Carbon Tax

[rechoboam]

Qantas' offsetting program seems to work like this:

I smoke too much. My wife complains that I'm harming the kids.
But I love smoking!
So I pay my cousin, smoker Joe not to smoke a cigarette every time I light up. I am cigarette-neutral now! For every cigarette I smoke, he doesnt smoke one of his, which he would have smoked.


Am I missing something?

And with regard to forcing development of other power, if it's only economical with carbon dioxide at 80 bucks per ton, that means wave or wind power etc are bloody freakin' expensive! Moving to that means destroying vast amounts of wealth, and looking at the shopping strip in this holiday destination, I dont think there is so much of that wealth available any more. But in any case, there is no alternative baseload power source, with nuclear off the table, so what's actually going to happen? Shold I be applying for my Singapore work permit yet or does Julia have some kind of master plan up her sleeve?

Gowatson, medhead, please explain this to me-
How can we afford alternative energy thats orders of magnitude dearer than coal without dropping our standard of living?
What will we use for baseload power?

 

[dfcatch]

In the case of a slight increase in global temperature:

• ecological damage in oceans (this is already being seen in the form of the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef)

I am sick to death of BS lines like this being trodden out by uninformed brainwashed inner-city dwellers who wouldn't know one end of climate science from another unless their group-think professors told them so!!

FACT: I work on the GBR everyday.

I have dived on the GBR for over 13 years now, and I can tell you a lot about the reef. I work with individuals and groups that have many decades of hands-on reef experience and I can tell you the reef is NOT dying!! Not fast, not slow, not now, not ever!

This is leftist propaganda BS that is simply not true.

All reef operators regularly participate in Reef Check type studies on an ongoing basis, which in the simplest form, measures bleaching at the tips of coral. As some recent reports (remember - scientific reports take some time to actually go from data collection to compiled reports) are indicating - bleaching events are less, rather than more.

Secondly I can tell you that I could show you some areas of reef, together with a narrative about global warming, the reef dying, bleaching etc etc, and you would be convinced that the end of world is coming.

I can then take you 50 metres away to a different patch of reef, and your new reaction would be "where's the problem - the reef looks great!".

Much more damage is caused by things like a Crown-of-Thorns starfish outbreak, or a Drupella infestation (snails), than any "warming event".

Cyclones (when they have a direct hit), cause an enormous amount of damage. And don't even get me started on the "global warming will cause more frequent cyclones etc" - again BS.

After Cyclone Yasi this year - many of the reef areas off Cairns were hit with an enormous amount of visible damage. Broken staghorn coral littering the sand, huge boulders of honeycomb coral literally bowled over, turtles' caves filled with rubble etc. When I first saw some of it a few days after - it was heartwrenching (just like if your local street had been torn apart).

But I'll tell you that in the weeks and months since - the turtles are all there, they adapted and moved caves, the fish are still there, the coral grows back, the reef has a magical ability to adapt and remain what it is - a living and constantly changing thing. You can certainly see rubble and damage in any part of the reef. But literally metres away you can also see picture-perfect reef systems that are as healthy as any specimens you would find anywhere. It's all part of the constant change and growth cycle.

Just like in a forest - where sometimes a tree must fall and die so that new growth can sprout up - the reef is the same.

So unless the reef is your daily workplace - and you can physically show me where it is dying - enough with the recycled propaganda that the reef is dying - because it isn't - I promise you that.

You're entitled to your views - just as I'm entitled to mine - but let's stick to views or opinions, and leave stated facts for those who actually know what they're talking about.

And no - I don't consider most climate scientists to know what they're talking about. The same ones who said it would never rain again in Victoria enough to fill dams for example

Oh - and for the record - this year is one of the coldest as far as reef water temperature goes in recent memory. And it's not even August yet. (Great for sales of 7mm wetsuits!)


Rant over!

 

[connieguy]

Qantas' offsetting program seems to work like this:

I smoke too much. My wife complains that I'm harming the kids.
But I love smoking!
So I pay my cousin, smoker Joe not to smoke a cigarette every time I light up. I am cigarette-neutral now! For every cigarette I smoke, he doesnt smoke one of his, which he would have smoked.

Am I missing something?

