Carbon Tax

[eastwest101]

Bloomberg is reporting that the US has approved the use of a biofuel in aircraft.2% of carbon emissions in the world have come from aircraft and this will help reduce emissions as this fuel mix will be much cleaner.

If this is approved and mandated and followed by all the world then this would be an excellent example of "direct action" that would actually help make some modest sort of difference. Putting aside some peoples reservations about biofuels, this seems like an achievable and good first step.

 

[medhead]

Sorry Medhead but TA is right,the economists are wrong because they have referred to the Government's Carbon Tax and as JG has now told us it isn't a tax at all.How could they be wrong on such a crucial fact?

I'm not talking about that sort of technical detail. I was making a comment about the laughable response from Abbott to economist saying how his policy is second best. Quibbling over words doesn't make justify abbott's ludicrous response.

 

[medhead]

If this is approved and mandated and followed by all the world then this would be an excellent example of "direct action" that would actually help make some modest sort of difference. Putting aside some peoples reservations about biofuels, this seems like an achievable and good first step.

Are you suggesting such a thing can only be achieved by direct action? As for mandating such a thing. What about the extra cost of biofuels? A government mandated requirement to use some thing that costs more. How is that different from tax the use of oil base fuel and not taxing biofuels use? Well besides that airlines would have a choice, another liberal mantra, instead of being forced.

 

[Durin's Bane]

I just read Communist, sorry, Greens senator Lee Rhiannon is now forecasting the coal industry will be shut down within 10 years. We all knew these idiots want to shut down our biggest export industry, but are now actually quoting timelines to the media.

So just where does the watermelon party expect to recoup the lost ~$55 Billion in revenues? And what are their plans for the 150,000 workers who are directly and indirectly employed by coal mining and processing?

I'd love to know who on this forum voted for the Watermelon party.

 

[ejb]

I just read Communist, sorry, Greens senator Lee Rhiannon is now forecasting the coal industry will be shut down within 10 years. We all knew these idiots want to shut down our biggest export industry, but are now actually quoting timelines to the media.

So just where does the watermelon party expect to recoup the lost ~$55 Billion in revenues? And what are their plans for the 150,000 workers who are directly and indirectly employed by coal mining and processing?

I'd love to know who on this forum voted for the Watermelon party.

Not me!!!!!!

I appreciate the watermelons talking like this because it will result in the "casual" green voters changing their mind in 2 years and we can stop this nonsense talk about stopping coal exports and carbon taxes.

In a perfect green world we would all be employed making pushbikes or braiding hair.

ejb


Sent from my iPhone so please ignore auto corrects!

 

[medhead]

Here's a story for all the climate experts who bang on about volcanos
Volcano emissions just a drop in the ocean | The Australian

Writing this month in Eos, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, Dr Gerlach estimated that volcanoes emit 0.13 to 0.44 billion tonnes of CO2 a year while human activity totals about 35 billion tonnes a year.

Of course, it's not good enough for Ian Plimer

Adelaide University mining geologist Ian Plimer disagrees. Professor Plimer -- a long-time critic of global warming science -- said he was "gobsmacked that he has ignored the 3.47 million submarine volcanoes that emit CO2.

I don't know, I thought the problem was CO2 going into the atmosphere not CO2 released into water, which readily absorbs CO2.

 

[gumpy]

I haven't read through all the pages but has anyone brought up sustainability has a larger issue compared to climate change?

There are far too many people in the world and we're consuming too much. There's going to be 9 billion of us by 2050... We humans are like a virus. And with that many people on earth guess what's going to happen to the carbon output? hmmm

Also really not sure what the airline companies will do when jet fuel becomes too expensive... Hope there is an alternative.

Anyway, I spent some 3 months in the climate change division at one of the chartered firms. I ran some numbers. The fix for CC is quite easy.

The 5 largest emitters start using safe nuclear like Thorium reactors and replace all their coal reactors etc, build the additional cost in as part of their exports to the rest of the world and the problem is solved.

