Carbon Tax

[medhead]

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

That's the point isn't it. Even John Howard's commission report on energy said that alternative energy sources need to be made cost competitive. Solar is much more expensive than coal. Everything is, so if you want to adopt lower emission energy sources, i.e. solar or nuclear, you need to make coal more expensive. It's going to cost either way. Even if we ignore CC and keep going as we are now, what will happen when coal runs out? We'll just keep going along using coal, not really investing in alternative higher cost energy right until the end. Then it will cost just as much as a carbon tax is going to cost now, if not more.

 

[drron]

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



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



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

If more CO2 is absorbed from underwater volcanoes it means less can be absorbed from the atmosphere=same effect as if it was released into the atmosphere.

 

[Noob]

In the case of a slight increase in global temperature:

• melting of Arctic sea ice which means lots of cold water enters the oceans changing the ocean circulation system that plays a large part in the earth's climate. This is one of the factors that will contribute to erratic weather patterns increasing the frequency and severity of natural phenomena.
• ecological damage in oceans (this is already being seen in the form of the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef)
• affect cropping patterns causing financial damage to the Agricultural industry, inability to produce enough food for a growing population leading to mass famine and death.
• affect breeding patterns of certain species and their migration patterns which will lead to extinction of many species
• at the rate sea levels are rising many coastal communities/cities will experience frequent flooding and in the case of some regions/islands being completely submerged as is occurring now on low lying islands in the pacific. No one really knows how high seas may rise, it really depends on many factors.

 

[medhead]

If more CO2 is absorbed from underwater volcanoes it means less can be absorbed from the atmosphere=same effect as if it was released into the atmosphere.

But according to Bolt et al the sea has an infinite capacity to absorb CO2, which is one of their reasons for not doing anything. Do hope we are not trying to have our cake and eat it too.

 

[Noob]

But according to Bolt et al the sea has an infinite capacity to absorb CO2, which is one of their reasons for not doing anything. Do hope we are not trying to have our cake and eat it too.

Bolt has a PhD in anything he talks about, didn't you know? He was certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, just like he is certain global warming is a myth. He's as right wing as they come, I wouldn't be surprised if he was the love child of Thatcher and Hitler.

 

[rechoboam]

Medhead: coal won't run out for several hundred years (at least).

Well not for China anyway. We won't be able to afford it. But we will happily export it to foreigners whose countries will continue to grow and flourish while our economy tanks. And of course the effects of climate change will be unaffected by our trivial efforts.

Enjoy your solar powered airplanes, hopefully I will be living elsewhere when it all hits the fan.

 

[medhead]

Medhead: coal won't run out for several hundred years (at least). Well not for China anyway. We won't be able to afford it. But we will happily export it to foreigners whose countries will continue to grow and flourish while our economy tanks. And of course the effects of climate change will be unaffected by our trivial efforts. Enjoy your solar powered airplanes, hopefully I will be living elsewhere when it all hits the fan.

I know. australia has about 200 to 250 years of coal reserves suitable for power production. Does change my view, if we go on buying it for 200 years it is still going to cost when we need to change. Now I have children and I'm happy to try to leave them something worthwhile, even if I wouldn't be there to see it.

 

[gumpy]

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.

Look I dont know much about the nuclear planes but knew they were unviable. At one stage they suited the pilot up in a lot of radiation gear. If they at one staged moved onto just sheilding the plane fine. Calm down. Minor point, ending conclusion that it's not going to happen is the same.

If there are biofuels that don't compete with human resources, like the need for farming land and too much water (that's going to be scarce soon) fantastic (i'm not just talking about crops just used for food), I'm all for it. So why aren't they haresting this oil now and using it? Seems like a pretty good idea. Also have you becareful certain fuels are easier to make than others though i guess scientists these days can crack anything together in which ever order they want...

Now your final line i disagree with, the thing is the above research was happening anyway. Before the carbon tax they were already working on these bacteria making oil. Just from a sustainability perspective they had to do it. As crude oil prices keep going up the more people are going to invest in this stuff because it becomes more financially viable. We don't need the carbon tax the make the above happen.

Anyway, with the aim of reducing Australia's carbon output by 5% do you feel all this is worth it? Australia could be wiped off the map and there would be no difference that is 5% going to do?

Will this address the sustainability issue? There are going to be far too many people in the world all consuming too much. Ironcially flying is one of the single worst thing an individual can do (outside of business) in terms of carbon footprint. If one has ever flown for a status run this is possible one of the worst use of resources ever.

