The carbon tax is wonderful

The best thing to come out of this discussion is that we are still able (at this stage anyway in Australia) to all have an opinion. My opinion is mine and others have theirs. We can read each others and go away and form our own further ideas on the subject as mature adults. I don't feel the need to further foist my ideas on others after I have had my say because I have had my say and stand by it. I obviously am a disbeliever and doubt that I will be swayed to the other side. I have always been a tradesman and worker and had always been a Labor voter until this Carbon tax was mooted. I will never vote Labor again. Andrew Bolt sums the issue for me nicely and I agree wholeheartedly with him. The best years of Australia have come and gone and we seem to be slowly sliding down hill into a make nothing society that has sold out anything of value to overseas interests. I hope it improves for my kids sake because I have had my turn in life but they may not get a fair chance. Hopefully in the near future we will find a truthful government with somebody that is a leader to run it. We don't have that now. We just have takers and wasters and self interest pushers.

Col.

Col,

Absolutely right, and i really love that most of the people here have their say, throw ideas around and remain respectful throughout. I also really like some of the ideas that get chucked up, from both sides.

Please look at post 49 on page 4 of this thread. As I've said before I'm all for reducing pollution and enviromental impacts, but I want to see real data, I want to see cost benifit analysis, I want to see a rational case. I am not inclined to drink the coolade...

Damian

Your post #49 makes some interesting points. May I make a few comments (rhetorical), but not neccessarily in direct response to that post?

Let us assume that global warming is occuring and that CO2 is a significant contributor to that state. If that is the case we undoubtedly need to do something about it. It is true that much higher levels (many times higher in fact) of CO2 have existed before on earth in the past, but mankind wasn't walking the earth then.

So the question becomes can we continue as we are and can we survive a significant increase in temperature? My guess is yes, but not without a huge cost to mankind.

So the next question is can we do something about it and the answer again is of course we can, but not without inconvenience, a change in lifestyle and, here it comes, expense.

Expense means sacrifice.

We are not ready to change to alternative forms of power yet. We have poo pooed solar for so long despite at one time being a leading light (sorry for the pun) in solar technology and most of the other alternatives are either more expensive and less developed or have their own specific flaws.

Research is desperately needed and my understanding is that the carbon tax is the mechanism to raise money for that purpose.

Simple so far except for two problems. How well will that money be utilised for research purposes? Can Australia as a very small player in the global market afford to be market leader? Will having a CT put us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors: A disadvantage that will negate our standing in the economic world? If that sounds mercenary (and it does sound mercenary from where I am typing) I should point out there is little point in deliberately commiting financial suicide.

I am of the belief that we should have the frame work of a carbon tax in place, completely transparent and ready to be implemented as soon as the majority of other countries agree to the same or similar measures. However not before that time.

A worldwide carbon tax would have the effect of maintaining the status quo, but also raise money worldwide to tackle issues such as alternative, safe, ecological, sustainable power.

On the subject of governments, and although I know it is a slight digression to the original debate, I have to say that I am the proverbial swinging voter. This does not reflect my lifestyle incidentally :rolleyes:.

I have have however never voted for anybody. I only vote against them. I see a politician or a party in power doing the wrong thing (a subjective observation) and decide it is time for them to go. I look at the alternative and think " holy sh*t." So I revisit the original party and think "can I tolerate this any more?"

Right now I see that the federal labour party is making a right nonsence to put it mildly. But I look at the leader of the opposition and cannot bring myself to vote for that person. Having voted for Ms Gollard at the last election, I would vote Liberal in a flash if they would only change their leader. Perhaps if they brought Malcolm Turnbull back......Nah. Unlikely to happen.

Enough on political parties: It tends to make me feel ill.:(

Regards
Paul

I agree with what you have said.

I've been saying for decades that in aus governments don't win elections they lose them. Australians for the most part dislike the government whoever it is and particularly the type of people who go into politics, but as I also say they are a symptom. If the electorate truely demanded better people then better people would be elected.