Like many have said Australia is so small etc... it's true if Australians all committed suicide tomorrow, it wouldn't make a difference to the planet in terms of CC. If you want to make a statement then make a statement by carbon offsetting everything you do. Your electricity, your flights, your petrol, everything. Don't force everyone else to do it. I'm only putting effort in to doing something if that effort makes a difference. If it's futile to begin with then there's no point.

 

[rechoboam]

alternative to jet fuel? There is none, except nuclear reactors which the Green dictatorship have vetoed. What else do you recommend?

 

[gumpy]

alternative to jet fuel? There is none, except nuclear reactors which the Green dictatorship have vetoed. What else do you recommend?

No seriously... how are planes going to fly without crude oil which will one day run out (and immediately solve the CC issue) ethanol? liquefying coal? I really would like to know the answer... Hydrogen is an option I guess but I'd hate to be close to anything with a lot of hydrogen pumped in it...

 

[oz_mark]

No seriously... how are planes going to fly without crude oil which will one day run out (an immediately solve the CC issue) ethanol? liquefying coal? I really would like to know the answer... Hydrogen is an option I guess but I'd hate to be close to anything with a lot of hydrogen pumped in it...

The only option is some carbon based liquid fuel - nothing else relaly has the required energy density or handling characteristics. I suspect that there will be a fairly significant investment in bio-fuels in the coming years.

But, also expect that the era of air transport for the masses may come to an end.

 

[rechoboam]

Can you name a single source of power that ever "ran out"?

Horses, gaslights, coal fired ovens were replaced when it was economically advantageous to do so. There are (a few) nuclear powered planes in the US fleet aren't there? Maybe that's what will happen. Maybe we will be teleported thru wormholes. All I know is that saints Julia and Nob (sorry, that was auto corrected) do NOT have the answers

 

[gumpy]

But, also expect that the era of air transport for the masses may come to an end.

I agree with you here... sadly I feel one day it'll all be advanced web chat etc and travel by boat... =(

Bio fuels have 1 key issue. They compete with starving people who need food... Now... only if we could get the world population down to 4 billion...

 

[rechoboam]

I agree with you here... sadly I feel one day it'll all be advanced web chat etc and travel by boat... =(

Bio fuels have 1 key issue. They compete with starving people who need food... Now... only if we could get the world population down to 4 billion...

2 key issues...They emit CO2 just like avgas. When CO2 is priced at 80/ton no-one will be able to fly except Green politicians like St Bob.
Then again everyone except Green politicians will be unemployed or will have had to emigrate to Asia so perhaps it won't matter.

Edit: computers produce CO2. Boats produce CO2. EVERYTHING you want to do produces CO2. That's right,Green politicians can put a price on EVERYTHING that happens on society. Now you see why the former Communists joined the Green party?

 

[gumpy]

Can you name a single source of power that ever "ran out"?

Horses, gaslights, coal fired ovens were replaced when it was economically advantageous to do so. There are (a few) nuclear powered planes in the US fleet aren't there? Maybe that's what will happen. Maybe we will be teleported thru wormholes. All I know is that saints Julia and Nob (sorry, that was auto corrected) do NOT have the answers

You have a point but the problem here is we kept moving on to better power sources until we found the ultimate one. Which is going to run out. I guess there is a chance we will find an even better source... unlikely...

There are nuclear planes as prototypes i think but the amount of radiation gear you have to wear is outrageous. You have better luck with solar power planes...

 

[Noob]

I am studying chemistry, and the logic behind the greenhouse effect is very solid and backed up by our current understanding of chemistry.
(If anyone wishes for me to explain it, and properly without political spin or other rubbish please ask)

Action needs to be taken, and the direct cost of infrastructure and direct solutions by the government would be a very costly investment compared to a carbon tax which is designed to encourage large companies to invest in this instead of the burden being solely on the people.

Of course there are some rough edges, and the government is doing a shocking job presenting and explaining the policy to the point it is infuriating. Mix poor politicians on both sides of the fence with mindless propaganda from News Limited and people like Andrew Bolt and you have an uninformed population who don't understand the policy, climate change or the greenhouse effect.

The public are too easily manipulated, and it is because media and politicians can get away with comments that lack substance and factual evidence and pass them off as facts.

