Carbon Tax

[rechoboam]

So we export the coal to China who can refine metals without a tax and compete with us on that basis?

Your pretty graphs are great but how does the tax work if Chinas govt can buy our coalmines, export our coal into a carbon tax-free environment? Can anyone answer this simple question with a simple answer?

 

[drron]

Sorry I misread it as the Greenland ice cap.Though of course there was still arctic ice at the end of summer 2010-I actually saw it.
And I like the way you ignore the inconvenient facts.
Your mind is closed.

 

[cove]

It appears the Government have the numbers now but surprisingly back benchers have been kept as mushrooms in the dark if you believe everything you read.

 

[rechoboam]

It appears the Government have the numbers now but surprisingly back benchers have been kept as mushrooms in the dark if you believe everything you read.

They'll find out on Saturday night apparently

 

[connieguy]

Sorry I misread it as the Greenland ice cap. Though of course there was still arctic ice at the end of summer 2010-I actually saw it.
And I like the way you ignore the inconvenient facts.
Your mind is closed.

Oops make that 2020.

What facts do I ignore? Please I'm really interested to know.

 

[connieguy]

So we export the coal to China who can refine metals without a tax and compete with us on that basis?

Your pretty graphs are great but how does the tax work if Chinas govt can buy our coalmines, export our coal into a carbon tax-free environment? Can anyone answer this simple question with a simple answer?

My understanding is the coal miners, who ever they may be, will pay a carbon tax on what they mine and export as well as on what they release into the atmosphere via the mining process. So if the Chinese or anybody else buys Australian coal, the carbon tax would have been paid on it and added to the coal price. Therefore Chinese burning Australian coal will have paid the Australian carbon tax and will not be any more advantaged than they are now.

Of course the devil is in the details.

 

[rechoboam]

The co2 is predominantly released when coal is burnt, not when its moved from underground into a rail car. I'm talking about the coal when it's burnt in a furnace to make steel. If this goes offshore, the Chinese sell value added steel, make the money, don't pay carbon tax and jobs are lost in Australia to China. CO2 production is unchanged. Its not "the details", it's the entire fundamental principle of such a tax.

How does this help anyone?

 

[connieguy]

The co2 is predominantly released when coal is burnt, not when its moved from underground into a rail car. I'm talking about the coal when it's burnt in a furnace to make steel. If this goes offshore, the Chinese sell value added steel, make the money, don't pay carbon tax and jobs are lost in Australia to China. CO2 production is unchanged. Its not "the details", it's the entire fundamental principle of such a tax.

How does this help anyone?

The Carbon Tax is paid by the mining company on all sales of their coal, domestic or export. So when a overseas company buys Australian coal, the carbon tax on the coal they burn has been paid. If the Chinese buy Australian coal, they have the same cost impost as do domestic coal burners. I suggest the Chinese and others will happily buy LOTS of Australian coal as they can say they have paid for the CO2 their energy plants burning Australian coal emit.

CO2 and Methane are released during the mining process. Ever hear of coal seam gas?

 

[serfty]

I have been trying to avoid posting in this thread due to the level on single mindeness people with differing views have on this issue -however ...

gowatson, you seem to be an evangelist. I pose two questions to you.

I hope you answer the first one; I doubt you'll answer the second.

Q1.

How much difference will the Gillard/Brown government's Carbon dioxide tax make to the total output of CO[sub]2[/sub] produced throughout the world? Please answer as a percentage of total output.

Q2.

How much is your income likely to increase subsequent the imposition of a carbon dioxide tax in Australia?

 

[gumpy]

answer to the first question - nothing. Some outrageously small percentage.

 

[connieguy]

I have been trying to avoid posting in this thread due to the level on single mindeness people with differing views have on this issue -however ...

gowatson, you seem to be an evangelist. I pose two questions to you.

Not an evangelist. I have just pointed out some real measured data of which a few members were not familiar with. I do care to know what is actually happening and not by reading the popular press. Every time I posted data, I gave the link so others could see where the data came from and that it came from a reliable source and not some pro or anti AGW group.