The one thing perhaps I don't agree on is the proposed tax or trading model. I think the schemes that have been proposed here and overseas are poor. In the past we have legislated change and that worked. We have applied fixed transparent taxes and that has worked. I truely believe the point of divergence in this matter was when the financial industry saw a scam for exploitation. They have conned us that a Friedman-esque solution will work better than traditional Keynesian approaches, and of course they get to scam, er I mean scim commissions off the top. Trouble is older people have seem this sort of scam attempted before and have risen up in opposition to yet another conduit from their wallets to the coffers of investment banks, brokers and politicians covert bank accounts.

As I said previously we, the western world, have been dealing with pollution since at least the inception of the industrial revolution, and most of these measures have not been widely opposed, some even widely supported. If you've seen a duck before and it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you will probably suspect it's a duck.

I don't accept the case for agw has been made, but even if it were the proposed responses are IMO poor.

Ever increasing power bills and more to come thanks to CT has me thinking more about alternative energy such as solar and wind and getting away from home more regularly and thus away from power sucking appliances.

This Xmas and again in March I'm taking the family away camping. I can empty the fridge and freezer and then turn them off. I can turn the hot water system off too. Just flick the off switch on everything. That will save me something off my power bills and lower my carbon footprint via the power companies.

And while I'm away I'll be thinking (ironically) while cooking and warming by the wood camp fire of yet another new coal fired power station or other dirty polluter being commissioned somewhere in China or another economically cheap backwater to help produce goods we all demand. :roll: :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted2

And while I'm away I'll be thinking (ironically) while cooking and warming by the wood camp fire of yet another new coal fired power station or other dirty polluter being commissioned somewhere in China or another economically cheap backwater to help produce goods we all demand. :roll: :(

---

I'm afraid it is very difficult to get away from the creation of a carbon footprint.

I'll draw an analogy: We are horrified at the cost of electricity, so we go out and buy an independently powered generator thinking we are saving money. Unfortunately, even dismissing the initial cost of the generator, it is incredibly inefficient compared to that of a power station.

The carbon foot print of the wood fire is worse than if you had used electricity, although it may well be cheaper, so long as you only picked up debris and did not cut firewood with a chainsaw.

Now if you had built a small solar cooker it might be a different story, but remember to start well before the sun goes down:wink:.

Don't misunderstand me here. I am as bad as the next person. I run a slow combustion heater at home. I do it for two reasons. No make that three reasons. The fire was in the house when we bought it. I have an ample supply of firewood for the next five years (The back yard used to comprise a stock yard to contain horses). Actually it was ten years supply, but when my son spotted the rails he started grabbing them to produce his didgeridoos! Lastly I really like the style of heat produced by a slow combustion heater.

Is it good for the environment?:no::no::no:

Regards
Paul

Pretty soon they wil tax you for lighting fires as well. Think of all the carbon dioxide you produce........
They say raw food is healthier, so I guess that is the future the greens are planning for us all.
Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Pretty soon they wil tax you for lighting fires as well. Think of all the carbon dioxide you produce........
They say raw food is healthier, so I guess that is the future the greens are planning for us all.
Greg

---

The future the greens are planning for us is squatting in the mud banging rocks together in a stone age slum.

Most of the rest of the world, the so called "undeveloped" world operates like that. Very enviromental, no health care, no social security, low life expectancy especially if you happen to be female, and get pregnant.

but the bears will be dancing....

CO2 is .8% of the atmosphere, and even the lunatics admit maybe 3% is human activity.

I'm extra cranky today. My knees have been playing up for the last 2 weeks and today the pain is right through me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I'm afraid it is very difficult to get away from the creation of a carbon footprint.

The carbon foot print of the wood fire is worse than if you had used electricity, although it may well be cheaper

---

That was the point I was trying to make. In trying to escape the ever increasing costs of utility bills and taxes we actually start doing things (or revert to doing things) that are more harmful to the environment in an effort to save money and stick it to the power companies and government.