Yup. If we do not burn biomass it breaks down and releases Methane, which is 25 - 30 times as strong a Green House Gas as is CO2. So burning the biomass, burns the Methane for energy. It still does release CO2, but that is very much better than releasing Methane.

And with regard to forcing development of other power, if it's only economical with carbon dioxide at 80 bucks per ton, that means wave or wind power etc are bloody freakin' expensive! Moving to that means destroying vast amounts of wealth, and looking at the shopping strip in this holiday destination, I dont think there is so much of that wealth available any more. But in any case, there is no alternative base load power source, with nuclear off the table, so what's actually going to happen? Should I be applying for my Singapore work permit yet or does Julia have some kind of master plan up her sleeve?

No one is suggesting that we ELIMINATE our fossil base load plants until we have a economical carbon free replacement. However and in the meantime, for every 1,000 kWhs of energy generated by solar and wind renewable generators, we reduce the load a fossil fuel burning base load generator sees and thus we reduce that plants CO2 emissions by 1 tonne of CO2. However the owner of that base load plant is not really happy about that as the amount of energy they can sell is reduced as is the coal supplier as the amount of coal they can sell the base load plant is also reduced.

Gowatson, medhead, please explain this to me-
How can we afford alternative energy thats orders of magnitude dearer than coal without dropping our standard of living?
What will we use for base load power?

What if renewable solar kWhs could be generated for say A$0.06 / kWh? You do realize that this cost is lower than the energy cost from a NEW coal or gas fossil fuel plant? And before you say that is not possible, I can assure you it is totally doable and ready to roll right now. Plus the A$0.06 / kWh stays constant for 25 years. You think ANY fossil or nuclear plant can achieve a constant cost of generation over 25 years? Trust me they can't.

Yes you read that right. Renewable kWhs at the same or lower cost that what a NEW coal or gas plant can produce.

Bottom line is we will need rotating thermal fossil fuel powered energy generators for a long time. But there is little need to build more to handle the new highly temperature related energy demand and desal peaks when solar can do that job very well and do it at a lower cost per unit of energy generated than can a new coal or gas plant.

 

[connieguy]

Rant over!

Nothing wrong with a rant or two.

I would generally agree with you about the magnitude of the effects of increased acidity and ocean temperature on reef corals and associated life systems. The GBR has stressors applied to it that are many times as great as those from the current AGW effects. Just like the Melbourne professor who rightly stated that AGW is not responsible for CAUSING the recent wild weather, it does play a hand in increasing the intensity and frequency of these events. This also occurs on the GBR. Here the worry is that a worst case event with all the natural negative effects COMBINED with the ability of AGW to amplify those effects may just push some eco systems over the edge, so to speak.

But in reality the Canary in the Coal Mine is the Arctic and the increasing levels of Methane in the sea and in the air. We are not producing this Methane. It is being released from frozen stores from millions of years ago.

Here is a time based global distribution of Methane per latitude:


You will note the level of Methane is increasing and more importantly it peaks at the North Pole and is at it's lowest at the South Pole. Anyone not understand what this graph is saying? Answer: The Methane is not being produced by cow farts (well maybe a little) but is being released into the air as the frozen Methane in the tundra and under sea stores unfreezes due to increasing water and air temperatures in the Arctic.

Am I worried about the GBR or cow farts? No.

Am I worried about a melting (reducing total ice volume and not surface area) Arctic Ice Cap resulting in increased Methane (CH4) release? You bet and big time.

 

[dfcatch]

Nothing wrong with a rant or two.

I would generally agree with you about the magnitude of the effects of increased acidity and ocean temperature on reef corals and associated life systems. The GBR has stressors applied to it that are many times as great as those from the current AGW effects. Just like the Melbourne professor who rightly stated that AGW is not responsible for CAUSING the recent wild weather, it does play a hand in increasing the intensity and frequency of these events. This also occurs on the GBR. Here the worry is that a worst case event with all the natural negative effects COMBINED with the ability of AGW to amplify those effects may just push some eco systems over the edge, so to speak.

But in reality the Canary in the Coal Mine is the Arctic and the increasing levels of Methane in the sea and in the air. We are not producing this Methane. It is being released from frozen stores from millions of years ago.

