less that voted for Windsor, for the buffoon Oakshot and for Bob Katter. Of that 10% of Greens vote I can wager that many didn't really understand what the Greens actually stood for. Now, as you can see, the minority is pulling the strings and therefore it is no doubt that most of the population are furious about a carbon tax as it is the minority that want one and the majority didn't vote for it!
Lance B
12-07-2011, 6:12pm
Australian Coal facts...
08/09 Produced 438.0 million tonnes
08/09 Export 263.4 million tonnes (131.4 metallurgical, 132.0 thermal)
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports.aspx
And the greens want to stop all coal exports? While that would definitely reduce CO2 it would hurt in a very big way.
Exactly. I wonder where we are going to get out tax dollar then when, as I stated above, there are already more people who live off the government than actually pay taxes for them to have that priveledge. I mean, how long can we keep operating as a country when less people pay the taxes for the government to hand out to the majority of people who receive some sort of payment from the government. It beggars belief. I keep saying this, but people really need to get a reality check.
Ummm! Looks like you're mis-quoting to make the facts sat what you want them to.
I said the good stuff (coking coal which is closer to what I said and burns more efficiently). According to the industry itself (but, maybe you know better), a tonne of that gives you about $2 worth of tax impact once everything is considered.
Of course, both sides will manipulate the facts & figures to say whatever they want them to.
Oh, dear. COKING coal is used to make COKE to produce steel. That has nothing to do with providing cooking and heating for starving Africans. Steaming coal and lignite just might! Yes, coking coal burns more efficiently but it's too high quality and expensive to use for that purpose. Cheaper steaming coal is far more prevalent, providing as it does more than 40% of the world's electricity. The World Coal Association statistics (http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/) are a good resource, although usually 12mths to 2 years behind due to international data gathering constraints. I certainly don't distrust "the industry", Scotty, but since I work in that industry I think I'd sooner trust my knowledge and experience in that area.
While we're on the subject, does either China or India need our steaming coal? Nope. They've got plenty of their own, albeit pretty poor quality in some cases. They'll burn the heck out of that for as long as they like without the slightest concern over our carbon tax! So who is exempting our coal exports going to benefit? Japan, mostly, and since their recent problems that's a precarious situation at best. The verdict is still out on the Japanese economy recovering from tsunami's and the like.
We have fantastic quality coal, steaming and coking, in this country but it's a long way from our markets and every dollar counts in competition. Even if the cost of diesel to fuel the trains, that take the export product to the port, rises by a significant amount as a consequence, a number of our volatile export markets will look elsewhere to countries like Indonesia, USA, Canada and South Africa among others. Indonesia in particular offers steaming coal at around half the price of the Australian product. We will have lost our excellent balance of trade surplus of late to a stupid political whim that has zero prospect of making a significant difference to climate change.
As an aside, I should mention that I edit a training manual called Understanding Coal Quality, which is highly regarded both in Australia and overseas. I also co-wrote the companion International Supplement that covers coal quality in the rest of the world. That doesn't mean I know all there is to know on the subject; I certainly don't. It does mean that I'm fairly well versed, having widely researched the subject on both sides of this debate. Do I have a vested interest in distorting the facts about coal, and carbon emissions? Nope. I'm an educator not a politician and the fact I work in the coal industry is both incidental and unsurprising given where I live. Tomorrow I could just as easily be working in some greener or more sustainable industry providing adult education, and either way I'm still a father and grandfather concerned about the future I leave behind. Fair enough?
Just like the GST turned us into an economic back-water... Or did it? I've never claimed that. In fact I supported Keating's original GST plan which would have also significantly reduced other taxes, and the infrastructure (public servants) required to account for them. What we have now is another half-baked version of what was originally a very good idea!
$5 billion investment in coal mines the day after the announcement. Sounds like the coal companies are crying wolf. :eek: How surprising.
Do you know how long it takes to plan an investment that size, do the due diligence, etc? The CT didn't exist when this investment was a reality. I'd prefer to listen to the CEO of Anglo American Coal who yesterday said if the government thinks there aren't other options for investing in coal elsewhere then they are dead wrong! It is naive to believe what politicians tell you at the best of times but least of all when they are trying to "sell" an unpopular, and in this case downright stupid, taxation scheme! :rolleyes:
Art Vandelay
12-07-2011, 7:25pm
I've never claimed that. In fact I supported Keating's original GST plan which would have also significantly reduced other taxes, and the infrastructure (public servants) required to account for them. What we have now is another half-baked version of what was originally a very good idea!
yep, at that time it was to appease the democrats. Which is nothing in comparison to the way we're now all hanging in a noose while that bumbling Bob Brown has the handle to the trap door. :o
Blueywa
12-07-2011, 7:31pm
Something to ponder FROM 1975
Have a look at this article published in Newsweek on the 28th April 1975: http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf . Forward this to your friends and family.
Here are a few interesting observations on claims made in the aricle, in order of appearance:
1. Food output will drop within ten years. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?
2. There is a massive accumulation of evidence for global cooling. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?
3. Global cooling is blamed for causing the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?
4. Scientists claim that occurences of weather extremes represents advance signs of global cooling. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?
5. The National Academy of Sciences said that global cooling "would force economic and social adjustment on a worldwide scale". Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?
6. Scientists in 1975 claimed that the world was one-sixth of the way to the next ice age. Strange! because now, in 2011 we are nowhere near this predicted ice age.
7. Scientists were able to produce a world map indicating who was going to be affected by global cooling. Strange! because similar maps are produced today by global warming advocates, predicting a gloomy future for the physical world. Who was/is right?
8. Global cooling will lead to droughts, floods, extended dry spells, delayed monsoons and local temperature increases. Strange! because global warming scientists make the same claims today. Who was/is right?
9. "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even to allay its effects." Aren't we all glad that politicians did nothing to warm up the earth in the late 1970s! I think politicians should do nothing in 2011 as well.
10. We should trust in God to keep the climate of the world in equilibrium even if this leads to minor variations from century to century and decade to decade.
Combating global cooling or global warming -real of perceived- is too large and an unreasonable request for mankind. Do not let politicians fool the population into thinking they need to start a new tax to "fight" climate change. Nor allow scientist to talk you into an impending climate catastrophy. If you look at a few front covers of news magazines below, you will see how alarmist scientists (and the media) can be.
Hank Optland
M. App. Sc. (Env. Sc.)
Art Vandelay
12-07-2011, 7:39pm
Good post blueywa, I was just thinking before that I was still waiting for the Ice age that was promised in the 70's :D
i like the idea of taxing pollution in order to have it reduced in the long term... however co2 is the wrong pollution to tax. as i stated in the other co2 tax thread, if us humans didnt exist there would still be 97% of the current level of co2 being produced....
sigh!
ask me again in 2020... :rolleyes:
Quote from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks"."
Not that I'd believe everything in NewSientist........http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20675-australias-shiny-new-carbon-tax-is-an-empty-promise.html Although it's probably more credible than me :rolleyes:
Back to learning how to take good photos so they can be posted for informed CC :)
...6. Scientists in 1975 claimed that the world was one-sixth of the way to the next ice age. Strange! because now, in 2011 we are nowhere near this predicted ice age...
On 28 April 1975, Newsweek magazine wrote:
"Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average"
Not quite the same thing. 1975 was near the end of a long period of cooling, and Newsweek found somebody with a short sensational quote. There were concerns that the present interglacial might be coming to an end (though not very much in the way of definite predictions from real scientists), and these do seem to have faded away as the present warming trend became apparent.
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 9:04pm
I've never claimed that. In fact I supported Keating's original GST plan which would have also significantly reduced other taxes, and the infrastructure (public servants) required to account for them. What we have now is another half-baked version of what was originally a very good idea!
Do you know how long it takes to plan an investment that size, do the due diligence, etc? The CT didn't exist when this investment was a reality. I'd prefer to listen to the CEO of Anglo American Coal who yesterday said if the government thinks there aren't other options for investing in coal elsewhere then they are dead wrong! It is naive to believe what politicians tell you at the best of times but least of all when they are trying to "sell" an unpopular, and in this case downright stupid, taxation scheme! :rolleyes:
Yes, I know you prefer to listen to those who give facts that best suit your opinion - we all do.
Don't forget, the Liberal Party only withdrew its own ETS when it was expedient to do so, they'll soon change their mind again.
Also, Abbott has publicly stated he'll not respect a popular vote on an ETS and you can only believe (according to him) a promise if it is written down. So, why (apart from blind partisan politics or the fact his drivel happens to fit your self interest) do you expect any better from Gillard. It is so hypocritical - they are politicians = they lie = get used to it.
As for coking coal - it seems if the figures about that don't support your sky falling on the economy rubbish, you just dismiss it. Yes, it is used for steel, but steel is one 500 polluters to pay the tax. And the coal inputs will be less than negligent. Ohh! The world will end, no more steel ever - we'll have to live in caves.
Yes, the investment takes a long time to prepare but seconds to not sign if the tax means the sky will fall in on the coal industry. It seems this tax will be negligible. Otherwise, why not pull out of a record deal?
Anyway, it is perfectly clear that you support the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels with no price incentive to change behaviours so that when we begin to run out (ESP oil) we will be unprepared for that economic disaster.
Good future planning
As for the juvenile argument that India isn't doing it, why should we? What if your neighbour decides to not pay his taxes or wear pants on his morning walk, are you going to use the same logic.
This is nothing more than I want, I want, I want but, I don't want to actually be the one to pay.
Scotty
geoffsta
12-07-2011, 9:39pm
Anyway, it is perfectly clear that you support the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels with no price incentive to change behaviours so that when we begin to run out (ESP oil) we will be unprepared for that economic disaster.
I really don't think car companies, and other companies that rely now on fossil fuels are dumb enough to wait until it runs out, then go belly up.
What does make me laugh is, there is a big push to use less eletricity, but at the same time bring out a vehicle that after 4 hours of use has to have a 8 hour electricity charge. :confused013
Anyway, it is perfectly clear that you support the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels with no price incentive to change behaviours so that when we begin to run out (ESP oil) we will be unprepared for that economic disaster.
Oh? How so? In fact I support no such thing! I expect that we will run out of fossil fuels sooner rather than later and I desperately want our leaders to take action now to find renewable alternatives. I can't say it plainer than that. Just because I'm not naive enough to believe what a PM says when in sales mode, or support tax impositions that I don't think are productive of real change, don't be misled to believe that I'm an enemy of the planet or whatever. That is simply flawed logic.:rolleyes:
Scotty, we've danced to this tune before, and we both know that we won't end up agreeing, so I'd say that it's best we A2D (Agree to Disagree) and leave it at that before either one of us is tempted to allow emotion to govern reason. Ok? :(
I hope you enjoy visiting my home town again this week, and think of me and my fellow Hunter AP'ers while you're doing so eh? Cheers :beer_mug:
Quote from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks"."
Actually this is probably quite true, and has more to do with the destruction of vast tracts of forests by fire for food production (those are one of the carbon 'sinks' you mentioned BTW) than the amount of fossil carbon being burned to produce electricity. The point is that there isn't necessarily a causal relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and increased atmospheric CO2 levels just because the two happen to exist at the same time. All you can say is "yes, both conditions exist". What if they both have a common cause that hasn't been dealt with? What about increased population as the common cause? How does a CT resolve that particular issue if it is indeed the root cause of both problems? :confused013
Scotty72
12-07-2011, 11:05pm
Let's just agree to disagree.
Perhaps you'll vote liberal who will repeal the CT and replace it with something equally as dumb. Remember, Abbott beat Turnbul by 1 vote.
Perhaps you'll vote labour who will be equally as dumb.
Or perhaps you'll vote green who will try to be even dumber than the big boys.
The simple fact is - we are using up resources (ESP forests and oil) at an unbelievably unsustainable rate. The more we ignore that by squabbling about who will win the pissing contest, the harder the inevitable crash will be.
Once again, if you think a CT will push up fuel and inflation. What do you think will happen when a billion extra Chinese and Indians (over the next decade) discover they can now afford a car and our fossil fueled lifestyle.
Some predictions are that these 2 countries desire for cars over the next decade will double the number of cars on Earth.
I think $5 / litre will be a bargain.
Tommo1965
13-07-2011, 8:32am
Put on a jumper in winter. And acclimatise? I come from a cold country, but the days when I really need aircon—as opposed to just liking it—are really very few. And at that I'm just being self-indulgent. But even using it every day I couldn't get up to $800/month.
LOL
jumpers in 2 degree night time temps dont help too much..I came from a cold climate too..and boy did my old mum crank up the fire and central heating in winter ....the facts are...that if my reverse cycle aircon gets to expensive to run..Ill be out in the firewood areas cutting up timber with my two stroke chain saw and burning as much of that timber I can to keep my house warm.
it wasn't too long ago that the local govement was pushing people to install reverse air con..cause of the winter air quality and wound down pot bellys...I have a almost smoke free open fire..that consumes wood at frightening speed .
the goverment should have made sure we had a greener alternative to buy our power from. before they made the dirtier power too expensive to use ...
Ill be ... burning as much of that timber I can to keep my house warm.
So you are switching to a renewable energy source for your home heating. Excellent example of the carbon tax working exactly as designed!
the goverment should have made sure we had a greener alternative to buy our power from. before they made the dirtier power too expensive to use ...
The common wisdom is that governments are pretty bad at doing that sort of thing. The right wing of politics has been hysterically against government action in any field since about 1975 or so when the Dries took over the Liberal Party (notwitstanding their own history!) and the centre has been against it too since the Hawke-Keating administrations. It can actually work very well, as witness the many successes of Sir Robert Menzies' time, or in our own era, the national Broadband Network. Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly it is now common ground between 90% of economists and both the Liberal and Labor parties that government is not good at picking winners and running enterprises. You and I may disagree with that, but our voices will not be heard. And be that as it may, with the carbon problem we have a classic example of an issue that really is best solved by the market, not by government action. For once, the right-wing free-market economists are exactly right.
By the way, it is completely ridiculous to pretend that they have "made the dirtier power too expensive to use". The price rise from the carbon tax is quite small - much, much smaller than the price rises we have endured as a consequence of (1) population growth, (2) lack of investment, and (3) privatisation. We have blown out our state populations badly over the last few years and prices have had to go up to fund capacity for all those extra people. We have avoided reinvesting prudently in power generation and distribution networks over the last 20-30 years to keep up with normal deterioration, so now we are starting to face the task of doing everything art once. And the private ownership of most assets these days means that we don't just pay for the cost of generating and delivering power, we pay for a tidy profit too. All of these are far, far bigger imposts on your pocket than the piddly little climate tax, so stop winging and harden the F up!