There is a breaking point where people just say enough is enough " I can't afford this" (Utility bills) I need to find alternatives.

No analogy here but a true story. 3 years ago my 79 year old mum passed away. She just put herself to bed and didn't wake up again.

I was called 3 days later because neighbors hadn't seen her and curtains hadn't been opened. I let myself in and found her and the circumstances and sadness of the way she lived will always be with me.

Cut a long story short during the cleanup and removal of everything from her unit I discovered what my mum did to try and save money on heating costs.

Her bed was made up of multiple layers of more than one pair of sheets and blankets. Depending on how cold she was she would either sleep under the lot (8 blankets) or somewhere in between.

She just wouldn't or couldn't afford to run the gas heater. How many other people already live like this one can only imagine but it will get worse.

The have nots in western society are effectively being driven into an existence of frugality and improvisation and self denial of essentials and services.

There's an old saying that goes along the lines of: " You can't escape death or taxes". While most people try to avoid the latter, more and more people in trying to do so are forced into an existence where the former is a welcoming relief.

As someone else said: "Banging rocks together in the mud". Not too far from the truth. Reversion to hunter gatherer mentality to try and survive. :(

Ted2

Sorry for my misunderstanding of your post. Looks like we are of one accord:).

Sorry tohear about your mum and the circumstances of her death. I suspect this type of incident is a more frequent occurence than we would find comfortable. :(

Regards
Paul

I thought trees needed carbon to grow.....so we reduce the carbon and watch the trees die?


We already went through the Carbon Tax thing here in the States....see where all our jobs went. Don't worry, your jobs will follow ours there as well. Carbon tax = Al Gore getting rich.





Scott B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDB777

I thought trees needed carbon to grow.....so we reduce the carbon and watch the trees die?


We already went through the Carbon Tax thing here in the States....see where all our jobs went. Don't worry, your jobs will follow ours there as well. Carbon tax = Al Gore getting rich.





Scott B

---

Wasn't aware that the US had a carbon tax, when and how was that implemented?

Al Gore, isn't he the guy who uses 4 times as much energy as any other "normal" family?:doh:

I have serious doubts about the carbon tax moving jobs off shore.

Low wges in China and the high Aus$ do a much better job of that. I think the same was true for the US.

Many people outside the US fail to distinguish between state and federal government. Our states defer to teh federal government and their are set role for each to some extent. In the US and Canada the federal government does not automatically overrule the states, so for example the US does have gun laws just not federal ones, and several states have implemented a carbon trading scheme which is failing spectacularly.

The chicago exchange set up a trading floor for carbon thinking it was on a winner. They shut it down about 2 months ago, no volume virtually no price. Like I've said the brokers and other miscellaneous thieves in the finance industry saw the carbon thing as a great platform to rob us, but thier plans have been thwarted by the middle aged middle class who've seen these scams too many times before.

Just went back through some replies here at random.

Seems that some are confusing a carbon tax with an emissions or carbon trading scheme.

They are not the same animal even though the intended result may be the same.

With a trading scheme you can choose to participate or not.

You cannot avoid a tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

You cannot avoid a tax.

---

Just don't turn on that light/TV/spa pump/clothes drier, etc, etc.

''Just don't turn on that light/TV/spa pump/clothes drier, etc, etc.''

my thoughts exactly .:D

And so it begins -

- get your wallet out -

- learn to walk lopsided as it is difficult to walk properly when the government has its hand in your pocket.

Council rubbishes the carbon tax | Fraser Coast News | Local News in Fraser Coast | Fraser Coast Chronicle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

Just went back through some replies here at random.

Seems that some are confusing a carbon tax with an emissions or carbon trading scheme.

They are not the same animal even though the intended result may be the same.

With a trading scheme you can choose to participate or not.

You cannot avoid a tax.