Here is a time based global distribution of Methane per latitude:

View attachment 2886
You will note the level of Methane is increasing and more importantly it peaks at the North Pole and is at it's lowest at the South Pole. Anyone not understand what this graph is saying? Answer: The Methane is not being produced by cow farts (well maybe a little) but is being released into the air as the frozen Methane in the tundra and under sea stores unfreezes due to increasing water and air temperatures in the Arctic.

Am I worried about the GBR or cow farts? No.

Am I worried about a melting (reducing total ice volume and not surface area) Arctic Ice Cap resulting in increased Methane (CH4) release? You bet and big time.

Fair points, and I don't believe any rational person doubts GW is happening.

The questions which do seem inconclusive are :

1/ How much of the warming is caused/exacerbated by man vs natural cycle?

2/ If man disappeared today, how much impact would that have on GW?
ie. Is man's contribution negligible in the ability to reverse or brake GW?

3/ What is the best way to deal with it?

Personally, of course we should be minimizing our negative impact on the environment.

But from all the evidence presented thus far, including yours GoWatson, I'm not convinced that alarmist reactions that want to send us back to the stone age are the answer.

That's why I don't support the carbon tax. I don't support crippling our economy in a way that I don't see as helping the environment, especially when we are such a small producer.

I prefer a more slowly slowly approach towards innovation, without crippling the economy (which results in less investment ability to drive innovation).

It's not burying my head in the sand - it's just taking a balanced, sensible approach.

Ultimately - in the last decade there have been so many "wrong" predictions by these alarmists, that I don't give them a huge amount of credibility. All of my cautious bones in my body have been proven right each time.

So in the absence of accurate consensus about the future modeling, I'm not inclined to support radical action.

I do believe the planet is warming, I also believe there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Oh - and you can't compare Australia to this European schemes above as our economies, energy sources, and reliance on coal are vastly different.

It's not apples with apples.

 

[rechoboam]

Yup. If we do not burn biomass it breaks down and releases Methane, which is 25 - 30 times as strong a Green House Gas as is CO2. So burning the biomass, burns the Methane for energy. It still does release CO2, but that is very much better than releasing Methane.

But you are still flying and burning fossil fuels!

 

[drron]

Dfcatch-couldn't have said it better-in fact what i have clumsily been trying to say for some time.

 

[gumpy]

I still feel the massive white elephant in the room is sustainability and population... no one really seems to care about it.
Hypothetically if the ETS worked at cut 5% of our emissions, and then what? We are running out of resources and we have hurtling towards 9 billion on earth... Does everyone just want to ignore this?

 

[connieguy]

But you are still flying and burning fossil fuels!

I'm in the renewable energy business, with customers all over the planet. Together we are trying to make a difference as we can offer a Australian designed and developed solar solution that generates solar kWhs at less cost per unit of energy (kWh) than does a NEW coal or gas plant. Additionally this solar technology does NOT need

1) Carbon taxes

2) Feed-in tariffs

3) Installation rebates

4) RECs (Renewable Energy Credits)

to cost effectively reduce fossil fuel generated kWhs. While I pay QF to offset my flying CO2 emissions, my direct action reduces the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel based power plants many times more.

As for what QF is doing to offset flight CO2 emissions, there are 5 programs QF uses:

Fuel Switching

Efficient Cook Stoves

Mobuya Hydropower

Hsikou Hydropower

Wind Power

Why is it you choose to focus only on the Fuel Switching and have never commented on the other 4 programs? From what I can see QF is doing a good job at offering cost effective ways for their customers to offset the CO2 emissions from their flying.

Bottom line is there is a big ice cube floating in the Arctic Sea, keeping it and the surrounding land frozen or very cold. But it is melting and causing increasing amounts of Methane to be released.

Forget rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, coral bleaching, increased oceanic acidification and dead zones, etc. If we can't slow down the increased release of Methane in the Arctic, nothing else matters. You may be right and it may be too late to do anything. But just maybe it is not too late and we can make a difference. Are you willing to gamble the prosperity of future generations that you are right and I'm wrong?

BTW a Carbon tax at $20 / tonne of CO2 will increase retail electricity prices by A$0.02 / kWh (1 tonne of CO2 ~1,000 kWh of generated energy). You really think that will destroy Australia when network capacity enhancements have already put the price of electricity up around A$0.10 to A$0.15 / kWh?