So you are switching to a renewable energy source for your home heating. Excellent example of the carbon tax working exactly as designed!
Oh, dear, you haven't thought that through, have you Tony. Let's see if I can help. You think it's a good thing, and a desirable outcome of the carbon tax, to replace the relatively efficient burning of fossil coal with the disastrously inefficient burning of trees to save CO2 emissions, despite the fact that trees are natures CO2 sinks and coal isn't? And that will reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere how? And that will preserve the habitat of forest dwelling plants, animals and insects how? :Doh:
IOW you want to replace CO2 absorption (by trees in forests) with CO2 emission by burning those trees to save relatively LESS CO2 emissions from burning coal? :rolleyes:
... so stop winging and harden the F up!
Not a sentiment calculated to win friends or influence people really. :eek:
Bennymiata
13-07-2011, 1:05pm
I now how we can save the coal industry!
They should get a tax credit as they are getting rid of so much carbon to overseas countries! :lol:
Did you know that many years ago when catalytic converters were going to be introduced on our cars as an anti-pollution measure that Maggie Thatcher, then PM of the UK, said that she thought it was a bad idea as the converters changed the noxious gasses from car exhaust into CO2 and she said that in the future, CO2 would be a very dirty word.
How smart was she.
I'm well out of my depth here, but WhoDo, you confuse me. Is it not possible to buy a pretty efficient wood burner? You don't have to use an open fire.
And how is coal not a CO2 sink? It's mostly carbon, and burning it releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
At least burning wood you can plant more trees and minimise (at least) the net increase of atmospheric CO2.
I'm well out of my depth here, but WhoDo, you confuse me. Is it not possible to buy a pretty efficient wood burner? You don't have to use an open fire.
And how is coal not a CO2 sink? It's mostly carbon, and burning it releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
At least burning wood you can plant more trees and minimise (at least) the net increase of atmospheric CO2.
Happy to explain, Jim.
1. Wood contains moisture in significant quantities which makes it comparatively very difficult to burn. Bituminous PFI coal used in coal-fired power stations has less inherent moisture, is pre-dried and so combusts much more easily.
2. Because wood is more difficult to burn, it takes more of it to generate the same per kilojoule heat output.
3. Fossil coal doesn't draw CO2 from the atmosphere in its fossil state; trees do draw CO2 from the atmosphere. By the time trees and other plant matter are compressed and heated to the point of becoming coal, their capacity to convert CO2 has long since passed. In fact the coalification process produces methane, a far worse greenhouse gas.
4. Coal is mostly carbon, yes, but not necessarily in combination with oxygen as CO2. In fact, only 1 in 5000 atoms of Carbon exists in a state where it is capable of reacting with oxygen at all. Burning it certainly does release CO2 and other things into the atmosphere. For many years we have been burning coal and the atmospheric CO2 levels have remained unchanged. In the last decade that has ceased to be the case. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing slightly as a percentage. It could be we are producing more CO2 than plants can remove, but given the relatively small contribution of man-made CO2, I doubt that's the case. It is more likely that there are fewer CO2 absorbers (trees and green plants) to maintain the balance, or perhaps it's a combination of both.
On that subject, you may find this chart interesting in regard to the amount of different coals it takes to produce 1Gj of energy and relatively how much CO2 is produced in the process. If you consider that wood falls well below brown coal (Lignite) in terms of its energy content vs moisture, you will probably see my point.
75190
Trees take years to grow and harvest so burning them is an uneconomical proposition. Even pine plantations result in a comparatively costly raw material. If we were all to suddenly switch to burning wood instead of coal, we couldn't plant AND grow sufficient quantities of trees to replace what we were using at the rate we used it. They become almost a non-renewable resource in that sense. (I said almost). We can "grow" coal, too, but it would takes millions of years and lots of energy that we simply don't have.
If we are going to produce energy from renewable, or at least virtually inexhaustable, sources then we need to look at the alternatives; solar, wind, wave, fission, fusion, etc. Even synthetic photosynthesis is possible with advances in quantum mechanics and the will to invest in the research and development to make them.
Another option would be to find ways of gaining cheap fuel from our own waste, and finding ways to keep the climate and atmospheric balances while doing so. Failing that we need to be addressing population growth as the single biggest threat to our own survival.
Finallly, if we are truly concerned about increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, we should be using that to boost the growth of CO2 "sinks" (green plants) or creating new ones, and feeding our increasing population with the produce as well as using the waste to provide our energy needs. Now THAT is what I'd call a sustainable approach to all of the related problems.:cool:
Tommo1965
13-07-2011, 6:24pm
So you are switching to a renewable energy source for your home heating. Excellent example of the carbon tax working exactly as designed!
The common wisdom is that governments are pretty bad at doing that sort of thing. The right wing of politics has been hysterically against government action in any field since about 1975 or so when the Dries took over the Liberal Party (notwitstanding their own history!) and the centre has been against it too since the Hawke-Keating administrations. It can actually work very well, as witness the many successes of Sir Robert Menzies' time, or in our own era, the national Broadband Network. Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly it is now common ground between 90% of economists and both the Liberal and Labor parties that government is not good at picking winners and running enterprises. You and I may disagree with that, but our voices will not be heard. And be that as it may, with the carbon problem we have a classic example of an issue that really is best solved by the market, not by government action. For once, the right-wing free-market economists are exactly right.
By the way, it is completely ridiculous to pretend that they have "made the dirtier power too expensive to use". The price rise from the carbon tax is quite small - much, much smaller than the price rises we have endured as a consequence of (1) population growth, (2) lack of investment, and (3) privatisation. We have blown out our state populations badly over the last few years and prices have had to go up to fund capacity for all those extra people. We have avoided reinvesting prudently in power generation and distribution networks over the last 20-30 years to keep up with normal deterioration, so now we are starting to face the task of doing everything art once. And the private ownership of most assets these days means that we don't just pay for the cost of generating and delivering power, we pay for a tidy profit too. All of these are far, far bigger imposts on your pocket than the piddly little climate tax, so stop winging and harden the F up!
while I do agree with some of what you have said, in particular the break up of the generation of power...I dont believe Im whinging..or I need to HTFU.. :(
my concerns are as real as anyone elses , and in a environment of raising 4 kids with a single income {mostly} ..any added costs are real...and if the rebates the government will give me to keep me smiling counteract the minuses ..then whats the point if it doesn't change my habits ?
I see diesel fuel is gonna be included..but a election losing Petrol tax is out?..in the UK everyone wants a diesel car..as the are more economical ...Ive just bought a pajero DID that does 100Km on 9 litres...the petrol model uses 15Litres per 100K...if the diesel is now more expensive { than it already is} then people wont use diesels .
I know my concerns are simplistic..that probably because Im a simple person..but they are real non the less..
Bennymiata
13-07-2011, 7:43pm
One thing you're forgetting Thomo, is that these subsidies won't last forever, and by that time, the price of carbon emmissions will have gone up considerably too, so you won't always be ahead.
sonofcoco
13-07-2011, 10:04pm
And Macathur coal is being bought out in one of the largest coal mining takeovers in history -$5 billion. Oh, the coal industry in in ruin!
I cannot believe the hysteria being whipped up by a lazy idiot with no policy other than scare the crap out of people for no reason. I can't believe I used to vote for this bunch of idiots.
Scotty
haha, that was fantastically timed...especially after Tony had announced coal mines would be closing down left, right, and centre.
Will be interesting to hear exactly what Tony's policies are, when he deems them important enough to tell the rest of us. While I'm sure he'd think he was the luckiest man on earth to head for an election without having to do anything apart from 'just say no', I can't see it happening. It's also interesting that the Libs have the gall to harp on about economic management after the joke they made of the budget response last year. Joe Hockey's a reasonable amusing bloke, especially when he's dressed in his rugby gear resembling a green M&M, but his efforts in replying to the budget last year were pretty poor.
Can't wait for the Libs to stop making white noise and start telling us what they'll be doing for us if they get in. I'd hope it's more than simply the opposite of everything Labor says or does.
Lance B
13-07-2011, 11:07pm
haha, that was fantastically timed...especially after Tony had announced coal mines would be closing down left, right, and centre.
Will be interesting to hear exactly what Tony's policies are, when he deems them important enough to tell the rest of us. While I'm sure he'd think he was the luckiest man on earth to head for an election without having to do anything apart from 'just say no', I can't see it happening. It's also interesting that the Libs have the gall to harp on about economic management after the joke they made of the budget response last year. Joe Hockey's a reasonable amusing bloke, especially when he's dressed in his rugby gear resembling a green M&M, but his efforts in replying to the budget last year were pretty poor.
Can't wait for the Libs to stop making white noise and start telling us what they'll be doing for us if they get in. I'd hope it's more than simply the opposite of everything Labor says or does.
This is so amusing it's scary. Just exactly how this fits into Juliars desire to shame the rest of the world into introducing a cabon tax I'll never know. So, it looks like the rest of the world has absolutely no intention of introducing a carbon tax otherwise they wouldn't touch purchasing any of our coal mines with a 10 foot pole. Her desire to shame the rest of the world is a joke and delusional at best and anyone who believes it also believes in fairies and father christmas and yet they still try to justify it, especially by trying to discredit Tony Abbott at any measure. As I wrote in a post above (#64):
The other day, when questioned about the future of the Australian Coal industry due to a carbon tax, Juliar Gillard said that even though there would be a carbon tax, the coal industry would expand??!!
Now, I am wondering how this could be if the object of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions and therefore our reliance on coal as a source of energy. So, she can’t mean that the coal industry would expand in Australia and therefore it must be the that any increase must come from an increase of exports of coal. But hang on a minute, firstly, if we have a carbon tax on coal, then our exports will be more expensive when compared to other nations who export coal and therefore we will lose out to those other countries as their coal will be cheaper. Secondly, the fact that we have introduced a carbon tax was supposed to “shame” (which is a joke) the rest of the world into having their own carbon tax and therefore their use of coal would also reduce, not increase!! So, on no level can she make the statement that the coal industry would expand when you look at these facts.
However, China is opening up a new coal fired power plant every month, so even if we reduced our emissions by by 100%, it would be more than taken up by China's increase in use. On no level will a carbon tax make one iota of difference to the world's CO2 levels and anyone that thinks it will is living in lala land and the whole thing is a con.
So, the tax has absolutely nothing to do with trying to reduce carbon emissions (that was just to appease the communistic Greens agenda), but a way to dupe the public into gladly paying a tax in the misguided belief that they were going to "save the world" :lol:. The tax is being introduced simply because the Labor government has mismanaged the economy so badly that they will do anything to stay in power (read sleep with the Greens) and the carbon tax is to pay for this complete mismanagement all the while trying to dupe us into believing it is for the good of the country. Their gall is unbelieveable and people are falling over themselves to support this economic madness. Look at the history of mismanagement: The BER debacle, Pink Batts fiasco, NBN waste, Cash for Clunkers, Grocery and Fuel Watch, who can forget the Citizens assembly joke, Resource Super Profits Tax debacle, Computers in Schools blow out, Tax bonus during the GFC which didn't do anything and the list goes on. So, Tony Abbott opposing anything that Labor says or does seems like a damn good thing as it means not having so many complete fiascos and debacles and therefore avoiding the plunge is further into debt!
The way people are jumping onto the bandwagon with such joyous glee to pay this completely useless tax, I am sure that they would also line up to get hit over the head with a hammer and happily pay for the priviledge. It just beggers belief.
Xebadir
13-07-2011, 11:12pm
Would like to address a couple of points here.
1. BlueyWA - Been done to death really, this scientists in 1975 predicting cooling. Difference was rather significant though...it was based on a small number of research papers that were working off far more limited datasets....just remember that the reliable satellite era didn't actually start until 1979. I prefer to stay away from debating these things even though I am working in a climate science field, but basically the position was far more contraversial..in fact it wasn't long until it was completely rejected, but you won't find that in the media headlines. Back then the fields were much smaller, and the data much harder to come by. Now days, we have temperature records over a much longer period, we have a huge number of people tackling the problem from different angles and approaches, and coming up with the same answer. Realistically though, the indisputable fact is that we are warming...skeptics and scientists agree there. The only question is the anthropogenic influence, which is there but how significant? Thats what it boils down to, regardless of that it doesn't really seem to have any bearing on the policy.
2. Effectively what the tax is, is a wealth redistribution and democratic way of applying communist policies rather than having to anything to do with environmental policy. Why do I say this? 10% of the population is going to be significantly worse off (the 10%, many of whom, who have worked their backsides off to get where they are, but thats another story). 60% of the population are no-worse off or slightly worse off (in the short term, long term this is a figment), 30% of the population are better off, the bottom group. Sorry, but look at the numbers....thats communist principles in a nutshell.
The other justification for this statement: It actually is completely ineffective in what it was meant to do, reduce emissions, we still end up way over target and have to buy credits to get ourselves to the minimal targets. Realistically the coal industry is going to continue to export, there isn't really an input by the tax on that and thats where the main market is, where there will be a problem is our own use of coal....fancy paying ridiculous electricity prices? We are heading there. No amount of government compensation will address it. They intend to buy up the coal stations to shut them down, but that 4 billion dollars isn't factored into the budgetting, no, that means we are 8 billion down. When asked Julia said this shortfall will be dealt with out of the contingency fund...which has already been spent in full....meaning borrowing more. This is before we even talk about the huge amount of bureaucracy this will create, together with the 10 billion dollar fund administered for R&D but controlled by the greens with the stipulation that none shall be provided for working on carbon capture.
Unfortunately for Australia, unless one of the independents grows some backbone and calls the new election that is needed immediately we have over another 2 years for the Green/Labor unholy alliance to wreck the joint even more and accomplish nothing at great cost. We are being held to ransom by a minority. Enjoy that feeling. I can't see Julia having the balls to do it, given at the current stage we would likely see the death of the labor party. Ironically, even if we do go to an election right now we will immediately result in a hung parliment... and be forced to a double dissolution as the greens will block supply in the senate (you still have the 6 greens elected this term plus however many new ones controlling the balance unless you see a 2004 like senate result or more). So Guaranteed next time we get to elect these turkeys, get used to the campaigning because we will do it again within the shortest possible time.