---

Not sure I understand you. They are two similar mechanisms aimed at the same outcome.

If your one of the top 200 or whatever it is generators of CO2 in Australia every ton of carbon dioxide you emit into the atmosphere has to be paid for either by buying a permit or paying a fixed levy/tax/whatever to the federal government.

When the trading scheme kicks in the price will be determined by supply and demand.

So far overseas that's lead to virtually nil price and low volumes for the permits. If that situation persists when the Australian scheme goes open market the companies will be able to buy half their permits at low prices overseas, and that revenue won't be available for the Australian government to fulfill their promises of compensation, investment and research.

Those promises will have to be funded from consolidated revenue, which means either higher taxes, broken promises or funding cuts to other government activities.

Meanwhile the actual cost plus whatever they think they can get away with will be passed on to customers by the emmitters. Various people have modelled this with various numbers being kicked about. It's a hard thing to predict accurately because of our complex interlinked economy.

The emmitters list is interesting. As I recall there are two universities in there. Not necessarily who you expect to be "naughty polluters".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

... every ton of carbon dioxide you emit into the atmosphere has to be paid for either by buying a permit or paying a fixed levy/tax/whatever to the federal government.

---

The later is a carbon tax (what the gov want to implement) and the former is carbon trading scheme (that was ditched by the gov).

I haven't been looking at the detail, but I was under the impression that what the gov want to introduce is a tax and NOT a CTS i.e. the polluter pays the tax regardless and can't offset that by buying carbon credits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

what the gov want to introduce is a tax and NOT a CTS i.e. the polluter pays the tax regardless and can't offset that by buying carbon credits.

---

They say they want a CTS but they are starting with a Tax - the ETS comes later after everyone realises that the world did not end after all.

No one is suggesting the world will end, all they are saying is that this is an unnecessary impost on Australian business and homes that will have no affect on the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

If the Government wants to have new taxes, that's OK. But that's a separate discussion
Greg

I'm a bit late to this debate, and apologies if I've not read every word of some of the longer posts...

My view is that while there is a need to reduce emissions, and not necessarily just CO2, I'm just not convinced a new tax will achieve that.

A few years ago, we had petrol climb from about 85c/l to about $1.60-1.70c/l in about 5 years. That's doubling the cost. The reduction in fuel usage was about 5%. That's it. Why? Because we still need our cars and trucks. Because there isn't a good enough alternative.

If a carbon emission reduction is to be effective, then jacking up electricity prices isn't going to achieve much - there needs to be an alternative. Sure there are other technologies such as solar, etc in the same way there are other methods of transport to cars, but at the end of the day I need to use electricity in my home and so I will just have to suck it up and pay more. I am already fairly efficient with power in the house, but increasing the price by whatever % isn't really going to change that much.

Change may come, but it will be slow because the incentive isn't there - making consumers pay more will just mean consumers pay more, nothing else.

Cheers,
Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

If the Government wants to have new taxes, that's OK. But that's a separate discussion
Greg

---

True, except as far as I can tell, the government has made it the same discussion. It's an attempt to do something about carbon emissions with a tax.

And there are plenty of people beating this up as if it is the end of the world.

They once used to have a window tax and as far as I can see, the carbon tax fits into the same stupid mould.
The way things are going, the greens will bring back the window tax as they let out heat and will increase global warming

Besides solar panels the state govt is advocating that far western schools use trees to help ventilate and limit heat instead of using air conditioners ... refer Daily Telegraph last Tues 20 Sept... Greg's wife

I've had my thread hijacked when I went out to cover all the window with pine panels!
Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

I've had my thread hijacked when I went out to cover all the window with pine panels!
Greg

---

Haha!

Well, whatever. The State Government is right. If you stop the heat from getting inside in the first place by shading the building, then you don't need as much air-conditioning...

Should be in the specs: Plant trees 20 years before building. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

Haha!

