Carbon Tax

[Durin's Bane]

True - but if I want to hear bigoted, irrational and "opinion for sale" type arguments I can listen to the shock-jocks or pick up any Murdoch rag. I would much prefer to have a proper debate on this forum, but standards are slipping.

That's the biggest laugh all day. Watermelon supporters love to talk about 'shock-jocks' and Rupert Murdoch and how 'bigoted' and 'irrational' we all are if we don't agree with them.

BTW, as I recall you were the one of those people who had a hissy fit about sitting in economy class while many of us choose to spend our money to travel business class. In fact you said people who purchased Business Class fares were being 'fleeced'. If you want to talk about slipping standards, some of it is as a result of the rudeness of people like you.

 

[Durin's Bane]

do you even know what is involved. In something like 3 years it transforms into a trading system. Carbon price set up front to start and then the market decides the price via the trading system.

Yep, carbon price set up up front, with money gathered from wealth redistribution used as bribes. And then once the government caps emissions with the ETS, the money raised by the scheme will again be used as bribes and to fund ridiculous Greens ventures.

Or have I got it wrong?

As for buying votes; quick question what was your opinion about an Australian government giving out $5000 cash payments to anyone who had a baby? You supported it? Oh so buying votes is ok then.

Clutching at straws mate... Show me where I had any opinion on baby bonuses.

(I don't agree with any middle class welfare. If someone wants something they can work hard and save for it.)

Finally, petty name calling is not a debate.

When did I call you any names?

Or don't you like the term Watermelon?

 

[drron]

A practical example of what a carbon tax does, it makes Qantas look at invest $300 mil in biofuel. Given the fuel cost quoted and if I recall correctly, the current fuel cost of $100 to $140 per barrel, there is even a substantial saving to be had of the fuel.

I think the fact that crude has gone from ~ $30 a barrell to ~$100 a barrel has more to do with it than any carbon tax.
And if you believe in peak oil there is another very good reason to be looking at biofuels.

 

[medhead]

I think the fact that crude has gone from ~ $30 a barrell to ~$100 a barrel has more to do with it than any carbon tax.
And if you believe in peak oil there is another very good reason to be looking at biofuels.

Maybe, (certainly an important factor) but then I would expect the focus of the story to be about saving money on fuel rather than reducing emissions.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Medhead. The BA bio-fuel article was in the BA in-flight magazine when I did my LHR-BUD sector on the 26th May. Interesting read that one and l really hope that it does work.

 

[oz_mark]

Maybe, (certainly an important factor) but then I would expect the focus of the story to be about saving money on fuel rather than reducing emissions.

Journalists connect dots together in some suprising ways sometimes.

 

[medhead]

Journalists connect dots together in some suprising ways sometimes.

True. Aviation in the Oz is part of the business section. So it is usually very business focused. The story did start on the point of qantas lobbying for carbon tax research money to develop biofuels

Medhead. The BA bio-fuel article was in the BA in-flight magazine when I did my LHR-BUD sector on the 26th May. Interesting read that one and l really hope that it does work.

The KLM story I read in the SMH on Friday was also interesting. Wish I could find it online.

 

[oz_mark]

True. Aviation in the Oz is part of the business section. So it is usually very business focused. The story did start on the point of qantas lobbying for carbon tax research money to develop biofuels

I don't doubt that they would apply for it, if it were available.
Still the aviation industry has to do something - they really don't have options other than liquid carbon based fuels.

 

[drron]

Finnair are flying with biofuel this week-
Flights, hotels, car rental and city breaks - Finnair

Finn

air has already for decades made a long-term commitment to sustainable development. Now is the time to take another major step towards sustainable air travel. Finnair aims to fly its first biofuel flight from Amsterdam to Helsinki this week. This will be the longest commercial biofuel flight flown anywhere in the world to date.

 

[medhead]

Finnair are flying with biofuel this week-
Flights, hotels, car rental and city breaks - Finnair

Finn

Longest? Must be in all engines and by the percentage biofuels. Because I'm sure ANZ did some flights to LAX with biofuel.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Maybe, (certainly an important factor) but then I would expect the focus of the story to be about saving money on fuel rather than reducing emissions.

Yes that would be the thrust, generally. Further the The ethicists argue that biofuels deprive the third world of valuable food.Biofuels take up valuable crop producing land which is in diminishing supply.What does one do?

 

[medhead]

Yes that would be the thrust, generally. Further the The ethicists argue that biofuels deprive the third world of valuable food.Biofuels take up valuable crop producing land which is in diminishing supply.What does one do?

Read the story. Rubbish and cane waste does not take valuable cropping land. This myth has been repeated in this thread a couple of times. It might be true of first gen biofuels but it is no longer the case.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Read the story. Rubbish and cane waste does not take valuable cropping land. This myth has been repeated in this thread a couple of times. It might be true of first gen biofuels but it is no longer the case.

I'll take you word for it. Not all places grow sugarcane. Of course there is rubbish everywhere, but that's how they make Scrumpy right?