If you don't want to pass the buck and feel everyone should be doing their bit lets hold everyone on this forum to a pact. Everyone, fly half as much as you did last year in FY12. Lets save the environment and more importantly resources... anyone? Looks around

I personally feel Australia's too small to make a difference but you don't. If you want to live as sustainably as possible do the follow and you'll be doing a good job:

1. only ride your bicycle as transport (no more flying)
2. get rid of your fridge
3. only purchase local produce which hasn't travelled further than 100km.
4. grow a vegie patch

Then you'd be making great use of resources and wasting very little

 

[rechoboam]

Should my ancestors in 1750 have been planning (and paying for) our transition from coal to nuclear power? Could they have?

Are the Gillard government capable of doing the equivalent for the year 2260?

 

[Noob]

Which other countries have a carbon tax? (SBS,2011)

Finland: introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990. Initially the tax exempted few industries and fuels.

In 2010 Finland’s price on carbon was €20 per tonne of CO2. Natural gas has a reduced tax rate, while peat was exempted between 2005-2010.

Taxation of liquid fuels and coal takes account of both their energy content and carbon dioxide emissions, and also emissions into the local environment that have adverse health effects.

The Netherlands: the Netherlands levies a general fuel tax on all fossil fuels. Fuels used as raw materials are not subject to the tax. Tax rates are based on both the energy and carbon contents of fuels.

Sweden: in 1991 Sweden enacted a carbon tax.

With Sweden raising prices on fossil fuels since enacting the carbon tax, it cut its carbon pollution by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2006.

India: a levy on coal producers was introduced in 2010. India expected to raise $535 million from the tax, the first measure used by the subcontinent to reduce companies’ use of fossil fuels.

Norway: in 1991 Norway introduced a tax on carbon. However its carbon emissions increased by 43m per cent per capita between 1991 and 2008.

Denmark: enacted in 1992, Denmark’s carbon tax applies to all energy users, which includes the industrial sector. But industrial companies are taxed differently depending on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures.

Denmark’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15% lower in 2005 than in 1990.

Switzerland: a carbon incentive tax was introduced in Switzerland in 2008. It includes all fossil fuels, unless they are used for energy. Swiss companies can be exempt from the tax if they participate in the country’s emissions trading system.

Overall, greenhouse gas emissions in Switzerland remained stable between 1990 and 2007.

Ireland: a tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010. It was estimated to add around €43 to filling a 1000 litre oil tank and €41 to the average annual gas bill.

Costa Rica: in 1997 Costa Rica enacted a tax on carbon pollution, set at 3.5 per cent of the market value of fossil fuels. The revenue raised from this goes into a national forest fund which pays indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them.
(At-a-glance: Carbon taxes around the world : World News Australia on SBS)

 

[gumpy]

In the case of a slight increase in global temperature:

• melting of Arctic sea ice which means lots of cold water enters the oceans changing the ocean circulation system that plays a large part in the earth's climate. This is one of the factors that will contribute to erratic weather patterns increasing the frequency and severity of natural phenomena.
• ecological damage in oceans (this is already being seen in the form of the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef)
• affect cropping patterns causing financial damage to the Agricultural industry, inability to produce enough food for a growing population leading to mass famine and death.
• affect breeding patterns of certain species and their migration patterns which will lead to extinction of many species
• at the rate sea levels are rising many coastal communities/cities will experience frequent flooding and in the case of some regions/islands being completely submerged as is occurring now on low lying islands in the pacific. No one really knows how high seas may rise, it really depends on many factors.

Point 1 - fair enough
Point 2 - yeah it'd be a massive shame to lose it but if one environment isn't suitable for the corals then another part of the world will be...
Point 3 - how much backing does this point have? I also imagine for every area that gets worse for growing other areas will get better..
Point 4 - Again massive shame to loose animals. But as evolution has shown us animals adapt and new ones thrive.
Point 5 - Well the number I hear a lot in the media is 2cm but you say yourself unknown. For islands to complete sub-merge it'd have to rise by a fair bit more than 2cm but yeah fine... Now as some parts of the world submerge, other parts of the world will defrost and become livable? I don't know but is there a trade there?

Of the points you raise the only one i'd worry about is point 3, weather can't be predicted very well 7 days out... to make a giant sweeping statement like "the climate's going to go crazy and people will die" is alarmist.

Also remember one day all the crude oil will be burnt off and things will reset. Also one day another asteriod will hit is and things will reset. It's natures way of reseting the matrix and starting again. =)

 

[medhead]

Look I dont know much about the nuclear planes but knew they were unviable. At one stage they suited the pilot up in a lot of radiation gear. If they at one staged moved onto just sheilding the plane fine. Calm down. Minor point, ending conclusion that it's not going to happen is the same.