Well, whatever. The State Government is right. If you stop the heat from getting inside in the first place by shading the building, then you don't need as much air-conditioning...

Should be in the specs: Plant trees 20 years before building. :wink:

---

Not only that, they have to be deciduous. For winter warmth!

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

They once used to have a window tax and as far as I can see, the carbon tax fits into the same stupid mould.

---

Actually the window tax is a good example of how a tax can work (admittedly not what they wanted at the time). People cut down on windows, perhaps they'll do the same with carbon.
Cheers,
Jim

The trouble is the impost, beit tax or permits, has to be about $40/tonne to make even gas worthwhile. So in fact it won't shut any coal generators down, at the very best it'll export our pollution mitigation with our polluters buying permits offshore.

If you believe the government can spend the revenue collected efficiently and effectively it may yield some useful programs via the new bureaucracies the government is setting up to administer the funds, but on past performance I'm not expectig that to happen. Rather more likely another jobs for labour mates scheme like the NBN.

The trouble with planting trees near buildings is increased maintenance, which may cost more than the power to run the air conditioners. Maybe not, I haven't run the numbers.

Incidentally refering back to the various self generating discussions, it would be interesting to look at the viability of biodiesel generator. 1 hectare of oil palms can yield up to 4700 liters of oil. be interesting to see how that plus a generator and battery bank would stack up to some of the alternatives.

I watched a programme on how 'green' Germany is yesterday.

1. They have feed in tarrifs. You get paid 3X the retail price of electricity produced by your solar cells fed into the grid than you pay when you re-purchase electricity from the grid. This is great economics (and was copied by our wonderful labour NSW government before being canned as increasing electricity costs to everyone else by 10% or more) and means the rest of the community in Germany is subsidising the rich who can afford to pruchase the hardware

2. One town had gone green and proudly stated they were getting their electricity from solar, a few windmills AND hydro electric. Now..... this wasn't a new hydro scheme, they were just buying their electricity from an established one.... so the whole thing is a pea and thimble exercise. The hydro scheme was providing green energy anyway into the grid. Now they buy the electricity..... and suddenly they are green!

I just wish those pushing alternative energy would be honest; admit it is an expensive exercise and agree to pay the real cost of the green energy they are foisting on the community, thus putting their money where their mouths is. They should stop kidding themselves and trying to kid us, especially the young who are vulnerable to emotional claptrap.

Then they can have the moral high ground and condescend to us all from on high. But at least we won't have to pay for their principles.


Greg.

Greg

These are valid points Greg, you cannot kick start a change in the community or economy without throwing some money at it.

If you look at the solar subsidies in Germany per head of population and compare it to the fossil fuel industry subsidies in Australia per head of population its easy to see why its so hard to get alternative energy started in Australia - our governments say one thing but quietly do the opposite. Even the support they do give is subject to knee jerk changes that result in enormous economic turmoil. Its no surprise that companies like the Solar Shop are hitting the wall under those circumstances.

Germany has a massive export business in Solar, we have almost none - our ideas left the country for lack of government support and now we're buying the resulting products back at a premium.

Don't forget that most of our country and population are about 20° closer to the equator than anywhere in Germany. That Germany can make a fist of Solar and create an industry with such lean insolation shines a light on our own lack of direction in that area.

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Incidentally refering back to the various self generating discussions, it would be interesting to look at the viability of biodiesel generator. 1 hectare of oil palms can yield up to 4700 liters of oil. be interesting to see how that plus a generator and battery bank would stack up to some of the alternatives.

---

Damian

Irrespective of how competitive this might be, I am not convinced of the wisdom in turning agricultural land formerly used for growing food into land for fuel production. As I have mentioned elsewhere, food is an equally contentious issue, although at least part of the problem is the uneven disritibution around the world.

Regards
Paul

Just a point of interest

I was watching a program the other night where figures were being thrown around cocerning carbon emissions.