 

[drron]

It is the case in the US where corn is used extensively for ethanol.However non food crops can and should be used.With the Finnair example it is waste being used.

 

[Sprucegoose]

It is the case in the US where corn is used extensively for ethanol.However non food crops can and should be used.With the Finnair example it is waste being used.

Waste makes sense, it's everywhere!!

 

[medhead]

I'll take you word for it. Not all places grow sugarcane. Of course there is rubbish everywhere, but that's how they make Scrumpy right?

The story is about qantas and the options they are exploring, the rubbish/waste based process that BA are/will use or sugar cane waste. Australia does grow sugar cane, with the industry's economic situation I guess they are looking for anyway to make extra money.

 

[Rebekkap]

She is the PM for cying out loud! Yes she made a deal with the Greens and Independents but no she has the power to yes or no to a Carbon Tax.

She lied and that's a fact.

End of story!

So saying something you believe to be true at the time and changing your mind afterwards is a lie now? That's an interesting new definition of lie you're using there. According to the dictionary, not so much.
lie

 /laɪ/ Show Spelled [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.


–verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

 

[dfcatch]

So saying something you believe to be true at the time and changing your mind afterwards is a lie now? That's an interesting new definition of lie you're using there. According to the dictionary, not so much.
lie

 /laɪ/ Show Spelled [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.


–verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

She stated a policy position during the election campaign, she changed that policy position very soon after winning an election, she wants to implement that "new position" into law without taking the "new position" back to an election - so yes, people rightly feel deceived, lied to, mislead - whatever phrase you choose.

And some people will suspect, rightly or wrongly that she always planned to introduce the carbon tax and therefore made "a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive".

She can easily get away from the lie accusation - and that is - don't implement the "new position" until you take it to an election. If it's good enough for John Howard to do, then it's good enough for Julia Gillard.

Alternatively - push it through and wear the lie tag.

Her choice.

 

[Sprucegoose]

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"] [TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"] [TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD] [h=1]Michael O'Leary: Global warming is 'horse****' - and other insights[/h] Ryanair's chief executive rips into '****ing eco-warriors', 'bogus' scientists and aviation's 'cough' tax deal

• The complex truth about planes and climate change

• • Share380
  • reddit this
• Comments (206)

Michael O'Leary, Ryanair boss. Photograph: Carlo Cerchioli / G/N/Carlo Cerchioli / GraziaNeri

Hilarious stuff from Michael O'Leary in the Independent this morning. Just when you thought Ryanair's chief executive couldn't make a bigger prat of himself, he manages to up the ante. This time, by quite some considerably margin.
In his latest tirade against all things environmental, he appears to be inviting the audience to play "climate sceptic bingo", such is the density of clichés and canards contained within each of the sentences he utters. See how long it takes you to shout "House!" when reading through his rant:

Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial.
Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bull****. But it's amazing the way the whole ****ing eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'.
Well, hang on, we've had an ice age. We've also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there's absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2% of total carbon emissions [and climate change].
​

He suggested scientists had invented and perpetuated the theory in order to gain research grants. "Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn't get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus," he said.

The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the ****ing weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the ****ing global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horse****.
​

He mocked global warming campaigners, describing the United Nations as "one of the world's most useless organisations", its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "utter tosh", and US politician Al Gore as someone who "couldn't even get ****ing re-elected" after a boom.
He then comes back down out the clouds and begins to direct his ire - in a marginally (all things being relative) more reasoned manner - towards aviation taxes:

When they introduced it the Treasury said: 'We will ring-fence this money and use it for global climate change initiatives'. We've written to them once every six months – they never answer the letter – saying: 'What do you use the money for?' It's a straight-forward tax scam... My average fare is £34. I pay passenger tax of £10: I pay 33% of my revenues in these aviation taxes.
Aviation gets a cough deal. This is the great historical justification among environmentalists for taxing air travel: 'They don't have tax on fuel'. The only reason we don't pay tax on fuel is that governments can't tax it because you'll upload fuel somewhere else if they tax it.
​

Yes, of course, the Treasury should be making it explicitly clear where any ring-fenced revenues are being directed, but to then claim that aviation gets a "cough deal" on tax is presumably his idea of a joke. It would certainly be interesting to see what bile would pour from his lips if aviation did ever properly "internalise its externalities", but pigs will likely fly (presumably not on Ryanair) before that ever happens.
The biggest laugh, though, is provided by Greenpeace's reaction to O'Leary's outburst:
"Personally, I wouldn't trust 'O'Really' to tell me the price of a seat on his own airline, but to be fair his position [on climate change] does have the support of such intellectual heavyweights as Nick Griffin, Sarah Palin and George W Bush," said Joss Garman, a Greenpeace spokesman.
Quite. What's that about judging someone by the company they keep?

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[medhead]

She stated a policy position during the election campaign, she changed that policy position very soon after winning an election, she wants to implement that "new position" into law without taking the "new position" back to an election - so yes, people rightly feel deceived, lied to, mislead - whatever phrase you choose.

Actually the written policy position was always to price carbon.