I'm telling you again that they can not suit up a pilot, or anyone for that matter, in enough "radiation gear" that would make an ounce of difference. So whatever it was, it wasn't to shield them from radiation.

If there are biofuels that don't compete with human resources, like the need for farming land and too much water (that's going to be scarce soon) fantastic (i'm not just talking about crops just used for food), I'm all for it. So why aren't they haresting this oil now and using it? Seems like a pretty good idea. Also have you becareful certain fuels are easier to make than others though i guess scientists these days can crack anything together in which ever order they want...

Now your final line i disagree with, the thing is the above research was happening anyway. Before the carbon tax they were already working on these bacteria making oil. Just from a sustainability perspective they had to do it. As crude oil prices keep going up the more people are going to invest in this stuff because it becomes more financially viable. We don't need the carbon tax the make the above happen.

Why don't they use these thing now? Because they are not cost competitive. They are being developed because people had the science about AGW and were acting on it. Now however, that is gone because deniers like Bolt and Abbott are out there killing this topic for the public. So without a carbon tax, these research ideas (and this is new scientist so we're talking about early science) will not develop past the research lab.

80% of the planet is water it is not running out. Potable water is the scare commodity

If you don't want to pass the buck and feel everyone should be doing their bit lets hold everyone on this forum to a pact. Everyone, fly half as much as you did last year in FY12. Lets save the environment and more importantly resources... anyone? Looks around

I personally feel Australia's too small to make a difference but you don't. If you want to live as sustainably as possible do the follow and you'll be doing a good job:

1. only ride your bicycle as transport
2. get rid of your fridge
3. only purchase local produce which hasn't traveled further than 100km.
4. grow a vegie patch

Then you'd be making great use of resources and wasting very little

I think you've answered your own question. If I believe that everyone should do there bit, then by extension I believe that Australia should do it's bit. It truly amazes me that you think you know what I believe about Australia's place in the world.

How do you know I don't do those things already? Besides getting rid of the fridge, the idea is to sustainably maintain modern public health and hygiene standards. My family doesn't like diseases.

Should my ancestors in 1750 have been planning (and paying for) our transition from coal to nuclear power? Could they have?

Are the Gillard government capable of doing the equivalent for the year 2260?

Miss the point much? I'm saying that we either make the transition now to the technology available now or we it is forced on use later to the technology that is available later. No need to transition to nuclear power in 1750. Either way is going to cost, you have to pay the piper. It is only a question of when that cost is paid.

 

[medhead]

Which other countries have a carbon tax? (SBS,2011)
(At-a-glance: Carbon taxes around the world : World News Australia on SBS)

You can add to that list the work that China is doing to switch to nuclear power. At significant risk due to the lack of uranium resources that they have.

Also on 7:30 tonight was the story about all the US states that are also introducing carbon taxes and schemes despite lack of a national scheme. California is even, apparently, going to link with the EU scheme. A state with about twice the population of Australia. why would they bother they won't make a difference?

 

[gumpy]

I'm telling you again that they can not suit up a pilot, or anyone for that matter, in enough "radiation gear" that would make an ounce of difference. So whatever it was, it wasn't to shield them from radiation.



Why don't they use these thing now? Because they are not cost competitive. They are being developed because people had the science about AGW and were acting on it. Now however, that is gone because deniers like Bolt and Abbott are out there killing this topic for the public. So without a carbon tax, these research ideas (and this is new scientist so we're talking about early science) will not develop past the research lab.

80% of the planet is water it is not running out. Potable water is the scare commodity



I think you've answered your own question. If I believe that everyone should do there bit, then by extension I believe that Australia should do it's bit. It truly amazes me that you think you know what I believe about Australia's place in the world.

How do you know I don't do those things already? Besides getting rid of the fridge, the idea is to sustainably maintain modern public health and hygiene standards. My family doesn't like diseases.

1. Fine since you're from the Medical area i'll take your word for it, but they were in massive suits of some sort. Surely it make some difference them folk at the nuclear reactor in Japan after the earthquake were wearing some funky stuff.

2. It will get developed anyway. It'll be purchased by a oil company and developed and released to the world when the time is right for their profits.

3. I will clarify water with fresh water and shake and head as I do so. Fresh water is going to be a pretty damn big issue in the future. Maybe we can product enough desal plants to offset the water levels rising?

4. I haven't answered my own question. You should do your part as you feel it's your duty as it is some how Australia's duty. You can easily live cleanly without a fridge... just buy 2 days worth of food each time you shop. Then there's absolutely no need for a fridge. Stop flying, it's the worst thing you can do with resources. Esp status runs... I dare you to walk into the Greens national HQ and tell them you've done status runs... I can't only imagine their faces.