I put down here that I am against the tax, and yet I actually believe we need to do something. If there wasn't so much in the way of kickbacks for the voters and union puppets then I wouldn't have a problem with it...divert the money into developing whatever technology we need to address the issue as soon as possible. But until that happens these actions are pointless. Realistically this government has no standing from the Australian people....one only need look at the bribes for various independant electorates. Anyone feel like shooting an independent?
Oh and just noting. I am looking for a job outside of Australia. Time for this rat to get out of this ship before it sinks.
Tommo1965
14-07-2011, 7:52am
seems like there's quite a few very well informed people in this thread that see the tax as nothing more than appeasement of the greens and a revenue raiser for the Labour party ...and their opinions are quite worrying...
There also seems to be a few that have very strong opinions that are in favour of the Tax.. their arguments seem to have been outweighed by others that have more knowledge of the facts ..that IMHO is also very worrying .....
My own opinion is that we are now a country that's is lead buy the Greens minority...I never voted for them..and yet Im now being dictated by their policy's...the PM promised NO CBT if she was elected..that backflip in its self is enough of a reason to believe that our government is clinging to power and its policy's are now being written by others not within that party .....I know that pollies are a untrustworthy bunch....but this is blatant ....little Johny took GST to the polls and won..I wonder if Miss Gilard had done the same with the CBT we would be in this mess now.
the country needs to go to the Polls....Labour will not get my vote next time
When you grow a tree and then burn it, and then grow it again, and then burn it again, and then grow it again, and so on endlessly, it is a 100% sustainable, carbon neutral activity. 100%. Amount of carbon added to the atmosphere: zero.
When you dig up coal and burn it, that CO2 adds directly to the atmospheric buildup which is changing the climate. None is recycled. Zero.
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 10:02am
Why does everybody cite China opening up new powerstations as an argument against us using tax as a price signal to reduce reliance of fossil fuels.
Relative to us, China is still a poor country that is
a) undergoing massive population rises (still) - and therefore needs more and more power.
Do we tell the Chinese, "How dare you breed! When we give away money to encourage the same (baby bonus / Howard govt middle class welfare - pork barrelling)." Why do we think Chinese are not fit to breed when we are (racism in this country?)?
b) undergoing unprecedented industrialisation / consumerism.
Again, do we tell them that Chinese are somehow inferior and do not have the required genetic make-up that entitles them to the same largess in their life-styles that we enjoy?
c) despite all this, China is still streets ahead in terms of renewables investment.
We, as one of the richest nations on Earth refuse to take the lead and reduce our environmental foot-print. It seems many Australians seem to want to save the environment by, letting the Chinese do something about it.
This idea that the Chinese (or Indians) are not entitled to develop as we have - How dare they threaten the Earth by copying our lifestyle could well be seen as returning to the horrible racist policies of Australia's past by supressing the same 'Yellow Peril' that was govt policy a few decades ago.
Yes, we should take the lead and pressure the USA and Japan (Europe is already ahead of us) to follow us.
Scotty
Something to ponder FROM 1975.... great post mate...
now i know why they dont cal it global warming or global cooling anymore... the scientist dont know which way its going, they just know the climate is changing :lol:
When you grow a tree and then burn it, and then grow it again, and then burn it again, and then grow it again, and so on endlessly, it is a 100% sustainable, carbon neutral activity. 100%. Amount of carbon added to the atmosphere: zero.
When you dig up coal and burn it, that CO2 adds directly to the atmospheric buildup which is changing the climate. None is recycled. Zero.
The problem though Tony is that you can burn an entire tree in a matter of minutes if you want to, but it takes years for its replacement to grow. That time differential is pretty significant.
Why does everybody cite China opening up new powerstations as an argument against us using tax as a price signal to reduce reliance of fossil fuels...
I think the point people are making is that any reductions in CO2 output in our country are likely to be completely dwarfed by increases in CO2 production in China. And it's fair to consider that - this is a global issue afterall.
When you grow a tree and then burn it, and then grow it again, and then burn it again, and then grow it again, and so on endlessly, it is a 100% sustainable, carbon neutral activity. 100%. Amount of carbon added to the atmosphere: zero.
When you dig up coal and burn it, that CO2 adds directly to the atmospheric buildup which is changing the climate. None is recycled. Zero.
Ummmm... think again, Tony. The carbon in coal COMES FROM TREES! By your reasoning, burning that is also carbon neutral. Those trees absorbed the carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, millions of years ago, so according to your reasoning we are just returning that to the atmosphere over a longer time frame. The problem is those trees no longer exist to recapture the carbon released when they are burned. Besides, if you burn trees at a greater rate than you plant them AND can grow them to maturity again then you are still using up the carbon absorbing side of the cycle and impacting the atmospheric CO2 balance. What's more, you need to burn MORE trees to get the same amount of energy that you get from coal; ANY coal including lignite! :rolleyes:
What totally surprises me is that, given your proclivity for bird and nature photography and your feelings about climate change, you would even consider burning trees a viable option. As for being sustainable, cut down a single tree and you will have enough wood to keep you warm and cook for about a week. Now sit there without heat for warmth or cooking for the next 5-10 years while that tree is regrown to the same level of maturity before you can cut it down again. You'll be very, very cold and hungry before you get your next energy hit from that "sustainable" method. Now multiply you by several billion people and you'll start to grasp the size of the problem, I'm sure. :confused013
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 11:11am
The problem though Tony is that you can burn an entire tree in a matter of minutes if you want to, but it takes years for its replacement to grow. That time differential is pretty significant.
I think the point people are making is that any reductions in CO2 output in our country are likely to be completely dwarfed by increases in CO2 production in China. And it's fair to consider that - this is a global issue afterall.
A tree can regrow in 10-100 years... Coal & oil take millions of years to be replaced. :)
My 'doing the right thing' by placing rubbish in the bin is often completely dwarfed by litterbugs (esp smokers - butts) who turn our streets into garbage tips. Is it your advice that I, too, give up and throw my rubbish into the gutter? Same logic. :th3:
A tree can regrow in 10-100 years... Coal & oil take millions of years to be replaced. :)
My 'doing the right thing' by placing rubbish in the bin is often completely dwarfed by litterbugs (esp smokers - butts) who turn our streets into garbage tips. Is it your advice that I, too, give up and throw my rubbish into the gutter? Same logic. :th3:
I like the rubbish analogy, Scotty. Let's use that.
If CO2 is the rubbish in our atmosphere, and trees and green plants are the rubbish bins (recyclable of course), what we need to solve the problem of too much rubbish isn't just more considerate litterers (takes time and education but can be done), we also need MORE BINS! You can have an impact right now, on your street, by leaving YOUR bin out for everyone else to put their rubbish in, rather than dumping it elsewhere, but unless that happens on every street and in every city and country world-wide, you won't have solved the rubbish problem although you will have made it easier for the litterers in your area to avoid a fine. I hope you've got enough bins! ;)
rellik666
14-07-2011, 11:52am
Can I just say thank you to everyone in this thread, whilst it has its moments and I can't see anyone here changing their minds, I have found it very informative from both sides. No sarcasm or pun intended.
It has made me go and look at this issue from more that what is touted in the media.
I think there is a general consensus here that we all want to move towards a sustainable future, whether this is the right way to go about it is the argument.
We all want to help the environment, we all want the parks and reserves to be there for our children, we all want clean air and less rubbish going to landfill.
If you can tell me how this TAX is going to achieve that please feel free to enlighten me. Even if we disregard the fact that we are a small fish in a big pond,
Can you tell me how this TAX is going to reduce the pollutants of sulphur, nitrogen oxide (which is what causes smog) and methane to name a few?
Can you tell me where this 100% Green power is going to come from without carbon capture?
Can you tell me how putting a tax on Diesel and not petrol is going to reduce travel, yet how can it not hurt our food distribution network?
I am sorry but I cannot see how this is going to help us become more sustainable? I also cannot see how this is anything more than wealth redistribution under the guise of saving the world.
A tree can regrow in 10-100 years... Coal & oil take millions of years to be replaced. :)
My 'doing the right thing' by placing rubbish in the bin is often completely dwarfed by litterbugs (esp smokers - butts) who turn our streets into garbage tips. Is it your advice that I, too, give up and throw my rubbish into the gutter? Same logic. :th3:
Don't put words in my mouth Scotty. You were criticising people for mentioning the CO2 outputs of China, I simply pointed out that I think it's valid to mention China/India/whoever, given that climate change/global warming/global cooling/whatever, is a global issue.
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 12:01pm
I like the rubbish analogy, Scotty. Let's use that.
If CO2 is the rubbish in our atmosphere, and trees and green plants are the rubbish bins (recyclable of course), what we need to solve the problem of too much rubbish isn't just more considerate litterers (takes time and education but can be done), we also need MORE BINS! You can have an impact right now, on your street, by leaving YOUR bin out for everyone else to put their rubbish in, rather than dumping it elsewhere, but unless that happens on every street and in every city and country world-wide, you won't have solved the rubbish problem although you will have made it easier for the litterers in your area to avoid a fine. I hope you've got enough bins! ;)
You've taken a metaphor: twisted it, shaken it, turned it upside down then, inside out so that the twisted wreck looks nothing like the orginal idea. Which of course one tactic to attempt to avoid answering the question that you don't like.
So, I'll ask again using a different analogy ('cause it is actually fun watching you twist a question out of shape so you don't have to actually answer it - you and Gillard are like peas in a pod :cool:.)
If your kid comes home and says, 'All the other kids are vandalising the local church."
Do you say: a) but, you should not lower yourself to that and be better citizen or; b) ok, I guess you should go do it too so those kids don't have an advantage (more fun) than you.
(The main argument against CT seems to be that we should lower ourselves to the lowest standard we can find on Earth)
But to answer YOUR question. I believe the councils should definitely provide more public bins - I am often walking for many blocks without finding one. Yes, that would mean higher rates. I guess that suggestion will have the Tony Abbott / Allan Jones coallition stage a few more rent a crowd demonstrations on the lawns of Parliament House. But, I also believe we need to reduce the amount of consumption / waste we generate. Perhaps by not burning so much fossil fuel and not consuming so much (chopping down trees) these carbon sinks (natural rubbish bins as you put it) will not be upturned by us and the CO2 rubbish emptied onto the streets (atmosphere)/
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 12:10pm
Don't put words in my mouth Scotty. You were criticising people for mentioning the CO2 outputs of China, I simply pointed out that I think it's valid to mention China/India/whoever, given that climate change/global warming/global cooling/whatever, is a global issue.
I did not put words in your mouth, I asked you a question. Which is still open.
My point is that China does many bad things (executions, human rights abuses, running tanks over protests, no freedom of expression etc.) which no doubt give them a competetive advantage. Should we follow those egs too? A legit question, I think.
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 12:15pm
Can I just say thank you to everyone in this thread, whilst it has its moments and I can't see anyone here changing their minds, I have found it very informative from both sides. No sarcasm or pun intended.
It has made me go and look at this issue from more that what is touted in the media.
I think there is a general consensus here that we all want to move towards a sustainable future, whether this is the right way to go about it is the argument.
We all want to help the environment, we all want the parks and reserves to be there for our children, we all want clean air and less rubbish going to landfill.
If you can tell me how this TAX is going to achieve that please feel free to enlighten me. Even if we disregard the fact that we are a small fish in a big pond,
Can you tell me how this TAX is going to reduce the pollutants of sulphur, nitrogen oxide (which is what causes smog) and methane to name a few?
Can you tell me where this 100% Green power is going to come from without carbon capture?
Can you tell me how putting a tax on Diesel and not petrol is going to reduce travel, yet how can it not hurt our food distribution network?
I am sorry but I cannot see how this is going to help us become more sustainable? I also cannot see how this is anything more than wealth redistribution under the guise of saving the world.
I don't see how the property developer who wants to build over parklands / national parks etc is an example of everybody wanting to save the parks.
So, is Australia really going to go back to the 'Reds under the beds' scare campaigns? (wealth redistribution = Commies under the bed)
What else can we revive? Should we be 'alert but not alarmed' too; should we 'populate or perish'; should we restart the crusades? :lol:
I did not put words in your mouth, I asked you a question. Which is still open.
My point is that China does many bad things (executions, human rights abuses, running tanks over protests, no freedom of expression etc.) which no doubt give them a competetive advantage. Should we follow those egs too? A legit question, I think.
Did I say we should follow China's example? In any field? No, I did not.
Personally I do believe in leading by example. I just don't think this carbon tax is a very good example. To me, it seems that the only effects we will see from this tax will be economic and political ones, not environmental.
Lance B
14-07-2011, 1:10pm
You've taken a metaphor: twisted it, shaken it, turned it upside down then, inside out so that the twisted wreck looks nothing like the orginal idea. Which of course one tactic to attempt to avoid answering the question that you don't like.
So, I'll ask again using a different analogy ('cause it is actually fun watching you twist a question out of shape so you don't have to actually answer it - you and Gillard are like peas in a pod :cool:.)
If your kid comes home and says, 'All the other kids are vandalising the local church."
Do you say: a) but, you should not lower yourself to that and be better citizen or; b) ok, I guess you should go do it too so those kids don't have an advantage (more fun) than you.
Wrong metaphor and it is a silly metaphor. We are being penalised for stopping our vandalising by being taxed. In otherwords, to take the metaphor further, we are being smacked over the head for stopping the so called vandalising.
But to answer YOUR question. I believe the councils should definitely provide more public bins - I am often walking for many blocks without finding one. Yes, that would mean higher rates. I guess that suggestion will have the Tony Abbott / Allan Jones coallition stage a few more rent a crowd demonstrations on the lawns of Parliament House.
And the pro carbon tax crowds are not rent a crowd? Give me a break. None of the people who went to the anti carbon tax rallies were paid or "rented" as you put it in order to discredit to bolster your flawed case. Their "payment" is that if they win by changing the government's mind then they do not have to pay a carbon tax. Simple, but that doesn't fit with your agenda. The last pro carbon tax rally was organised by Getup and the Greens movement and their "payment" is that they get some free money from the raised taxes.