I hope you answer the first one; I doubt you'll answer the second.

Q1. How much difference will the Gillard/Brown government's Carbon dioxide tax make to the total output of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] produced throughout the world? Please answer as a percentage of total output.

The goal is to reduce the Australian emissions 5% below 2000 levels. As we are now in 2011 that is probably a 25% cut in existing emissions, which is quite significant.

In reference to global levels, Australia is well behind the EU which has already made cuts of greater than 25%. So in comparison to the EU we need to catch up with what they have already done.

In comparison with global emissions, our 25% cut will be very small and so you will say why do anything. Why? Because if every other non CO2 cutting nation takes that stance, we are well and truly coughKED. This is not a new tax to line the gov coppers. AGW is very real and is the biggest threat to the planet we have every had to combat.

I suggest you google "4 degrees" and start to understand where business as normal will take us. With no further cuts, the conservative estimation is by 2050 our planet will be 4 deg warmer and will support something like 1/2 billion people. This is not a game the government is playing. This is serious and if not handled properly may result in the death of most of the world population, well most of the 2nd and 3rd world.

You should have seen the measured mass loss in the ice cube that floats in the Arctic Sea, the increased Methane in the air over the Arctic and the 2 deg temperature over the Arctic. Do you think that is some academic exercise that will have no effect on life on this planet? AGW is very real and any government that does not enact legislation to try to deal with it, is in my opinion totally incompetent and has no right to govern.

Australia's current renewable policy is a joke all around the world. India and Thailand have renewable programs, which aim to install over 20 GWs, (20,000 MW) each of solar plants over the next 10 years. Together that is around the total thermal power plants we have in Australia. They will struggle with the cost but they know what failure to cut their emissions will cost them and the world. One of the main reasons their governments has the ability to do this is because they had no coal miners bleating in ears about how doing this would kill their businesses and cost so many jobs. Germany has the biggest installed solar plant and instead of killing their economy, they powered ahead and actually created more jobs in the renewable sector than in their coal mining and coal burning industries.

Like I said, around the world Australian is a laughing stock as far as renewable programs are concerned.

Q2. How much is your income likely to increase subsequent the imposition of a carbon dioxide tax in Australia?

As I have openly declared and stated in my profile, I'm in the renewable energy industry. We do no business in Australia, so the answer to your question is ZERO.

May I ask you:

1) What industry you are in?

2) Will you or your business expect to experience loss from the Carbon Tax?

3) Do you have a political ideology that is opposed to a Carbon Tax?

4) Do you believe in GW?

5) Do you believe it is man made?

6) Do you have any understanding of what is predicted to happen to the planet when global temperatures reach 1 deg, 2 degs, 4 degs, etc? If not you should.

Why do I do this? Because I care about what future my children and their children and their children's children will inherit.

 

[connieguy]

answer to the first question - nothing. Some outrageously small percentage.

So are you suggesting we should not carry our weight and become a climate pirate that lives off the efforts of other nations who are willing to pull their weight?

Hey catchy new name:

Australia, the Climate Pirate.

Time to fit out the Queen Anne's Revenge (Black beards ship) and go take advantage of those other nations that are willing to join the global community and pull their weight.

 

[Sprucegoose]

GoWatson,a personal question if I may, do you have a financial linkage to the global warming debate? Like the computer mob to the year 2000 doomsday scenarios?

 

[Sprucegoose]

Now we are scaring the kids!!http://www.news.com.au/national/aus...-climate-of-fear/story-e6frfkvr-1226091097398

 

[drron]

Oops make that 2020.

What facts do I ignore? Please I'm really interested to know.

I've mentioned them several times without getting a straight answer.
Do you realise what this statement of yours implies-

From the currently observed changes, the IPCC did get it wrong. In almost every case the IPCC under estimated the complexity, speed and level of the changes. The current result are generally above, in both speed and level, their worst case version of what the IPCC modeled would happen.

No one predicted that the 2010 summer min Arctic Ice Cap volume would be 4,000 km^3, down from 18,000 km^3 in 1979. At that rate of summer min ice mass loss, ~450 km^3 / year, there will be virtually no ice in the Arctic during the summer of 2010.