 

[gumpy]

I am studying chemistry, and the logic behind the greenhouse effect is very solid and backed up by our current understanding of chemistry.
(If anyone wishes for me to explain it, and properly without political spin or other rubbish please ask)

Action needs to be taken, and the direct cost of infrastructure and direct solutions by the government would be a very costly investment compared to a carbon tax which is designed to encourage large companies to invest in this instead of the burden being solely on the people.

Of course there are some rough edges, and the government is doing a shocking job presenting and explaining the policy to the point it is infuriating. Mix poor politicians on both sides of the fence with mindless propaganda from News Limited and people like Andrew Bolt and you have an uninformed population who don't understand the policy, climate change or the greenhouse.

The public are too easily manipulated, and it is because media and politicians can get away with comments that lack substance, factual evidence, or sources and pass them off as facts.

I think you'll have most agree with you here about the science. But isn't the more elegant solution to actually fix the problem as oppose to create a carbon market in Australia which at best get other counties to think "hmmm" or worst case bring down the economy?

Also while I am convinced about the science about human caused CC, I'm not so convinced about how it's going to destroy the world. So if you know much about that area please shed some light. They've kept saying the time to act is now (3-5 years ago)... and that all hell was going to break loose by now and that water will rise by 2cm yeah... really what will happen?

 

[Sifor]

Also while I am convinced about the science about human caused CC, I'm not so convinced about how it's going to destroy the world.

I was just about to ask this question. If climate change is indeed happening, what's going to happen if we ignore it? A rise of 2cm in sea levels doesn't seem like a lot..maybe a few feet up the beach..

 

[medhead]

Well that little burst started well. Sustainability is the key goal for me out of this carbon tax rubbish. Anything that makes us use resources better, more sustainably, is great. And these weasely quibbles about Australia is too small to make a difference just abdicate personal responsibility to make better use of resources.

But this quickly went down hill with seeming misinformation.

Nuclear planes but you need to wear too much radiation gear - absolute BS. They put shielding on the source not on the person. The weight of the shielding is the biggest potential problem. This is cold war early 1960s stuff that is dead and buried. It will never happen. Nuclear aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for alternative fuel sources and biofuels. First generations of biofuels did displace food production but the current biofuels do not. Then there are other methods of get diesel fuel from non oil sources. I'm sure I posted this link already, but read this little bit from new scientist. Sorry it is a subscription service, but the extract gives an idea. Tanks of bacteria next to a coal power plant using CO2 and sun to make oil.
Sign in to read: Renewable oil: Ancient bacteria could fuel modern life - environment - 18 May 2011 - New Scientist

Basically, without a carbon tax these ideas do not happen. Or happen really slowly.

 

[rechoboam]

Basically, without a carbon tax these ideas do not happen. Or happen really slowly.

Isn't it because they are crazily expensive and commercially unviable?

 

[drron]

I am studying chemistry, and the logic behind the greenhouse effect is very solid and backed up by our current understanding of chemistry.
(If anyone wishes for me to explain it, and properly without political spin or other rubbish please ask)

Action needs to be taken, and the direct cost of infrastructure and direct solutions by the government would be a very costly investment compared to a carbon tax which is designed to encourage large companies to invest in this instead of the burden being solely on the people.

Of course there are some rough edges, and the government is doing a shocking job presenting and explaining the policy to the point it is infuriating. Mix poor politicians on both sides of the fence with mindless propaganda from News Limited and people like Andrew Bolt and you have an uninformed population who don't understand the policy, climate change or the greenhouse effect.

The public are too easily manipulated, and it is because media and politicians can get away with comments that lack substance and factual evidence and pass them off as facts.

The chemistry is fine but the effects are based on computer modelling as were sub prime mortgages.The computers didn't exactly get those right.
Go back to the IPCC reports.One of the most likely things to happen according to them were fewer record cold events-that is not happening.So maybe the hypothesis is wrong?
Also go back to Garnaut's initial modelling for the carbon tax.His model suggested that the tax would raise 40% more over the next 10 years if the tax remained at $26 a tonne.Can only mean one thing-emissions under the Garnaut model are going up over the next 10 years.