But, I also believe we need to reduce the amount of consumption / waste we generate. Perhaps by not burning so much fossil fuel and not consuming so much (chopping down trees) these carbon sinks (natural rubbish bins as you put it) will not be upturned by us and the CO2 rubbish emptied onto the streets (atmosphere)/
The whole thing is about wealth redistribution, not for reducing our carbon output (as it will do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions), otherwise they would ban all exports of coal and this is where your quaint little anaolgy of vandalising a church also falls down. The trouble is, we are killing our cash cow that provides us with our wealth, ie our most lucrative industries. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
A much more practical CO2 reduction would be to divert coal exports to SA and Vic to use lower CO2 emitting black coal instead of the brown stuff used for power in those states.
This would more than frac12 the CO2 output from coal power generation in those states.
This is a simple example of what can be done now that would actually reduce pollution yet the Govt are not making these sort of things happen.
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 1:28pm
Wrong metaphor and it is a silly metaphor. We are being penalised for stopping our vandalising by being taxed. In otherwords, to take the metaphor further, we are being smacked over the head for stopping the so called vandalising.
Absolutely untrue. You tax something, you get less of it (that Lord Alan Jones mantra). So, by taxing the burning of fossil fuels (if they did it properly - not this half-arsed approach we got), people will have great incentive to burn less. Simple economics.
And the pro carbon tax crowds are not rent a crowd? Give me a break. None of the people who went to the anti carbon tax rallies were paid or "rented" as you put it in order to discredit to bolster your flawed case. Their "payment" is that if they win by changing the government's mind then they do not have to pay a carbon tax. Simple, but that doesn't fit with your agenda. The last pro carbon tax rally was organised by Getup and the Greens movement and their "payment" is that they get some free money from the raised taxes.
The last couple of anti-environment rallies were wholey and soley organised, orchestrated and the buses that transported the mob were paid for by radio 2GB. So, tell me that is not an Alan Jones / Jason Morrison inspired campaign of ignorance.
Get up! Unlike the corporate radio goons, are funded by donations from the public (like me). They don't rent the crowd - they crowd sponsors them. That is called sponsoring the public good - not demanding ME! ME! ME!
The whole thing is about wealth redistribution, not for reducing our carbon output (as it will do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions), otherwise they would ban all exports of coal and this is where your quaint little anaolgy of vandalising a church also falls down. The trouble is, we are killing our cash cow that provides us with our wealth, ie our most lucrative industries. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
I forgot, Reds under the bed! Thanks Menzies:)
As the basic economics tells us (and I will quote the denier High Priest), you tax anything, you get less of it. So, tax emissions = less emissions.
Ummmm... think again, Tony. The carbon in coal COMES FROM TREES! By your reasoning, burning that is also carbon neutral. Those trees absorbed the carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, millions of years ago, so according to your reasoning we are just returning that to the atmosphere over a longer time frame. The problem is those trees no longer exist to recapture the carbon released when they are burned. Besides, if you burn trees at a greater rate than you plant them AND can grow them to maturity again then you are still using up the carbon absorbing side of the cycle and impacting the atmospheric CO2 balance. What's more, you need to burn MORE trees to get the same amount of energy that you get from coal; ANY coal including lignite! :rolleyes:
Is this not why burning coal is problematic? The carbon in that coal came from vast forests that persisted for millions of years. You'd have to plant a lot of trees.
If you can tell me how this TAX is going to .....
I probably can give you good, solid answers to most of those questions, Rellik, or at least make a pretty good start on them, but first I would like you to tell me why you feel you have to SHOUT the word "tax". When someone does that, it gives me a very strong sense that this is a person with a lot of emotional baggage - a calm, rational poster wouldn't need to SHOUT like that, surely? - and makes me reluctant to put time and effort into crafting a properly researched, useful answer. So perhaps you could be kind enough to explain the shouting and reassure me that you aren't just another mischievous opposition supporter with a barrow to push - because the introduction to your post suggests that you are in fact a quite reasonable person.
But I'll assume good will and give you this one for nothing. :)
"Can you tell me how putting a tax on Diesel and not petrol is going to reduce travel, yet how can it not hurt our food distribution network?"
This is two questions. First question:
It isn't actually "putting a tax on" diesel, it is taking away a tax exemption, which is not quite the same thing. But let's ignore that. Second, petrol is already taxed at a much higher rate than the carbon tax. This tax was brought in by the Liberal Party - National Party Coalition Government in 1977 (exact year from memory) and has been maintained by every government ever since. It has, however, been watered down from its original form in various ways, one of those ways involves a complicated system of exemptions for special interest groups. Will it reduce travel? Not so as you would notice. Implemented properly, however, it will shift wasteful, inefficient transport modes over to better ones - notably long-haul road freight to rail (which is vastly superior in a variety of ways). Alas, the current government messed that part up. With any luck, a future government will revisit the issue and fix this mistake.
Finally, on this first question, we need to consider the political realities. It would obviously make more sense to apply the carbon tax to all carbon sources, including petrol, and undoubtedly over time this will be done. (Not by this government - I'm thinking 5-10 years before we get a government with the right combination of communication skills and clarity of vision. But it will certainly happen eventually.) But the practical reality is that they felt they had more than enough to cope with given Abbott's vociferous opposition to everything already on the table and whimped out.
As a citizen with some scientific training and an appreciation of the magnitude of the problem, not to mention the urgency of it, I am appalled at their lack of courage. As an observer of political life, however, I must accept it. Gillard simply isn't strong enough at present to do all that should be done. Rudd could have done it back when he was Mr 80% Approval, but Rudd squibbed it and got dumped to punish him for his cowardice.
Second question:
The second part of the answer concerns results. What practical difference will this make to our food distribution network? Virtually none. The price rise is, in the overall scale of things, tiny. The actual addition to road freight costs is on average 1.4 percent. (This is using a cost figure provided by the Australian Trucking Association.) That's not 1.4 percent increase in the price of a bag of wheat delivered to your door, it's a 1.4 percent increase in the freight component only. The bag of wheat goes up by a far smaller amount.
I'll give you my own example. I am a retailer in a country town. Everything I sell I have to pay freight on, normally from either Sydney or Melbourne. Like all country retailers, I whinge about how much freight I pay. Well, I just did the sums to work out how much that will impact the selling price of a $1000 computer, and the computer I sell now for $1000.00 will cost $1000.10. Yep, that's right, ten cents in a thousand dollars. Freight accounts for around one percent of my total costs (bit less actually), and this increase will up that one percent by less than two hundredths.
Short answer - it's trivial. Don't worry about it.
rellik666
14-07-2011, 1:57pm
crazy is my only answer for the TAX or tax...:o
Thank you for your answer, I have actually been informed of such since I wrote the above. But thank for taking the time to answer. I do think there is a lot of misinformation on both sides and the fact that we have had to wait for months for any details on this has not helped. Plus you cannot deny that calling this just before the whole political world goes on holiday is not synical at best.
Lance B
14-07-2011, 2:18pm
Absolutely untrue. You tax something, you get less of it (that Lord Alan Jones mantra). So, by taxing the burning of fossil fuels (if they did it properly - not this half-arsed approach we got), people will have great incentive to burn less. Simple economics.
You are still being smacked over the head, ie with tax. I don't see how you can't see that.
The last couple of anti-environment rallies were wholey and soley organised, orchestrated and the buses that transported the mob were paid for by radio 2GB. So, tell me that is not an Alan Jones / Jason Morrison inspired campaign of ignorance.
Unfortunately, you have your wires crossed. You had to pay $25 for the bus tickets to join the rally. Nice try. Get your facts straight.
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/2011/03/canberra-anti-carbon-tax-rally/
Get up! Unlike the corporate radio goons, are funded by donations from the public (like me). They don't rent the crowd - they crowd sponsors them. That is called sponsoring the public good - not demanding ME! ME! ME!
Actually, GetUp received a $1.12million donation from the union movement. Nice try once again. Get your facts straight.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/union-gave-12m-to-getup/story-e6frg6nf-1225953474319
I forgot, Reds under the bed! Thanks Menzies:)
As the basic economics tells us (and I will quote the denier High Priest), you tax anything, you get less of it. So, tax emissions = less emissions.
Which is totally useless as it won't do a damn thing to change the amount of carbon in the atmosphere nor temperature. If you think that, then you're deluded and fallen for the con. Basic science tells us that.
Is this not why burning coal is problematic? The carbon in that coal came from vast forests that persisted for millions of years. You'd have to plant a lot of trees.
Absolutely! Coal is a finite resource just like oil and natural gas. We (humans) burn it because, by and large, it is cheap and accessible fuel. So was oil when we (humans) invented the internal combustion engine. We can capture and use the by-products of that burning (CO2) before they reach the atmosphere, but none of this tax will be spent in making that a reality; carbon capture and storage schemes will NOT benefit from the CT according to the government. If the problem is, as I suggested, not just too much CO2 emission but also too much destruction of CO2 "sinks" (trees, plants, etc), then why not use the captured CO2 to boost the growth of plants, especially food-producing plants? Maybe carbon capture and sequestration isn't the answer, but what's wrong with carbon capture and recycling through real or artificial photosynthesis? Couldn't we address the problem of food shortages with population growth in the process AND do out bit to clean up the atmosphere?
We have enough proven coal stocks to last 120 odd years at present usage rates. We have many times that amount of unproven coal stocks, waiting to be drilled, tested and quantified. The point is that, absent catastrophic effects on the climate by using coal in the meantime, we have time to devote to replacing limited fossil fuels with sustainable alternatives ... BUT only IF we start NOW! OTOH, if we fart around with half-baked, politically-motivated schemes with still no clear direction on where the money will be spent, beyond giving half of it back to compensate poorer families, we're wasting that time and only THINKING we're doing something.
PS. Those words in caps are only for emphasis and should NOT be construed as shouting. If I'd used an entire sentence of caps then established forum etiquette would suggest shouting.
Bennymiata
14-07-2011, 2:39pm
Isn't it amazing that when left-wingers scream and shout and harrass people both verbally and physically, disrupt traffic and people going about their own business, and damage cars and smash windows and set things on fire, like at the G20 summits, they are just protesters.
But, when right-wingers show their dissaproval of something by being well-mannered and non-destructive, they are called radicals.
I've seen plenty of agro from Labour Party supporters in my time, and have seen them trying to harass people and bash up anyone that disagrees with them, as has happened to me personally at a polling booth, yet I've never seen Liberal supporters doing this.
Just like Get Up, they think that using intimidation and blackmail - as has been reported that these are the exact tactics that Get Up uses, is the right way to go.
Fortunately, thinking people don't need to use that sort of intimidation and I personally feel that Get Up should be disbanded and it's leaders put in prison.
They are just a bunch of left-wing ratbags.
As my mother use to say, the most belligerant person in an arguement is usually the one at fault.
"Can you tell me how putting a tax on Diesel and not petrol is going to reduce travel, yet how can it not hurt our food distribution network?"
This is two questions. First question:
Implemented properly, however, it will shift wasteful, inefficient transport modes over to better ones - notably long-haul road freight to rail (which is vastly superior in a variety of ways). Alas, the current government messed that part up. With any luck, a future government will revisit the issue and fix this mistake.
EXCEPT that diesel also runs the long haul rail freight network and the tax therefore applies there too! :rolleyes:
Finally, on this first question, we need to consider the political realities. It would obviously make more sense to apply the carbon tax to all carbon sources, including petrol, and undoubtedly over time this will be done.
So you do admit that the current CT is only the thin end of a very, VERY big wedge and that compensation is not certain beyond what has already been promised?
[i]What practical difference will this make to our food distribution network? Virtually none. The price rise is, in the overall scale of things, tiny. The actual addition to road freight costs is on average 1.4 percent. (This is using a cost figure provided by the Australian Trucking Association.) That's not 1.4 percent increase in the price of a bag of wheat delivered to your door, it's a 1.4 percent increase in [i]the freight component only. The bag of wheat goes up by a far smaller amount.
I'll give you my own example. I am a retailer in a country town. Everything I sell I have to pay freight on, normally from either Sydney or Melbourne. Like all country retailers, I whinge about how much freight I pay. Well, I just did the sums to work out how much that will impact the selling price of a $1000 computer, and the computer I sell now for $1000.00 will cost $1000.10. Yep, that's right, ten cents in a thousand dollars. Freight accounts for around one percent of my total costs (bit less actually), and this increase will up that one percent by less than two hundredths.
BUT freight isn't the only way the CT will impact on your business. The computers you sell are made of steel and plastics; all taxable for the carbon the processes produce UNLESS you buy them from China. Do you buy them from China? If you do then you are part of the problem! What's more, the freight to the end retailer (you) is only a small proportion of the total cost of the supply chain. Faulty logic, again. I sure hope those computers you sell have better logic circuits than that!
[i]Short answer - it's trivial. Don't worry about it.
Aha! We agree on something! The CT is trivial, therefore worthless and not likely to produce any significant benefit in reducing atmospheric CO2! :th3:
terry.langham
14-07-2011, 2:56pm
Not knowing what carbon capture was about I Binged it and found this (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1569919/Govt-to-find-funds-for-carbon-capture).
As a splinterbum (thats a fence sitter for those playing at home) on this issue, events of the last election and since then make it hard to believe that there will be funding for CCS, especially given Dep PM Bobby Brown is so against it. However if there were initiatives and projects that will reduce CO2 output being funded by the CT, then I may be for it, and possibly other splinterbums as well.
So, I'll ask again using a different analogy ('cause it is actually fun watching you twist a question out of shape so you don't have to actually answer it - you and Gillard are like peas in a pod :cool:.)
Asked and answered. Comparing me to Julia Gillard is funny, Scotty. After all she's trying to sell the CT and I'm trying prove that what she's selling is snake oil! I guess that really does make us "peas in a pod" ... or maybe we just "go together like peas and carrots" (Forest Gump). :confused013 I guess Karl Marx was right about some things. He said "Religion is the opiate of the masses". I guess the modern equivalent is "Climate Change is the opiate of the masses". It's certainly stopped a lot of otherwise intelligent people from thinking for themselves IMHO. :(
If the problem is, as I suggested, not just too much CO2 emission but also too much destruction of CO2 "sinks" (trees, plants, etc...
I don't know Who Do. I still don't quite see the logic of preserving trees etc as CO2 sinks, while approving the release into the atmosphere of carbon (much of it in the form of CO2) from coal beds—ie from sinks that operated for millions of years.
Lance, there is a very, very good reason why governments are wary of pouring money into carbon capture research. The consensus is that it is unlikely to work. At this stage, we have :
(a) no clear evidence that we can capture the carbon output from (e.g.) a coal-fired power station cheaply enough for the whole thing to be worthwhile. (If it costs more to capture the carbon than it does to generate that same power using some other technology, then it is pointless.)