What I hadn't known to that point was the very act of mining, particularly open cut,of coal releases large amounts of "greenhouse gases".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Damian

Irrespective of how competitive this might be, I am not convinced of the wisdom in turning agricultural land formerly used for growing food into land for fuel production. As I have mentioned elsewhere, food is an equally contentious issue, although at least part of the problem is the uneven disritibution around the world.

Regards
Paul

---

Yep, if you read back through my comments I've made the point at length that as petrol went up the US swapped to ethanol in a big way, pushing up hte price of corn and thus many processed foods in the US. They literally had poor people IN THE US having to cut back on food purchases. If it has that impact there how will it impact undeveloped countries ? We also see poppies and coffe being grown in preference to food in some undeveloped countries and creating food price increases.

That isn't what I was contemplating.

My plan is to sell my properties in Brisbane, move to small acreage, probably in a NSW coastal area, and go off grid. With the yield density of oil palms you may be able to produce enough bio diesel on site to meet your energy needs, say with an acres of planting. What I was saying is it'd be intersting to run the numbers on that scenerio.

artme:

Quite right. Massive amounts of methane are released from coal seams. This is what blew up that mine in NZ last year (last year?), and it's basically what they are drawing off in coal seam gas mining. In well run coal mines they pump air into the mine to keep the mix below the explosive range. The air and methane are blown out the exits from the mine by this positive pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

artme:

In well run coal mines they pump air into the mine to keep the mix below the explosive range. The air and methane are blown out the exits from the mine by this positive pressure.

---

I used to live in NSW near an underground mine. They had huge problems with both underground water and methane gas. They built a huge water containment dam for the water they pumped out and issued the miners with wet suits because of the water they had to travel through to reach the coal face. That partially solved the water problem.

In the end, despite the installation of two more ventilation shafts much larger than the original vents, the mine was shut down as it was deemed to be unsafe.

The primary problem was that their original test bores had failed to identify the level of both the water and methane concentrations.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

That isn't what I was contemplating.

My plan is to sell my properties in Brisbane, move to small acreage, probably in a NSW coastal area, and go off grid. With the yield density of oil palms you may be able to produce enough bio diesel on site to meet your energy needs, say with an acres of planting. What I was saying is it'd be intersting to run the numbers on that scenerio.

---

I at least partially got the wrong end of the stick there. I just wish it was the first time I have ever done that:rolleyes:.

If some of the issues are price, sustainability and the environment you may be ok on the first two, but with the last one you still have emissions to contend with.

However, if you are interested in the bio diesel path, have you looked at recycling the waste oil product from the fish and chip shops? I think you may even have made reference to this in the past, but in any event, it may be cheaper still, not require the same level of energy input and not take up agricultural land.

This is always assuming the government doesn't cotton on and impose a tax:(.

Lastly, this may be viable for you in your situation, but it is not a proposition for the vast majority of the population and if we are considering the national problem we do need to find a more universal solution. nevertheless it would be an interesting exercise.

Regards
Paul

I'm used to being misunderstood :) As long as you give me the opportunity to explain myself before you lop my head off so at least I'm executed for something I meant..... :)

Spent cooking oil is almost fought over these days. Many people with older diesel cars have cottoned onto it as a cheap fuel. Minimal processing and if you sweet talk the shopkeeper it's free! Much better than $1.50 a liter at the bowser.

The main reason I was thinking about the diesel option is the blugen thing. I'm still shocked at the cost of gas vs electricity output of that device, so it got me thinking about other assumptions we make, like that growing oil and burning it in a diesel generator must be dearer than other options.

Massive amounts of methane are released from coal seams. This is what blew up that mine in NZ last year (last year?), and it's basically what they are drawing off in coal seam gas mining. In well run coal mines they pump air into the mine to keep the mix below the explosive range. The air and methane are blown out the exits from the mine by this positive pressure.
__________________

Damian i think i recall you worked in mining,the question that's on my mind is why don't they salvage this methane and we use it ,or is it only a small amount .