You don't do those things, you aren't doing those things, why say something like that? Someone so caring about the environment and sustaining it would not be on a FF forum talking about status runs.

 

[gumpy]

You can add to that list the work that China is doing to switch to nuclear power. At significant risk due to the lack of uranium resources that they have.

Also on 7:30 tonight was the story about all the US states that are also introducing carbon taxes and schemes despite lack of a national scheme. California is even, apparently, going to link with the EU scheme. A state with about twice the population of Australia. why would they bother they won't make a difference?

China are also leading the world with thorium reactors which they have the world's largest or 2nd largest deposits. They are also significantly safer than uranium.

California is a giant hippie state where half the stars by a prius. But, on the upside if this brings the rest of the US to bring down their carbon output fantastic, as they are one of the countries that will make a difference.

But you know what will also make a difference? You not flying anymore, single best thing an individual can do to help the world. Do it, yes you can.

Edit: Sorry there are two things you can do as an individual. 1. stop flying, 2. pay more taxes both things will guarantee your children and grand children are left with something...

 

[rechoboam]

California are so hopelessly insolvent they can promise whatever they like at this point. Your examples are incomplete- The entire EU has been pricing carbon for years, to no effect (emissions stable overall due only to the collapse of Soviet industry).

 

[drron]

But according to Bolt et al the sea has an infinite capacity to absorb CO2, which is one of their reasons for not doing anything. Do hope we are not trying to have our cake and eat it too.

Actually I think you are trying to have it both ways aren't you.my point remains valid.

 

[rechoboam]

Haven't read the entire thread but it sounds like only medhead is quoting bolt, the rest of us don't take much notice, as much as all opposition to the carbon tax is painted as slavish devotion to the "shock jocks".

 

[connieguy]

But according to Bolt et al the sea has an infinite capacity to absorb CO2, which is one of their reasons for not doing anything. Do hope we are not trying to have our cake and eat it too.

The sea does not have an infinite capacity to adsorb CO2. Also as the adsorbed CO2 increases, so to does the acidity, which is already causing problems with aquatic life forms that need a shell that is damaged as the acidity climbs.

 

[medhead]

1. Fine since you're from the Medical area i'll take your word for it, but they were in massive suits of some sort. Surely it make some difference them folk at the nuclear reactor in Japan after the earthquake were wearing some funky stuff.

2. It will get developed anyway. It'll be purchased by a oil company and developed and released to the world when the time is right for their profits.

3. I will clarify water with fresh water and shake and head as I do so. Fresh water is going to be a pretty damn big issue in the future. Maybe we can product enough desal plants to offset the water levels rising?

4. I haven't answered my own question. You should do your part as you feel it's your duty as it is some how Australia's duty. You can easily live cleanly without a fridge... just buy 2 days worth of food each time you shop. Then there's absolutely no need for a fridge. Stop flying, it's the worst thing you can do with resources. Esp status runs... I dare you to walk into the Greens national HQ and tell them you've done status runs... I can't only imagine their faces.

You don't do those things, you aren't doing those things, why say something like that? Someone so caring about the environment and sustaining it would not be on a FF forum talking about status runs.

1. Another one confused by my nickname. Go get yourself a suit that is 2cm thick lead and tell me how well you can walk in that. The guys in japan were not wearing funky stuff at all. Are gumboots and paper suits funky? I can walk into any safety store and buy that funky gear. Personally, I hate armchair experts who know nothing, yet still make absolutely outrageous comments about radiation and are incapable of listening when someone bothers to try to educate them.

2. Only when it cost the same or less than oil.

3. They have amazing technology these days. Any water can be made fresh. All depending on cost.

4. Again how do you know I don't do those things? What are these status runs that you imagine I do? I have never done a status run. Don't be confused because I know how to maximise status. I guess you choose to ignore my point about sustainably maintaining current standards of living. Typical denier to equate going back to the dark ages with reducing consumption of limited resources and being more sustainable.

As for walking into green headquarters it is very clear that I support nuclear power so why would in walk into green headquarters. Well I realise your trying to insult me, but if you had the slightest idea about me you might understand how wrong you are.

Anyway, since you know me sooooo well. I'll look forward to you logical and non-dumb reply. In fact, why don't you have the whole conversation.

Haven't read the entire thread but it sounds like only medhead is quoting bolt, the rest of us don't take much notice, as much as all opposition to the carbon tax is painted as slavish devotion to the "shock jocks".

Bolt is the champion, the figure head. I use his name as a derogatory term for all deniers.