(b) very serious doubts about our ability to safely store that captured carbon in the medium term, never mind the long term.
Now carbon capture and storage might work, and there is a lot of research going on around the world looking into it more closely, but it is generally considered a pretty poor bet, and a good way to waste billions upon billions of government dollars.
Does this mean we should not continue our researches? Hell no! We should look at every possibility!
But the consensus view amongst nearly all right-wing and centrist political thinkers, which is also accepted by many (perhaps most) left-wing thinkers these days, is that it is not the business of governments to go around trying to pour public money into risky commercial ventures.
It is the business of government, according to this view, to provide a healthy investment environment by putting the right price on carbon, and then leave it to private enterprise to figure out the details , because private enterprise is good at inventing stuff and making it work.
Many companies will invest in technologies that don't work, or don't work as well as expected, but some will be smart enough or lucky enough or work hard enough to invest in things that work well and repay their investment many times over. That's how private enterprise works. That's how it has always worked. You can be very confident that the giant coal companies are working quite hard on carbon capture technology development (they would be mad not to!) and if one of them can make it work reliably and cost-effectively, then that company will do very nicely indeed out of it.
Despite all this, the Howard and Rudd governments were both talked, against their better judgment, into paying for the coal companies' research investments. Thankfully, both governments were turfed out before they could waste too much public money on this poor-quality bet. It is my guess (and I don't know this last bit for sure, so take this for what it's worth) that the Gillard Government was all set to be just as gullible and throw away more billions until the Greens stepped in and talked some sense into them. But that's just my guess and maybe Gilllard is smarter than I give her credit for.
I don't know Who Do. I still don't quite see the logic of preserving trees etc as CO2 sinks, while approving the release into the atmosphere of carbon (much of it in the form of CO2) from coal beds—ie from sinks that operated for millions of years.
It's called BALANCE, Jim. I would rather we had a cheap, reliable alternative to coal ... sure. When you find one let me know. In the meantime, if circumstances mean that the vast majority need to burn coal to supply their energy needs, it makes sense to me to increase the ways we can absorb the extra CO2 produced in a way that helps to deal with other problems like population growth and food shortages. The least we can do is to STOP the destruction of our current, living carbon sinks (forests) at the same time! :confused013
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 3:15pm
You are still being smacked over the head, ie with tax. I don't see how you can't see that.
So, you see no social value in paying taxes? Good community thinking.
1% (the general impact) is hardly a bash over the head - unless you are trying to whip up fear - good luck with that.
Unfortunately, you have your wires crossed. You had to pay $25 for the bus tickets to join the rally. Nice try. Get your facts straight.
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/2011/03/canberra-anti-carbon-tax-rally/
OK, I should have written 'massively subsidised'. Either way - massive crowd renting.
Looking at the Greyhound site, even the cheapest fares are far more than $25 ONE WAY.
Nice try...
Actually, GetUp received a $1.12million donation from the union movement. Nice try once again. Get your facts straight.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/union-gave-12m-to-getup/story-e6frg6nf-1225953474319
Unlike 2GB, Get-Up is a group that is not-for-profit that states its purpose as campaigning for social issues.
2GB is supposedly a 'news organisation'. Thankfully, there will soon be an investigation into its 'news service' on the grounds it does not comply with the fair and balanced component of its licence. Get up is a social activist group that gets some of its funds from another activist group.
2GB is not - and should not be allowed to create false news to report.
I very much look forward to the enquiry: hopefully our authorities will follow the Brittish eg and stand up to grubby 'journalism'.
Which is totally useless as it won't do a damn thing to change the amount of carbon in the atmosphere nor temperature. If you think that, then you're deluded and fallen for the con. Basic science tells us that.
Unfortunately, those on your side on the argument have totally ignored the overwhelming science on this... instead try to discredit the scientists - playing the man and not the ball. If this were a footy game - you'd be red carded. :lol:
Lance, there is a very, very good reason why governments are wary of pouring money into carbon capture research. The consensus is that it is unlikely to work.
Brrrrrrttttt! Wrong again! :p (Sorry, it's the only way I know to "write" the sound of a buzzer going off! Hope you weren't offended by that expedient). CCS has been working successfully since 2000. Yes it is expensive but consensus says that with appropriate R&D modern CCS power plants can generate electricity at or below the cost of current plants by 2025. (source: Wikipedia - I was in a hurry. If you need more detailed sources I can provide them given enough time.)
notably long-haul road freight to rail ..... Alas, the current government messed that part up. With any luck, a future government will revisit the issue and fix this mistake.
EXCEPT that diesel also runs the long haul rail freight network and the tax therefore applies there too! :rolleyes:
You know, it is really annoying when someone ignores what you have written and pretends to "correct" you. Please stop doing it.
In any case, your argument is largely invalid because increasing the cost of diesel makes wasteful modes of transport (like road) more expensive and less competitive, and advantages more efficient modes (like rail), which becomes relatively cheaper. Net result: over time, the transport system wastes less energy and works better. What's not to like?
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 3:22pm
Isn't it amazing that when left-wingers scream and shout and harrass people both verbally and physically, disrupt traffic and people going about their own business, and damage cars and smash windows and set things on fire, like at the G20 summits, they are just protesters.
But, when right-wingers show their dissaproval of something by being well-mannered and non-destructive, they are called radicals.
I've seen plenty of agro from Labour Party supporters in my time, and have seen them trying to harass people and bash up anyone that disagrees with them, as has happened to me personally at a polling booth, yet I've never seen Liberal supporters doing this.
Just like Get Up, they think that using intimidation and blackmail - as has been reported that these are the exact tactics that Get Up uses, is the right way to go.
Fortunately, thinking people don't need to use that sort of intimidation and I personally feel that Get Up should be disbanded and it's leaders put in prison.
They are just a bunch of left-wing ratbags.
As my mother use to say, the most belligerant person in an arguement is usually the one at fault.
Oh! So, all liberal voters are descended from heaven.
OK, I guess that clarifies how we should all vote.
Were you a fan of Stan Zemanek by any chance? :lol::lol:
Brrrrrrttttt! Wrong again!
See for yourself, good reader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
Note in particular this section:
One limitation of CCS is its energy penalty. The technology is expected to use between 10 and 40 percent of the energy produced by a power station.[80] Wide-scale adoption of CCS may erase efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third. Even taking the fuel penalty into account, however, overall levels of CO2 abatement would remain high at approximately 80-90%, compared to a plant without CCS.[81] It is theoretically possible for CCS, when combined with combustion of biomass, to result in net negative emissions, but this is not currently feasible given the lack of development of CCS technologies and the limitations of biomass production.[82]
The use of CCS can reduce CO2 emissions from the stacks of coal power plants by 85-90% or more, but it has no effect on CO2 emissions due to the mining and transport of coal. It will actually "increase such emissions and of air pollutants per unit of net delivered power and will increase all ecological, land-use, air-pollution, and water-pollution impacts from coal mining, transport, and processing, because the CCS system requires 25% more energy, thus 25% more coal combustion, than does a system without CCS".[83]
Another concern regards the permanence of storage schemes. It is claimed that safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed and that even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation effect.[80] The IPCC concludes, however,, that the proportion of CO2 retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years.[2]
Finally, there is the issue of cost. Greenpeace claims that CCS could lead to a doubling of plant costs.[80] CCS though may remain economically attractive in comparison to other forms of low carbon electricity generation.[84] It is also claimed by opponents to CCS that money spent on CCS will divert investments away from other solutions to climate change.
Carbon capture might work, but it is very expensive and there are serious doubts about the long-term practicality. In reality, it is likely to play some role in among a host of other technologies. Whether that role will be large or small remains to be seen. Are you feeling lucky? This is a perfect example of a technology which should be (and is being) energetically pursued by private enterprise, and which should not be an excuse for spending massive amounts of public money with no sure return.
You know, it is really annoying when someone ignores what you have written and pretends to "correct" you. Please stop doing it.
I wasn't pretending? I really DID correct you.:p
In any case, your argument is largely invalid because increasing the cost of diesel makes wasteful modes of transport (like road) more expensive and less competitive, and advantages more efficient modes (like rail), which becomes relatively cheaper. Net result: over time, the transport system wastes less energy and works better. What's not to like?
Might do, except if you add the cost to both sides of the equation they counter each other. What's more, you need steel to produce more trains and tracks to carry that extra freight and that adds to the negative side of the carbon equation as well. Trains don't just magically appear because you wave your wand and chant "no more trucks"! Certainly the rail transport system wastes less energy than road transport, and works better ... most of the time. No argument there. So where is the incentive to scrap trucks and freight by rail? If the CT is so insignificant a component of the freight cost as you claimed earlier in reply to Rellik666's post, where is the incentive to switch? :confused013 "Logic circuits still messed up ... brrrttt ... warning ... brrrttt ... "(Robbie the Robot)
See for yourself, good reader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
.. and don't miss this sentence which doesn't appear in Tony's copious subsequent quote:
Recent industry reports suggest that with successful research, development and deployment (RD&D), sequestered coal-based electricity generation in 2025 will cost less than unsequestered coal-based electricity generation today.[3]
and the footnote source is ...
[3] Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC) Technology Roadmap, 2005
Which only goes to prove that selectively quoting a source for your own purposes can damage your credibility. From claiming "it is unlikely to work" to admitting it does but it's currently too expensive is a fair about face in my book! My question stands ... why not invest in making it less expensive? Even computers were beyond the means of any but the largest corporations once, and now we carry more powerful computers in our pockets!
Might do, except if you add the cost to both sides of the equation they counter each other
^ Complete economically illiterate rubbish. Road freight uses three times more fuel per tonne than rail freight. $1 added to the cost of fuel for road freight only adds 33c to the rail freight. THis is the whole point - encouraging a switch to more efficient, less wasteful ways of doing things.
If the CT is so insignificant a component of the freight cost as you claimed earlier in reply to Rellik666's post, where is the incentive to switch?
In large part, I agree. The tax is too low. Nevertheless, it is better than nothing. Large companies with a lot of freight to move can be attracted by quite a small saving (because even 0.01% saving helps if we are talking a $10 million a year freight bill). And over time, the saving will become greater. It is, in any case, good to make these sorts of changes gradually. This gives industry time to adapt and learn.
Oh, FFS grow up. Obviously, in this context "work" means "work at a reasonable cost and with reasonable safety".
Lance B
14-07-2011, 4:05pm
So, you see no social value in paying taxes? Good community thinking.[/qouote]
Did I say that? I don't remember saying that at all. I don't mind paying tax, just not this stupid tax.
[quote]1% (the general impact) is hardly a bash over the head - unless you are trying to whip up fear - good luck with that.
It doesn't stop at that and the subsidies for struggling families stops after a year.
OK, I should have written 'massively subsidised'. Either way - massive crowd renting.
Looking at the Greyhound site, even the cheapest fares are far more than $25 ONE WAY.
No, they did for non profit, just like you claim the holier than thou GetUp.
Nice try...
Unlike 2GB, Get-Up is a group that is not-for-profit that states its purpose as campaigning for social issues.
Social issues? Hah that's a laugh. You mean socialist issues. :lol:
2GB is supposedly a 'news organisation'. Thankfully, there will soon be an investigation into its 'news service' on the grounds it does not comply with the fair and balanced component of its licence. Get up is a social activist group that gets some of its funds from another activist group.
No, it is not a news service, it's a talk back radio program. Get your facts right again. However, if there is an investigation, it sounds like another attempt to silence free speech as they know full well that what they are peddling is false. This smacks of the Spanish inquisition and when the church had control of everything and if you didn't believe you were a heretic and burnt at the stake. Quite unbelievable that, if it actually goes ahead, that this could occur in a modern democratic country. So, Juliar Gillard trying to silence free speech. Looks like we are in a dictatorship in the full communist sense of the word.
2GB is not - and should not be allowed to create false news to report.
Whooooaahhh, steady on there fella. Firstly it is talk back, which does allow opinion, secondly you need to prove false reports before accusation, thirdly Juliar has spruked way more falsities than 2GB has - "I will not introduce a carbon tax" - "I do not want to roll Kevin Rudd"....
I very much look forward to the enquiry: hopefully our authorities will follow the Brittish eg and stand up to grubby 'journalism'.
What a joke. And just what report is this, prey tell? Grubby journalism? It is another attempt to silence free speech? Quite amazing. They must be really scared that they are going to be shown to be wrong.
Unfortunately, those on your side on the argument have totally ignored the overwhelming science on this...
You keep trotting this out, but it is not an overwhelimg science at all and there is very much conjecture on the subject. There is a huge groundswell of scientists that do not believe in it. Have you actually read any books by any of the many scientists who have written them who are against the idea of man made global warming? I didn't think so.
instead try to discredit the scientists - playing the man and not the ball. If this were a footy game - you'd be red carded. :lol:
Really? "Trying to discredit scientists - palying the man not the ball"? That's the funniest thing I've read in along time coming from the side where they have continuously tried to discredit, by any means, people like Lord Monckton, Alan Jones (shock jock, xenephobic, extremist etc), and other eminent professors/scientists on the anti global warming side. Julia Gillard calling anyone who disbelieves in the new religion - oops sorry - global warming, as extremists and heretics, all aimed to discredit their opinion. All the literature I have read from scientists/professors that are anti global warming have all been courteous in their approach to anyone on the other side of the argument and never denegrating.
^ Complete economically illiterate rubbish. Road freight uses three times more fuel per tonne than rail freight. $1 added to the cost of fuel for road freight only adds 33c to the rail freight. THis is the whole point - encouraging a switch to more efficient, less wasteful ways of doing things.
You are still missing my point, and calling it "economically illiterate" isn't going to make it so. You can encourage all you like but if there isn't the rail capacity available then the price of rail freight increases (users pays - demand driven). That too is economics. The only way to maintain the current cost differential is to increase the carrying capacity of the rail network. Guess what? That is now more expensive because of the CT on the means of production of that extra capacity!