 

[connieguy]

I still feel the massive white elephant in the room is sustainability and population... no one really seems to care about it.
Hypothetically if the ETS worked at cut 5% of our emissions, and then what? We are running out of resources and we have hurtling towards 9 billion on earth... Does everyone just want to ignore this?

100% correct as this shows.



Reducing the carbon from the way we currently generate energy is just one of the issues. Every other life form on this planet has another that feeds on the waste and recycles the molecules and atoms so they can be reused, except one. We have broken that chain and are producing waste that can not be naturally recycled. Vast amounts of the ocean are now dead zones because of this.

China understood this but the rest of the world will never follow what they were forced to do. Now reread my signature.

 

[connieguy]

So in the absence of accurate consensus about the future modeling, I'm not inclined to support radical action.

Increasing electricity prices by A$0.02 / kWh (based on a A$20 / tonne of CO2) is radical action? :shock: Network capacity enhancements have already put electricity prices up A$0.10 - A$0.15 / kWh. That would be equivalent to pricing carbon at A$100 to A$150 / tonne of CO2.

There is NO WAY that increasing electricity prices A$0.02 / kWh will harm anything other than to make renewables A$0.02 / kWh cheaper than coal or gas power.

 

[dfcatch]

Increasing electricity prices by A$0.02 / kWh (based on a A$20 / tonne of CO2) is radical action? :shock: Network capacity enhancements have already put electricity prices up A$0.10 - A$0.15 / kWh. That would be equivalent to pricing carbon at A$100 to A$150 / tonne of CO2.

There is NO WAY that increasing electricity prices A$0.02 / kWh will harm anything other than to make renewables A$0.02 / kWh cheaper than coal or gas power.

Point taken, but you're asking me to support a policy that is broader than what you're indicating, based on my view that it won't make an ounce of difference to global emissions or GW.

Notwithstanding your very informative contribution to the discussion which I find interesting.

But my opinion is still what it is. At this stage.....

 

[markis10]

There is NO WAY that increasing electricity prices A$0.02 / kWh will harm anything other than to make renewables A$0.02 / kWh cheaper than coal or gas power.

Unless you live in Gladstone, Portland, Kuri Kuri, Point Henry or Tomago and hope to have money for food, given they consume 15% of the entire electricity generated in Australia.

 

[connieguy]

But from all the evidence presented thus far, including yours GoWatson, I'm not convinced that alarmist reactions that want to send us back to the stone age are the answer.

I do not want to go back to the stone age either. But I do have a fair understanding of what will happen as that big floating ice cube in the Arctic melts and causes the unfreezing of the frozen Methane stores into the atmosphere.

I don't support crippling our economy in a way that I don't see as helping the environment, especially when we are such a small producer.

You really think a increased electricity of A$0.02 / kWh will cripple the economy?

It's not burying my head in the sand - it's just taking a balanced, sensible approach.

With respect you are. Forget about every AGW effect across the planet and focus on the big floating ice cube in the Arctic Sea basin and the increasing Methane levels in the atmosphere. The big ice cube trapped there is melting / losing volume every year and the Methane is increasing. Big worry is the rate that the ice cube is melting is increasing. Please note the increased rate of volume loss per year since 2002 and that over the last few years the loss rate has increased yet again. That chart is in units of 1,000 km^3. 1,000 Cubic KM of ice. That is a LOT of ice to lose every year.

Ultimately - in the last decade there have been so many "wrong" predictions by these alarmists, that I don't give them a huge amount of credibility. All of my cautious bones in my body have been proven right each time.

Yup we are still trying to under this oh so complex AGW effect. However future modeling has nothing to do with real measurements of things like global temperature, sea acidity, Arctic Ice Cap mass, level of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere, etc. ALL these real measurements are going in the WRONG direction and the rate of change is INCREASING.

So in the absence of accurate consensus about the future modeling, I'm not inclined to support radical action. I do believe the planet is warming, I also believe there's nothing we can do to stop it.

And what happens if you are wrong and we could have made a positive effect? Is A$0.02 / kWh increase in electricity prices so high a price to pay?