I suggest by now you do have some idea what that will do to the release rate of Methane over the Arctic? Which, BTW, includes the Greenland ice sheet that could add 23 feet / 7 meters to world sea level if it melts.

So yes the IPCC did get it wrong, their numbers were too low and they did not totally understand a very complex system as well as they do today. So lets throw out the baby with the bath water and go totally blind into a world that is rapidly changing.

Now lets now all stick our heads in the sand, ignore the current evidence that is before your eyes, the IPCC projection, all the climate scientists and chant:

As you say the IPCC got it wrong in 2007 and did not understand the complexity of the system.So you can be sure they now totally understand?

As the devil's advocate just what if there is a major component of cyclical global warming and it is just about to reverse.We successfully reduce our CO2 levels dramatically thus plunging ourselves back into the next Ice age-boy that will have a more dramatic effect on agriculture and the ability to feed the world's billions.

I suggest you google "4 degrees" and start to understand where business as normal will take us. With no further cuts, the conservative estimation is by 2050 our planet will be 4 deg warmer and will support something like 1/2 billion people. This is not a game the government is playing. This is serious and if not handled properly may result in the death of most of the world population, well most of the 2nd and 3rd world.

A prediction and modelling that you deny using.If true how does India with much warmer temperatures than us already by itself support a population of over a half billion?

3) Do you have a political ideology that is opposed to a Carbon Tax?

No.And this is where you have gone wrong.By making Climate Change political it has made opposition inevitable.

As I have openly declared and stated in my profile, I'm in the renewable energy industry. We do no business in Australia, so the answer to your question is ZERO.

Really?So there are not going to be a 1000 green jobs in adelaide?
YouTube - ‪SunCube on channel 7 news‬‏

 

[rechoboam]

Not an evangelist. I have just pointed out some real measured data of which a few members were not familiar with. I do care to know what is actually happening and not by reading the popular press. Every time I posted data, I gave the link so others could see where the data came from and that it came from a reliable source and not some pro or anti AGW group.



The goal is to reduce the Australian emissions 5% below 2000 levels. As we are now in 2011 that is probably a 25% cut in existing emissions, which is quite significant.

In reference to global levels, Australia is well behind the EU which has already made cuts of greater than 25%.

Because of the collapse of Soviet industry.

 

[drron]

For once I agree with Michael Pascoe-the Carbon tax is a waste of time-
Don't waste your energy on the carbon tax

 

[serfty]

Not an evangelist. I have just pointed out some real measured data of which a few members were not familiar with. I do care to know what is actually happening and not by reading the popular press. Every time I posted data, I gave the link so others could see where the data came from and that it came from a reliable source and not some pro or anti AGW group. ...

Yep, you keep posting the same data/graphs. ...

...

The goal is to reduce the Australian emissions 5% below 2000 levels. As we are now in 2011 that is probably a 25% cut in existing emissions, which is quite significant.

In reference to global levels, Australia is well behind the EU which has already made cuts of greater than 25%. So in comparison to the EU we need to catch up with what they have already done.
...
In comparison with global emissions, our 25% cut will be very small and so you will say why do anything. Why? Because if every other non CO2 cutting nation takes that stance, we are well and truly coughKED. This is not a new tax to line the gov coppers. AGW is very real and is the biggest threat to the planet we have every had to combat.
...

"Very Small" does not answer my question: "How much difference will the Gillard/Brown government's Carbon Dioxide tax make to the total output of CO2 produced throughout the world? Please answer as a percentage of total output."

...
Australia's current renewable policy is a joke all around the world. ...

Like I said, around the world Australian is a laughing stock as far as renewable programs are concerned.

...

A joke to whom? Laughing Stock? Who? Those who intend to profit from the "Climate Change" scaremongering.

...

As I have openly declared and stated in my profile, I'm in the renewable energy industry. We do no business in Australia, so the answer to your question is ZERO.
...

Cool, so it's not your hip pocket that's making feel it necessary to post this stuff incessantly.

...
May I ask you:

1) What industry you are in?