You admitted that the government forgot to exempt diesel for rail with CT, but its STILL producing CO2 and adding rail capacity will only increase that! Yes, road transport will decline over time ... a long, long time. How long has it taken taxation penalties to reduce the incidence of smoking? And there are still people smoking at $20 a packet or more! Am I saying we shouldn't use tax as a means? No, but I want to know where the money will be spent before I sign the cheque, thanks! So far we have nothing in the way of concrete approaches to the problem despite the tax. I repeat, just the infrastructure to collect and redistribute the tax money will cost $4 billion over the next 4 years. What are we getting for that? Not one ounce less carbon in the atmosphere. It's just committing economic suicide to prove an expensive point to people who won't care either way!
Oh, FFS grow up. Obviously, in this context "work" means "work at a reasonable cost and with reasonable safety".
Obviously? :rolleyes: Clearly you are too emotionally invested to see any point of view other than your own. I suggest that negative personal comments are not going to help me see yours either!:(
Lance B
14-07-2011, 4:20pm
You are still missing my point, and calling it "economically illiterate" isn't going to make it so. You can encourage all you like but if there isn't the rail capacity available then the price of rail freight increases (users pays - demand driven). That too is economics. The only way to maintain the current cost differential is to increase the carrying capacity of the rail network. Guess what? That is now more expensive because of the CT on the means of production of that extra capacity!
You admitted that the government forgot to exempt diesel for rail with CT, but its STILL producing CO2 and adding rail capacity will only increase that! Yes, road transport will decline over time ... a long, long time. How long has it taken taxation penalties to reduce the incidence of smoking? And there are still people smoking at $20 a packet or more! Am I saying we shouldn't use tax as a means? No, but I want to know where the money will be spent before I sign the cheque, thanks! So far we have nothing in the way of concrete approaches to the problem despite the tax. I repeat, just the infrastructure to collect and redistribute the tax money will cost $4 billion over the next 4 years. What are we getting for that? Not one ounce less carbon in the atmosphere. It's just committing economic suicide to prove an expensive point to people who won't care either way!
Yep, what you say is soo right. I'd love to know what thyey're going to do with all those people who have purchased trucks and have huge loans to pay for them, trucks to the value of $200,000+ each. What are they going to do with all those trucks that will become completely valueless when it all becomes redundant and more importantly the people who have taken out loans etc to buy them. The carbon tax will have far reaching and social ramifications than the government has even began to contemplate.
opi2kenopi
14-07-2011, 4:21pm
http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/
Warning: very 'colourful' language, and great potential to offend, however, relevant to this thread and worth the read if you can get past the first paragraph.
and for those who continue to be climate change skeptics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
By the way, interesting fact, if you printed wikipedia it would run to 2.3 million a4 pages :)
Mongo is intrigued by what has been said thus far in this thread and how it has been said.
Mongo has far too much to say on this subject to bother trying to here
This from the blog referenced by opi2kenopi above:
If we obtain energy by burning irreplaceable fuel, and the consequences threaten the safety of our society, then surely we should pay a penalty for that (adding to a fund to guard against those consequences). The rule is basic: you make the mess, you clean it up. Ten bucks a week is a sweet deal.
I would absolutely agree if the following premises were true:
1. It was ONLY "ten bucks a week"
2. It was OUR mess ALONE, and
3. It was ALL or MOSTLY going to go to dealing with the actual problem.
The fact is that even those on the pro-CT side of the debate concede that $23.00 per tonne is so small as to be useless in terms of the size of the problem. They will agree that it will take much, MUCH more to achieve the objective. So much for premise No. 1! Furthermore, half of that tiny amount is going to compensate those less well off. Good on 'em I say! So it should, but lets call that what it really is; income redistribution. Finally, where is the bulk of the other "piddling" five bucks a week going? Into the government coffers to cover the cost of administering the scheme for crying out loud! Not one penny to solving the underlying problem of finding alternative energy sources, at least before the next election anyway. After that, who knows. So much for premise No. 3!
Accountability principles say that if it's my money then I'm entitled to know where it's going. If I give to a charity, and I do, I check how much of my donation actually goes to the stated cause first. I want my donation to do as much as productively possible for the supported cause, not provide infrastructure for people to siphon it off in the name of administration. Do I "trust" this government, any government, to be good stewards of my money? No, and I don't live in cloud cuckoo land either.
As for climate "science", I recently (with genuine interest) followed a link from here purporting to debunk the "deniers" claims. What I read were anecdotal tales, "opinions" and conclusions drawn from computer "models" but not a single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence. Do I think the climate is changing? Hell yeah! Doesn't it always? Is it currently warming? Probably.
The pivotal citation from another recent reference (post #135 by kiwi above) was as follows ...
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
... to which my response is "and your point is?" Human activities? Quite possibly. Solar activity? Equally possible but unresearched AFAIK due to lack of funding support (probably because we can't do anything about that anyway). Perhaps also caused by people cutting down and burning trees in the vast forests that help keep CO2 levels in check? Hell yeah! I'd believe that one, and if someone could tell me how the CT will stop that I'll voluntarily double my tax contribution tomorrow!
If indeed climate change / global warming (call it what you like) is due to human activity, how is taxing such a tiny proportion of humanity with such an absurdly small tax, especially in global terms, going to make any difference? Will it stop millions of Indians and Chinese burning poor quality coal? Will it stop millions of African and Central American people cutting down trees to grow food, cook it and keep warm? "I don't think so, Tim." (Al - no not Gore - on "Tooltime", featuring the comedy of Tim Allen) So much for premise No. 2!
I'm all for being a "good example" to the rest of the world. I was as proud as the next Aussie when we came through the GFC virtually unscathed due to some rapid and significant economic action by the Rudd government, and when the rest of the world took notice of "the mouse that roared" economically. I'm just not naive or deluded enough to think that making our small corner of the planet pay more and earn less is going to make a scintilla of difference to millions of Chinese, Africans, Indians and South Americans; and if it can't do that it's a wasted effort IMHO. Better to fund serious research into alternative and renewable fuel sources than build more public service infrastructure determined to find new and better ways to make us pay for having it!
Thank you for reading my opinion. Please read my signature (bottom of my first post in any thread) as well to understand how I feel about what anyone might think of that opinion. Thanks again. :th3:
If it adds anything I've been to a few business events now talking about ets and carbon tax etc and often a question from the floor will ask the question why should Australia do anything as we are such an insignificant polluter in world terms. The answer is always that although we are tiny is most ways we have a disproportionate influence.
I believe there is global warming
I believe we are a significant contributor to that
I don't believe having a $23 pet tone carbon tax will affect the first two things
A circle has no end. Read all of the above.
Man made climate change, or not.
Wealth redistribution, or not.
Cost some of us a few $$ a week, or not.
If the biggest companies in the world can be encouraged to create whatever they create with less drain on the resources of the world ('cause one day coal and petroleum etc will run dry ) then I think that's not bad.
Whoever develops these things will become very rich.
Will a price on carbon advance this? A piece in a puzzle.
Back to circles
geoffsta
14-07-2011, 9:05pm
'cause one day coal and petroleum etc will run dry
Maybe petroleum, but I know for a fact that the seam of coal in the latrobe valley runs all the way to St Kilda in Melbourne.
Plus I'm sure there is many crude oil bores hidden away that not many know about, that are hidden to raise the price of the stuff.
The question still remains. Do you support the Carbon tax or not?
The question still remains. Do you support the Carbon tax or not?
My vote in this threads poll was yes.
Xebadir
14-07-2011, 9:14pm
I don't see how the property developer who wants to build over parklands / national parks etc is an example of everybody wanting to save the parks.
So, is Australia really going to go back to the 'Reds under the beds' scare campaigns? (wealth redistribution = Commies under the bed)
What else can we revive? Should we be 'alert but not alarmed' too; should we 'populate or perish'; should we restart the crusades? :lol:
Nah I can't let this one go. And all the subsequent statements that seem to suggest it is fine that people rob peter to pay paul. I'm guessing you haven't ever paid top bracket tax, and are unlikely to do so, and are likely to gain from this rather than lose hence display a bias. So where do these people who actually make this bracket come from. My Dad was born to a poor family of 7 children, supported his mother after his dad left, paid his way through University (the accom and every other cost plus supporting his mum and sisters) by, after working a week of Uni, going and doing two 16 hour shifts driving dumpers at the mine 3 hours down the road, and back to uni the next weekend, worked all his holidays just to pay. He managed to get a decent job, worked his arse off and made that bracket. You know what, he is happy to pay his tax of 49 cents in the dollar....every hour of the day half his earnings go to the government. But wait. Then he also gets taxed for a medicare levy, pays a GST and fuel excise like everyone else. Adding another 1%, sure thats no worries you say....because its not your money....you didn't have to work to earn it. I don't think this is a unique story, many of those who earn highly are driven people coming from a background where they have had to work hard. The GFC has already smashed the crap out of the Business sector in Australia, outside of mining, we are in a recession. Our economy is so screwed that we actually need a recession. The end where the cuts to salaries happen, its generally the people who run the smaller businesses. And you know what, if the money were being well spent and not thrown around in a redistribution/vote buying scam he might not have as much of a problem with it. If only those with suffer, and all these bonuses go to those who don't earn as much for whatever reasons, its a wealth distribution. Communism was very similar to that...and given we are talking the greens who actually don't give a crap if they kill any profitable business in australia (look at their own policies page...it is truly horrifying)...I don't see it as being much of a jump at all.
And if you are willing to vote labor after all they have managed to screw up in the past term and less than a year then there is little hope for you and you have been sucked in by smooth talkers. Maybe you conviently forget the cupable manslaughter that arose from Pink Bats, the wasted billions in the school halls saga, the complete failure of the refugee system, the "WE ARE NOT going to" debacle, just to pull a few out of about 30 policy failures....They have spent alot and achieved NOTHING of substance except plunging this country into a situation where we will not be able to give a handout to make the books balance. But thats ok, Australia has a history of that. NSW came close to defaulting before it was realised the rank corruption was destroying the place, VIC managed to escape but suddenly there was a 4 billion dollar hole from corruption. Hell the last liberal government spent 11 years repaying debts and trying to put us in a good financial position, only for labour to blow it all in one go and plunge us back into debt. The truth of the matter. The Australian Labor Party currently couldn't run a piss up in a brewery....without it running overcost, requiring a payoff to the unions, and probably resulting in someones death. And don't try and accuse me of being a Liberal either...to be honest I would rather vote for none of them...there is about 150 IQ points combined in the lower house of Australia at this moment....but I can say at least the liberals understand the concept of a budget, and at the moment they are our best option (though under turnbull would be preferred, he eats up a largish number of those IQ points cause funnily enough, he has actually run a business...as opposed to the union reps and career polis that dominate).
I'm going to get to a point here, that may raise some heckles amongst all. AUSTRALIA IS COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT ON THE WORLD STAGE. You know how people say that we can lead the world and set an example. Most of the population of this planet have no idea where this pissant little country is, or what it does. Europeans don't actually give a rats ass except for a holiday, if not for the novelty value the US would ignore us, nobody cares what our country does....we would literally have to commit genocide to get any airtime on the world media outside of our insignificant speck. Our population in its entirety is 0.32% of the world. There are more people in Texas, than in Australia....there are bigger cities than our entire population. Just put it into perspective. We are a pimple on the backside of the world. If we are going to make this change lets not fool ourselves that it will somehow influence world policy, lets do it to actually achieve something. Rudd talks a big game, but you know what....he's just a minnow in a school of sharks. It really should be compulsory to send Australian's overseas just to see how little difference we make on the world. Yes we make a disproportionate influence, apparently around 1.2% , and we should address it by making a reasonable step...not something that just creates more bureaucracy in a country that is mostly bureaucrats.
I have quickly read through this thread and can see a lot of argument re what effect the Carbon Tax will have on our economy and what effect a Carbon Tax will have on our Carbon Emissions. My question is: -
will any change we make have any effect on climate change ?
Following are a few questions provided by CATA for you to ponder over: (CATA = Consumer And Taxpayers Association)
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Answer: CO2 is not even 1%. As a decimal it is 0.04%
Question 2. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made ?
Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it comprises only 0.001% of the air.
Question 3. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce ?
Answer: Australia produces about 2% of the 0.001%. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air.
Question 4. Is CO2 a pollutant ?
Answer: We have not been told the whole truth. CO2, whether emitted from a volcano or big industry, is a clean, clear trace gas. It is necessary for life to exist on earth and 100% beneficial.
Question 5. Have you ever seen any evidence that doubling CO2 causes catastrophic warming ?
Answer: The only catastrophic warming comes from climate change models. At the same time, the CO2 level is dangerously low. Decades of atmospheric temperature measurements show NO hot spots.
We Australians can achieve remarkable feats when we put our minds to it but I don't think we are going to change Global Warming/Climate Change one iota, no matter how hard we try.
FYI Hunter Valley coal will last 300+ years at 250million tonnes / year (double the mines we have now)
Xebadir
14-07-2011, 9:42pm
I have quickly read through this thread and can see a lot of argument re what effect the Carbon Tax will have on our economy and what effect a Carbon Tax will have on our Carbon Emissions. My question is: -
will any change we make have any effect on climate change ?
Following are a few questions provided by CATA for you to ponder over: (CATA = Consumer And Taxpayers Association)
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Answer: CO2 is not even 1%. As a decimal it is 0.04%
Question 2. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made ?
Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it comprises only 0.001% of the air.
Question 3. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce ?
Answer: Australia produces about 2% of the 0.001%. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air.
Question 4. Is CO2 a pollutant ?
Answer: We have not been told the whole truth. CO2, whether emitted from a volcano or big industry, is a clean, clear trace gas. It is necessary for life to exist on earth and 100% beneficial.
Question 5. Have you ever seen any evidence that doubling CO2 causes catastrophic warming ?
Answer: The only catastrophic warming comes from climate change models. At the same time, the CO2 level is dangerously low. Decades of atmospheric temperature measurements show NO hot spots.
We Australians can achieve remarkable feats when we put our minds to it but I don't think we are going to change Global Warming/Climate Change one iota, no matter how hard we try.
I love the...but CO2 is such a small component of the atmosphere argument. Classic that I run into often....great mythconception. Realistically, some 76% of the atmosphere is inert Nitrogen. Another 21% is Oxygen. Heres a comparison for C02. How much does water vapour contribute to the atmosphere? A whole 1%. And yet, our day to day weather is in the majority controlled by something that makes up only 1% of the atmosphere. Makes you think doesn't it? CO2 and the other greenhouse gases (funnily enough, water vapour is one of them and is part of the reason why we see an increased effect) still have influenced our climate in the past, and will continue to do so into the future. The irony I find is some climate skeptics will present this argument, and then happily switch to the oh CO2 is necessary (and btw...the CO2 in the atmosphere already adds several degrees and keeps us from freezing....so much for not being significant), rather than realising that it can't be inconsequential and necessary at the same time.