 

[connieguy]

Unless you live in Gladstone, Portland, Kuri Kuri, Point Henry or Tomago and hope to have money for food, given they consume 15% of the entire electricity generated in Australia.

Yup, Aluminium is not called solid electricity for nothing.

But what the Chinese do to support their smelters and export price has a much greater effect on the price of ingots than increasing the cost of a smelters electricity by A$0.02 / kWh. Of course the Oz smelters will cry poor to get exempted but hey that is just part of the game. Oz aluminium is considered the best you can get. We work with a extruder in China that only uses Oz ingots. Says the local stuff is cough.

 

[connieguy]

Here is a global map showing temperature changes measured for May 2011 and based on the average for 1951 thru 1980.


Note what is happening over Siberia with average temperature increases of 5 deg C and that all of the Arctic is getting warmer. Makes it clear why the big floating ice cube trapped in the Arctic sea is melting and why Methane is concentrated over the Arctic. I also found the Zonal temperature versus Latitude graph very interesting.



No theory here or computer models trying to predict the future. This is happening right now and if we know where to look all the data is available.

 

[markis10]

Yup, Aluminium is not called solid electricity for nothing.

But what the Chinese do to support their smelters and export price has a much greater effect on the price of ingots than increasing the cost of a smelters electricity by A$0.02 / kWh.

That is overlooking the fact the state governments already provide subsidies at the rate of $70000 per employee, an increase as measured by you when compared to the real world price they are paying after subsidy will be quite significant and I doubt the state governments will be putting their hands into their pockets!

 

[connieguy]

That is overlooking the fact the state governments already provide subsidies at the rate of $70000 per employee, an increase as measured by you when compared to the real world price they are paying after subsidy will be quite significant and I doubt the state governments will be putting their hands into their pockets!

A$70k per employee per year? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

I totally expect the Oz aluminium smelters to be given a "get out of jail" card this Sunday. I mean no one sees them as polluters. Well at least not the general public.

 

[connieguy]

Interesting observations:

ACF - Big polluters continue to speak with forked tongue

Big polluters continue to speak with forked tongue
Date: 7-Jul-2011

With industry lobby groups claiming the staged closure of the coal industry would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, environment groups have released briefing papers examining the claims made by two of the big polluters, TRUenergy and Xstrata, about the impact a pollution price would have on their businesses.

The briefing papers, released by Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and Environment Victoria, show while Xstrata and TRUenergy publicly claim a price on carbon will devastate them, they tell their shareholders they are dealing with climate change and there’s nothing to worry about.

TRUenergy boss Richard McIndoe recently said a carbon price and the closure of certain dirty coal-fired power stations would mean “lights out overnight” for Victoria, but the company’s official line to shareholders is: “TRUenergy understands that its role in mitigating climate change requires significant changes to the way we conduct our business, the technologies we use to generate energy and in the relationships we have with our customers”.

“If TRUenergy is serious about a carbon price and the closure of dirty coal-fired power stations resulting in power failures, the company should warn the Australian Stock Exchange and the Energy Regulator that it may be about to default on its electricity supply contracts,” said Environment Victoria’s campaigns director Mark Wakeham.

“It’s time big polluters stopped speaking with forked tongue and stopped using scare tactics as a way to crowbar more money out of the carbon pricing scheme,” said Greenpeace’s climate and energy campaign team leader Trish Harrup.

“Xstrata produced nearly 4 million tonnes of pollution in Australia last year, its operating profit increased by 75% to $7.7 billion and it stands to get millions more from Australian taxpayers through industry assistance arrangements, so the claim a carbon price would have a significant detrimental impact on its business is simply not believable,” said ACF economic adviser Simon O’Connor.

“Australians – especially young Australians – want the government to get on with the job of tackling climate change and that means ignoring the threats and scare tactics of the big polluters,” said Australian Youth Climate Coalition policy director Jane Stabb."

 

[connieguy]

Look like the carbon tax will be A$23 / tonne of CO2:

Carbon tax expected to have $23 a tonne starting price | News.com.au

Coal fired plants will then pay the full price, while gas plants will pay only about 40% as they emit less CO2 per MWh of electricity generated.

So coal base energy will increase by A$0.023 / kWh while gas based energy will increase by around A$0.009 / kWh.