2) Will you or your business expect to experience loss from the Carbon Tax?

3) Do you have a political ideology that is opposed to a Carbon Tax?

4) Do you believe in GW?

5) Do you believe it is man made?

6) Do you have any understanding of what is predicted to happen to the planet when global temperatures reach 1 deg, 2 degs, 4 degs, etc? If not you should.
...

1) IT
2) My business is unlikely to experience direct loss, however, I will be affected on a personal level since I am unlikely to be eligible for any government rebate/compensation.
3) I have no political ideology. I am opposed to carbon Dioxide tax because I perceive:

• it to be a waste of time &
• that people/organisations have been profiting from the scaremongering and wish to continue to do so.

4) I believe the world has been warming during some periods of recent history. More recently it may have cooled somewhat, hence the IPCC change in terminology from "GW" to "Climate Change".

5) If activities of man have made any contribution to changes in global temperatures the the proportion of this would so minute as to be reasonably disregarded.

6) Yes - If such happened we may be 'stuffed', but I see little we can do about it. Carbon Dioxide Tax or not.

...
Why do I do this? Because I care about what future my children and their children and their children's children will inherit.

In reality this Gillard/Brown Carbon Dioxide tax is NOT going to make any real difference to the amount of Carbon Dioxide gernated thoughout the world.

Please read and understand relevant parts of the artic linked to br drron: (Don't waste your energy on the carbon [dioxide] tax)

...
So we’re left with a mild carbon price, over-compensation for key voters and plenty of assistance for those who have screamed loudest. The lessons of the mining industry’s resources rent tax triumph have been well learned by industry, if not by government. When even as big a joke as burning mud (Victoria’s brown coal) is to be protected, the message is pretty clear: it’s not serious.

Which has always been the case. Pricing carbon [dioxide] in Australia is about pricing carbon [dioxide], not saving the planet. As an insurance policy ... a soft mechanism in place ... if the rest of the world joins Europe in getting serious about it.

It won’t do much and it won’t hurt much either. ...

 

[connieguy]

GoWatson,a personal question if I may, do you have a financial linkage to the global warming debate? Like the computer mob to the year 2000 doomsday scenarios?

No I do not. Why is passion and understanding for what is happening related to money? I'm an engineer and I look at the data. 40 years of real world engineering makes understanding what is happening as plain as the nose on my face. I really find in troubling that others can not look at the measured changes and understand what will happen.

May I ask you a question? Do you have a financial interest which requires you to NOT believe AGW is happening?

Anyway some recently published short term very simple data projections about the ice cube floating in the Arctic Sea will make all this irreverent. Seems I got it wrong and 2015 is when we will see a virtually ice free Arctic Summer:



Oh BTW the scientists believe they have found out why the ice cube is melting 3 times faster than they modelled in the IPCC report:
Rapid melting of Arctic sea ice possibly explained - Nfld. & Labrador - CBC News

Bottom line is there is now nothing we can do to stop the ice cube melting nor will we be able to stop the resultant increase in Methane release in the Arctic, which will drive global temperatures to levels which will totally coughC this planet. You think the Global Economic Crisis was bad, well baby that was nothing compared to what is in the pipe line.

Had we (the whole world) started really doing something about CO2 when Kyota was created and signed by all nations, we may have had a chance. But thanks to the efforts of mainly Australia and the "Green House Mafia" (please Google it), Kyoto was turned into a do nothing process and so it has remained.

But hey what do I know? I'm just an engineer who understands complex processes and has never really been focused on money. I'm now really glad my 2 children will not have more children as I will not have any grandchildren to ask me why we did nothing to stop this happening.

Anyway you guys are right, the Carbon Tax will be a waste of time and money but not for the reason you believe.

Churchill got it very right when he said of the gathering storm he saw in Europe:

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…

Seems we humans never learn.

 

[rechoboam]

Your little homily is indistinguishable from the warnings of millenarians, false messiahs etc for the last 2000 years.
It's entirely possible you will be right where they were wrong of course.
In any case this doesn't justify the carbon tax which will add economic suffering to the climatic apocalypse.