Q4. Never disputed. Though the radioactive isotopes bound in the Anthropogenically emitted CO2 aren't a great thing. It is a beneficial gas for keeping the planet of a sufficient temperature, and for plant life to exist, however, rapid changes in this variable in the past have been associated with temperature changes at a similar rapid rate with dramatic climate shifts. This is not a problem, as long as you don't disrupt evolutionary niche species. For example C3/C4 plants are niche species....exist on a temperature curve of optimum operation, and yet C4 tropicals only require a small temperature increase for their processes to fail. The same is true of most plant and animal species. The rate of change is such that the evolutionary development of species to cope with this phenomena will probably take longer than the niche to disappear. This happens and we generally see mass extinctions (250 million years ago, Siberian Volcanism wiped out 99% of species)...where it is a problem is when we rely on these sources for our livelyhood. The earth is a big balancing act. You ever had a set of perfectly balanced scales? What happens when you place a tiny weight on one side? It disbalances and causes an oscillation...this is our effect on the climate system...sure it might not seem much...but why are we seeing a much stronger effect than even the climate models predicted?
Question 5s answer is incorrect. But then, the geological record was never very reliable...oh wait thats literally hard evidence. Do you know what a regression and a transgression are? Do you know how short our direct atmospheric measurements are relative to the geological record? Do you realise that dealing with events in the geological record is part of the development of a climate model...if they fail to replicate they are discarded? Have a look at what the sea level was in the Cretaceous/Last Interglacial and the match in the CO2 content....when CO2 changes we see snowballing effects on the climate...whether we will be able to adapt in time is a serious issue.
On Australia being insignificant relatively on the polluter scale, I agree, and hence as I say, do something to fix a problem (namely our carbon dependent society), rather than try to set precedents that will be ignored.
JM Tran
14-07-2011, 9:56pm
some great and scientific responses by John (Xebadir) here.
and some very foot-in-mouth responses from the usual people too.....hmmmmm! I dont know, assumptions and very biased opinions is one hell of a drug to be on, or hole to be in:)
Can 'i ask one question ? how will a carbon tax fix the CO2 problem.
Jack
Tannin
14-07-2011, 11:14pm
Short answer, Jack, is that it makes people and companies pay for their pollution. When people (or companies) have to pay for something instead of getting it for nothing, they think twice. They ask themselves questions like "Do we really need this?" and "Can we use a bit less of it?", and "Couldn't we make it a different way to dodge the tax?" Quite often the answer is "yes". So people use a little bit less electricity. People replace their old fridge with a more efficient one that uses less power. And companies try harder to develop low-carbon products - for example, to avoid paying the tax they bring forward reinvestment in new plant, or switch to a more efficient combustion process, or invest in clean alternative sources. Little by little, people improve things.
Without the tax (or some other way of pricing carbon, which would amount to the same thing), people have no incentive to improve, and companies have no reason to become more efficient.
Will this little tax which you will barely even notice solve everything? No. But it's a start. Everything has to start somewhere.
some great and scientific responses by John (Xebadir) here.
and some very foot-in-mouth responses from the usual people too.....hmmmmm! I dont know, assumptions and very biased opinions is one hell of a drug to be on, or hole to be in:)
I totally agree with the 1st line of your response JM Tran,
Quote: some great and scientific responses by John (Xebadir) here.
I appreciate John's (Xebadir) response to my "quoted CATA" questions because the information provided by John is both very informative and well constructed to provide a reasonable opposing point of view to that raised in the questions I quoted.
My Question was: "Will any change we make have any effect on climate change ?" I believe John has answered my question by saying that any small change we make now, through resonance, can make a change in the future.
I am very disaffected with the 2nd line of your response JM Tran,
Quote: and some very foot-in-mouth responses from the usual people too.....hmmmmm! I dont know, assumptions and very biased opinions is one hell of a drug to be on, or hole to be in
I find it disappointing that, after not having the intestinal fortitude to provide your point of view in a prior post to this thread, you find it necessary to post a very inflammatory, shotgun type shot at those that have contributed to the thread. What drugs are you on and keep digging your hole, you are obviously not in deep enough.
JM Tran
14-07-2011, 11:51pm
I totally agree with the 1st line of your response JM Tran,
Quote: some great and scientific responses by John (Xebadir) here.
I appreciate John's (Xebadir) response to my "quoted CATA" questions because the information provided by John is both very informative and well constructed to provide a reasonable opposing point of view to that raised in the questions I quoted.
My Question was: "Will any change we make have any effect on climate change ?" I believe John has answered my question by saying that any small change we make now, through resonance, can make a change in the future.
I am very disaffected with the 2nd line of your response JM Tran,
Quote: and some very foot-in-mouth responses from the usual people too.....hmmmmm! I dont know, assumptions and very biased opinions is one hell of a drug to be on, or hole to be in
I find it disappointing that, after not having the intestinal fortitude to provide your point of view in a prior post to this thread, you find it necessary to post a very inflammatory, shotgun type shot at those that have contributed to the thread. What drugs are you on and keep digging your hole, you are obviously not in deep enough.
Oh Darey, Darey, I felt it was not my forte to get into a slanging match about something that has been, as you said - inflammatory to others - from reading some of the responses and comments. So I felt my observation was justified. Could I have been more tactful? Maybe, but there are members on AP that if and when they get into a debate or argument - will try to press on their point of view, regardless if they are right or wrong. So really.........who should you, or I be disappointed at?
There are 3 distinct types of people posting in this thread.
-those they know what they are talking about - like John
-those that happily sit on the fence and read or learn more about it - like me - as I quite respect the way the Japanese govt control emission in Japan during my time working there
-and there are those that make assumptions, having volatile opinions, whether misguided or accurate opinions - serve to enflame others more.
I could easily cut and paste a lot of passive-agressive comments from many posts here, if I could be bothered. :)
But lets stay on topic with the Carbon Tax shall we?
p.s - Well, whaddaya know, its turning into a flame war/personal attack and remarks now............sigh
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 11:51pm
Nah I can't let this one go. And all the subsequent statements that seem to suggest it is fine that people rob peter to pay paul. I'm guessing you haven't ever paid top bracket tax, and are unlikely to do so, and are likely to gain from this rather than lose hence display a bias. So where do these people who actually make this bracket come from. My Dad was born to a poor family of 7 children, supported his mother after his dad left, paid his way through University (the accom and every other cost plus supporting his mum and sisters) by, after working a week of Uni, going and doing two 16 hour shifts driving dumpers at the mine 3 hours down the road, and back to uni the next weekend, worked all his holidays just to pay. He managed to get a decent job, worked his arse off and made that bracket. You know what, he is happy to pay his tax of 49 cents in the dollar....every hour of the day half his earnings go to the government. But wait. Then he also gets taxed for a medicare levy, pays a GST and fuel excise like everyone else. Adding another 1%, sure thats no worries you say....because its not your money....you didn't have to work to earn it. I don't think this is a unique story, many of those who earn highly are driven people coming from a background where they have had to work hard. The GFC has already smashed the crap out of the Business sector in Australia, outside of mining, we are in a recession. Our economy is so screwed that we actually need a recession. The end where the cuts to salaries happen, its generally the people who run the smaller businesses. And you know what, if the money were being well spent and not thrown around in a redistribution/vote buying scam he might not have as much of a problem with it. If only those with suffer, and all these bonuses go to those who don't earn as much for whatever reasons, its a wealth distribution. Communism was very similar to that...and given we are talking the greens who actually don't give a crap if they kill any profitable business in australia (look at their own policies page...it is truly horrifying)...I don't see it as being much of a jump at all.
And if you are willing to vote labor after all they have managed to screw up in the past term and less than a year then there is little hope for you and you have been sucked in by smooth talkers. Maybe you conviently forget the cupable manslaughter that arose from Pink Bats, the wasted billions in the school halls saga, the complete failure of the refugee system, the "WE ARE NOT going to" debacle, just to pull a few out of about 30 policy failures....They have spent alot and achieved NOTHING of substance except plunging this country into a situation where we will not be able to give a handout to make the books balance. But thats ok, Australia has a history of that. NSW came close to defaulting before it was realised the rank corruption was destroying the place, VIC managed to escape but suddenly there was a 4 billion dollar hole from corruption. Hell the last liberal government spent 11 years repaying debts and trying to put us in a good financial position, only for labour to blow it all in one go and plunge us back into debt. The truth of the matter. The Australian Labor Party currently couldn't run a piss up in a brewery....without it running overcost, requiring a payoff to the unions, and probably resulting in someones death. And don't try and accuse me of being a Liberal either...to be honest I would rather vote for none of them...there is about 150 IQ points combined in the lower house of Australia at this moment....but I can say at least the liberals understand the concept of a budget, and at the moment they are our best option (though under turnbull would be preferred, he eats up a largish number of those IQ points cause funnily enough, he has actually run a business...as opposed to the union reps and career polis that dominate).
I'm going to get to a point here, that may raise some heckles amongst all. AUSTRALIA IS COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT ON THE WORLD STAGE. You know how people say that we can lead the world and set an example. Most of the population of this planet have no idea where this pissant little country is, or what it does. Europeans don't actually give a rats ass except for a holiday, if not for the novelty value the US would ignore us, nobody cares what our country does....we would literally have to commit genocide to get any airtime on the world media outside of our insignificant speck. Our population in its entirety is 0.32% of the world. There are more people in Texas, than in Australia....there are bigger cities than our entire population. Just put it into perspective. We are a pimple on the backside of the world. If we are going to make this change lets not fool ourselves that it will somehow influence world policy, lets do it to actually achieve something. Rudd talks a big game, but you know what....he's just a minnow in a school of sharks. It really should be compulsory to send Australian's overseas just to see how little difference we make on the world. Yes we make a disproportionate influence, apparently around 1.2% , and we should address it by making a reasonable step...not something that just creates more bureaucracy in a country that is mostly bureaucrats.
Not that it is any of your bees wax but, I am not quite in the top bracket (we school teachers are grossly underpaid - but extra work / investments bring me close) but my wife is well above it. We both have to pay GST in that stupid provisional way. Statistically, we are in the top 5 or 6% of income earners. So, as a household, we qualify for absolutely zero in the way of the overly generous middle class welfare that Howard started and this govt perpetuates.
But, unlike most Australians, we actually don't mind paying our way. We have private health insurance, we send our kid to private school and campaign against the stupidly high govt hand-outs to them (thus depriving public schools), we never got a stupid baby bonus or first home owners hand-out (nor should we). We didn't get Rudd's $900 free money, no family tax benefit, we give to charity and do volunteer work - pro-bono etc etc.
So, don't lecture me about being some societal sponge wanting Robin Hood to rob from the rich and give it to us. If anything, Robin Hood robs us blind - perhaps to pay for your middle-class welfare (baby bonus, tax benfits etc)
Despite our apparent wealth, we don't go on overseas holidays, we have 1 mid sized Honda (my wife takes the bus/train) and live in a town-house in the western suburbs, most of our disposable income goes to investments because we should not be a drain on society in our retirement because we pay our way and don't follow the Aussie culture of thinking the 'gubberment' should pay for everything we want. We definitely give more to society than we take - most Australians seem to want the reverse
Before the last fed election I always voted Liberal but, can no longer stomach the openly racist Abbott & co. and admit the Labor is neck and neck with that stupidity. Both parties are vomit worthy in terms of fiscal management etc.
Check through the old posts here and you'll see I ranted against the pink batts stupidity as with the school halls and laptops (mine sits in the bottom drawer in the garage) - also Howard's middle class welfare / pork barrels.
So, before you stupidly accuse me of being a socialist, get your facts right. I just think life is more than just ME! ME! ME!. We have a responsibility to not only rip out the planet's resources and exploit its poor people - as we selfishly do - but, we also have a responsibility to help preserve the place and to help support those who were simply unlucky enough to be born to the 3rd world - especially those who we exploit to preserve out lifestyles of relative luxury.
Almost everyone on this board is well beyond NEEDING government assistance. Sorry, if you can afford a DSLR; lenses; computer and software to run it, then you are not struggling to etch out a basic living - and instead of whinging about how poor you are - about how life is so unfair - we should all be counting our lucky stars - happy to give back - not selfishly demanding more, for ME! ME! ME!
Perhaps, you call compassion communism?
Yes, Australia is a pissy little country in the grand scheme of things. But, taking a dump in the town water supply is too - should I do that?
Unbelievable...
I shall await your next rant about me being some sort of upper-class toff living in my ivory tower...
Scotty
From what i know or think is right why doesn`t the government legislate to clean up the industries, if they don`t in a resonable period of time they can be fined it saves a tax and doesn`t need a carbon trading sceme.it hapened in the building industry in S.A.
The carbon trading in Europe is not a good model, from what is writen in the papers, it varies from $7-$30 a ton,how is this helping CO2 removal,you buy it at $7 sit on it and sell at $30,is it not a new industry to gain wealth for goverments,by way of increased tax revenue.
Scotty72
14-07-2011, 11:58pm
I could easily cut and paste a lot of passive-agressive comments from many posts here, if I could be bothered. :)
I think you just did, and it was a classic :p
Xebadir
15-07-2011, 12:05pm
Not that it is any of your bees wax but, I am not quite in the top bracket (we school teachers are grossly underpaid - but extra work / investments bring me close) but my wife is well above it. We both have to pay GST in that stupid provisional way. Statistically, we are in the top 5 or 6% of income earners. So, as a household, we qualify for absolutely zero in the way of the overly generous middle class welfare that Howard started and this govt perpetuates.
But, unlike most Australians, we actually don't mind paying our way. We have private health insurance, we send our kid to private school and campaign against the stupidly high govt hand-outs to them (thus depriving public schools), we never got a stupid baby bonus or first home owners hand-out (nor should we). We didn't get Rudd's $900 free money, no family tax benefit, we give to charity and do volunteer work - pro-bono etc etc.
So, don't lecture me about being some societal sponge wanting Robin Hood to rob from the rich and give it to us. If anything, Robin Hood robs us blind - perhaps to pay for your middle-class welfare (baby bonus, tax benfits etc)
Despite our apparent wealth, we don't go on overseas holidays, we have 1 mid sized Honda (my wife takes the bus/train) and live in a town-house in the western suburbs, most of our disposable income goes to investments because we should not be a drain on society in our retirement because we pay our way and don't follow the Aussie culture of thinking the 'gubberment' should pay for everything we want. We definitely give more to society than we take - most Australians seem to want the reverse
Before the last fed election I always voted Liberal but, can no longer stomach the openly racist Abbott & co. and admit the Labor is neck and neck with that stupidity. Both parties are vomit worthy in terms of fiscal management etc.
Check through the old posts here and you'll see I ranted against the pink batts stupidity as with the school halls and laptops (mine sits in the bottom drawer in the garage) - also Howard's middle class welfare / pork barrels.
So, before you stupidly accuse me of being a socialist, get your facts right. I just think life is more than just ME! ME! ME!. We have a responsibility to not only rip out the planet's resources and exploit its poor people - as we selfishly do - but, we also have a responsibility to help preserve the place and to help support those who were simply unlucky enough to be born to the 3rd world - especially those who we exploit to preserve out lifestyles of relative luxury.
Almost everyone on this board is well beyond NEEDING government assistance. Sorry, if you can afford a DSLR; lenses; computer and software to run it, then you are not struggling to etch out a basic living - and instead of whinging about how poor you are - about how life is so unfair - we should all be counting our lucky stars - happy to give back - not selfishly demanding more, for ME! ME! ME!
Perhaps, you call compassion communism?
Yes, Australia is a pissy little country in the grand scheme of things. But, taking a dump in the town water supply is too - should I do that?
Unbelievable...
I shall await your next rant about me being some sort of upper-class toff living in my ivory tower...
Scotty
Amazing. Simply Amazing. Sorry you got the middle class more than a little bit wrong (oh and btw...I earn 30k a year and qualify for absolutely no money from the government (and ironically will still be paying more thanks to this), great work there, I pay for my rent, my private health insurance etc. unfortuantely I can't prove that I am independent because I am electing to educate myself, and my SLR gear has taken me years to save for), and you brought the propaganda slander into it in want of a decent argument. Your into the upper tax bracket, bully for you, but you know...have you ever considered the tax on a half million dollars for example...most senior law firm people make that easy? As I said, but you neglected to read, let me put it in capitals....PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MAKE THE MAJORITY OF THE TAX PAYMENTS TO THE ATO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO PAY...and do pay for a huge proportion all those lovely jobs in the government, your road projects and every other thing that happens, not to mention your own salary. Generally the people who don't want to pay are in the middle to lower end of the scale...don't believe me? I can guarantee the huge number of people opposed in the polls elsewhere come from the 60% who are going to be slightly worse off, and the 10% who will actually take a proper hit are opposing because its not an effective policy....because they are used to paying for everyone else.
HOWEVER, they do not appreciate when they are told that this is an environmental policy when in fact thats a load of crap and its a wealth distribution..if its acknowledged as wealth distribution to offset a significant environmental gain, then you know what....they probably wouldn't be so opposed to it. People who make this sort of money generally aren't stupid, and actually know a little about how the world works, you can't pull the wool over their eyes with smooth talking...they want bang for the buck. Where they draw greater problem is that effectively we are doing nothing, we still miss our 2020 target by a significant number of tonnes of C02 (and by the way, the costs for buying those credits are not factored in to this plan, on top of the 8 billion its projected to lose at least), we are paying for more needless bureaucracy, and spending most of the fund in compensating the corporations who are the source of the problem, rather than doing anything to achieve a solution which might give Australia a chance in avoiding keeling over. How many losses have you seen in power companies statements recently? What about airlines, what about steel, or miners.
You should, just for once try an overseas holiday and remind yourself the world is bigger, and open your eyes to the insignifance of this country and everything it does. We could elect to cut our emissions by 50%, and we still would achieve little in the grand scale, and realistically even do that we would be ignored. Heres a thought for you as well. If you are so worried about the third world and its ability to develop why don't we spend the money on researching ways to minimise their carbon emissions, rather than spending it lining corporations pockets? What about Australia taking a step forward by taking this action, instead of stepping back? Its an unfortunate side to this poll that we don't have a scale of response. I actually think a carbon tax is needed, but this application is a classic case of policy missing the point...as every other policy has from this government. I really don't think people here appreciate how much trouble that even the best case scenario for climate will produce. And at the moment we are tracking at the worst case. The question is whether our weakened and unstable economy can actually handle the application of this tax...the government has got nothing left to save the day. I see no problems with opposing something which in principle I agree with, but think that it is totally ineffective in its application.
Half the problem with Australia is that we are happy to cop overpriced crap from retailers and don't complain about it, but any time the government wants to spend our money to do something effective we get up in arms...and end up wasting huge amounts of money on feasibility studies. But hey, that's how stupid we are.
I'm not sure where the racism comes into it, oh perhaps you mean the illegal immigrants who are short-changing the system of legal immigration? That ain't racist, its an application of a little thing called common sense. These people aren't really contributing the tax that we need to build the infrastructure to support them, did you think of that? If we didn't have to rebuild the detention centres after all the riots do you reckon we might have more money to support LEGAL immigrants? Anyway, thats besides the point.
Go have a read of the AR4 from the IPCC. Not the executive summary. Go have a read of the whole thing and get back to me when you understand the problem and then you might understand why we can't just take this half-assed application...you either take action or decide to do nothing. Realistically it doesn't matter, you won't listen, you'll get on your moral high horse "Because I paid my tax at x level" that we can save the world...when in fact Australia will be lucky to save itself....we'd be better to spend the money from the tax on adaptation because its completely ineffective as it stands.
Oh and NB...the shift to an ETS is just a new way to employ economists...funny that an economist is the biggest proponent, we would be better off with a centrally administered tax.
Edit: I also neglected to note, I never called you a socialist or communist, directly or indirectly. Having a tantrum at me because I disagree with your idea is probably not the smartest way to convey your arguments.
Almost everyone on this board is well beyond NEEDING government assistance. Sorry, if you can afford a DSLR; lenses; computer and software to run it, then you are not struggling to etch out a basic living - and instead of whinging about how poor you are - about how life is so unfair - we should all be counting our lucky stars - happy to give back - not selfishly demanding more, for ME! ME! ME!
I can't speak for anyone else, Scotty, and I do understand your point of view, but I think the open accusation that people who disagree with the CT are just being selfish (sic) is offensive, and will provoke just the sort of reaction you received. Just because some of us think the CT is flawed doesn't mean we are selfishly clinging to every last penny and trying to avoid our responsibilities to the rest of the world.
FWIW, I know of some desperately poor people who still smoke a pack a day and have flat screen TV with Foxtel. I don't begrudge them any of that (well, except for the smoking, but they are addicted), but I wouldn't suggest they aren't poor because they have those things. Doing so would be making a judgement about them that may well be unjustified IMHO.
Likewise, characterising those who use AP as "not struggling to etch out a basic living" also makes a similar judgement, even though it may well be true in a lot of cases. There are many posting here who are retired and living on a pension, using old second-hand equipment (both computer and DSLR or even P&S) and having this hobby as their only interface with the world that put them away and forgot about them when they were pensioned off. It is an onerous assumption to make in my view that they must be well off and just selfish; every bit as onerous as assuming that you are a commy red ragger blindly following some party line.
I'm sorry if you feel my judgement of your apparent attitude and responses in this thread is harsh. I just hope that you too will come to respect the point of view of those who disagree without making assumptions about their motives either. Cheers and thank you for reading. Happy photographing.
Bennymiata
15-07-2011, 12:52pm
Regardless of whether you think the CT is right or not, why is it that they are only going to TRY to do something about the 3% and not the other 97%?
Instead of extorting money out of us and our industries that keep us all employed to only try and curb the output of man, why don't they use the money to try and do something about the Earth's emiisions?
Surely, working on the 97% has got to be more useful (if Global Climate Change is really happening) to us than only working on the 3%.
For example, you were in Brisbane during the floods and you also had a leaking tap.
Would you think it worth the money and the trouble to call out a plumber to fix your leaking tap when the Brisbane river is running through your living room?
That's what these so-called experts are saying.
We'll fix the leaking tap, and that should fix the flood.
What a lot of garbage.
Juliar, I call on you to stop cutting back the CSIRO's budget and get them to start working on cutting down the noxious and polluting outputs of the earth, so that mankind can live, instead of trying to reduce our living standards and increasing our stress.
Lance B
15-07-2011, 1:04pm
I love the...but CO2 is such a small component of the atmosphere argument. Classic that I run into often....great mythconception. Realistically, some 76% of the atmosphere is inert Nitrogen. Another 21% is Oxygen. Heres a comparison for C02. How much does water vapour contribute to the atmosphere? A whole 1%. And yet, our day to day weather is in the majority controlled by something that makes up only 1% of the atmosphere. Makes you think doesn't it? CO2 and the other greenhouse gases (funnily enough, water vapour is one of them and is part of the reason why we see an increased effect) still have influenced our climate in the past, and will continue to do so into the future. The irony I find is some climate skeptics will present this argument, and then happily switch to the oh CO2 is necessary (and btw...the CO2 in the atmosphere already adds several degrees and keeps us from freezing....so much for not being significant), rather than realising that it can't be inconsequential and necessary at the same time.
The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
I'll bet you didn't know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you've never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
Q4. Never disputed. Though the radioactive isotopes bound in the Anthropogenically emitted CO2 aren't a great thing. It is a beneficial gas for keeping the planet of a sufficient temperature, and for plant life to exist, however, rapid changes in this variable in the past have been associated with temperature changes at a similar rapid rate with dramatic climate shifts. This is not a problem, as long as you don't disrupt evolutionary niche species. For example C3/C4 plants are niche species....exist on a temperature curve of optimum operation, and yet C4 tropicals only require a small temperature increase for their processes to fail. The same is true of most plant and animal species. The rate of change is such that the evolutionary development of species to cope with this phenomena will probably take longer than the niche to disappear. This happens and we generally see mass extinctions (250 million years ago, Siberian Volcanism wiped out 99% of species)...where it is a problem is when we rely on these sources for our livelyhood. The earth is a big balancing act. You ever had a set of perfectly balanced scales? What happens when you place a tiny weight on one side? It disbalances and causes an oscillation...this is our effect on the climate system...sure it might not seem much...but why are we seeing a much stronger effect than even the climate models predicted?
Question 5s answer is incorrect. But then, the geological record was never very reliable...oh wait thats literally hard evidence. Do you know what a regression and a transgression are? Do you know how short our direct atmospheric measurements are relative to the geological record? Do you realise that dealing with events in the geological record is part of the development of a climate model...if they fail to replicate they are discarded? Have a look at what the sea level was in the Cretaceous/Last Interglacial and the match in the CO2 content....when CO2 changes we see snowballing effects on the climate...whether we will be able to adapt in time is a serious issue.
On Australia being insignificant relatively on the polluter scale, I agree, and hence as I say, do something to fix a problem (namely our carbon dependent society), rather than try to set precedents that will be ignored.
Scotty72
15-07-2011, 1:22pm
I did say almost everyone - of course their will be some with different circumstances but, generally, if you can pursue DSLR phototography then you ain't begging on the streets for food stamps.
I totally disagree about having a flat-screen LCD TV and smoking 2 packs a day means you can be poor and I think it sux that taxpayer money is used to provide welfare so people can go to buy luxuries.
My point is, few here will be driven into poverty by a CT. Also, it wont matter what scheme a government comes up with, most will whinge because someone has to pay. Rudd tried to make the miner's (making record super-profits) pay more tax and his government was brought down. Who here has every welcomed a new tax? The GST saw the death of the Democrats and Howard survived the '98 election only by the skin of its teeth (because Labor was on the nose) after losing the popular 2-party vote (49 Vs 51 %). Howard also barely survived the 2001 election (after GST fallout) due to the Tampa affair which taught the Liberals the lesson of whipping up national xenophobia in the wake of Sept 11.
So, those who say, 'We need to take action' (be it against climate change or to prepare for the end of cheap oil or whatever) but, refuse to contribute in any way are simply saying, 'Something has to be done but, It should cost me nothing.'
People want better roads - they just want to pat no tolls and whinge about petrol taxes.
They want good schools and hospitals but, refuse to accept that they should pay more taxes for them.
Sorry, but simply repeating a well worn motherhood statement about how we should care about the environment wont help - it needs a lifestyle change.
And those who simply saying the massively increasing amounts of pollution (car fumes, factory emissions etc) are doing nothing bad to the environment... Well, that is like the smoker who coughs up blood and refuses to accept that smoking was probably the cause. They just don't want to see it because they may have to give up something they would rather not.
Scotty
Can 'i ask one question ? how will a carbon tax fix the CO2 problem.
Jack
It won't. It is flawed.
Reforming the heavy transport industry (use rail) and/or changing brown coal fired power stations to black will make major differences.
Love or hate Abbott direct action is needed, and there are many changes we can make that will have huge impacts on Australia's CO2 and other pollution output.
Xebadir
15-07-2011, 1:38pm
The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
I'll bet you didn't know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you've never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
Sorry, not going to really take the debate here as I've seen this argument before...and I don't want to bore people. Unfortunately I suspect you haven't noticed I don't fall into the public category. I'm in at the coal face and work with the people who are working on the modelling stuff. Heard of CMIP5? Know what sort of stuff is going into AR5? I get into this stuff because I look at the final output. If I was relying on the media i'd be no better off than assuming that pigs can fly because I saw a selective clip of one being shot out of a cannon....the media is not a source of information, it merely portrays a selective view.
Climate models are run regularly to test against these radiosonde observations and the actual events of the 20th century, did you realise that (in fact there is a whole field of scientists who go out there are test to find how climate models can be broken or deal with the mistakes...these things aren't just implemented, they are verified against the real world, this involves runs without the CO2 involvement being tested against the 20th century, not to mention other events...what if it was only natural, only volcanim, only methane, only other effects, what if no vapour feedback)? While this hot-spot issue was relevant way back in the first assessment report, it was already addressed and corrected by AR3. These models perform very close to 20th century observations ONLY when the CO2 effect with water vapour feedback is added. So either, there is someone with a giant hair dryer, or the CO2/water vapour feedback is real. I think this is an aspect where the public hasn't had the science communicated properly to it.
Closed.
The arguments are circular and nobody will change their view.
Go and take some photos.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.